[Book Spoilers] R+L=J, A+J=T and other theories on HBO V.3

[Sly Wren]

2 hours ago, Les Diables Rouges said:

I think you are reading way too much into Ned placing the sword at the foot of Lyanna's bed.

But the show had Ned put it there AND focused the camera on it. So. . . . we're just supposed to ignore it???

2 hours ago, Les Diables Rouges said:

The show did everything but explicitly spell out that Jon is the child of Rhaegar and Lyanna.

They spelled out he's Lyanna's. They spelled out that the fact that Ned hasn't told how he killed Arthur was the important reveal of the fight scene. Rhaegar? Very possibly. But if he was the key, why is it so important that Ned lied about how he and Howland killed Arthur? Why does Bloodraven encourage Bran to get that point?

2 hours ago, Les Diables Rouges said:

I'm not so sure that the show will even get into more details concerning AD. They got what the wanted out of the ToJ scene i.e. a "badass" swordfight and apparently deconstructing the myth of Ned's honour.

It was a fabulous, badass fight scene. But the flashback they showed with Hodor--WHY Hodor could talk and then couldn't--that ended up mattering rather a lot.

So, the fact that Ned lied about how he killed Arthur--or at least never corrected the story Bran heard "a thousand times"--seems like that fact was stressed to us for a reason.

2 hours ago, Les Diables Rouges said:

Even if it does somehow become important for Jon to wield Dawn, I think that House Dayne would be willing to forego tradition in service of the greater good -- I'm rather skeptical on this point though.

Possible--but the books are clear--Only one from House Dayne. The show hasn't gone into that at all. But they made the specific sword.

47 minutes ago, RumHam said:

...Because it was a flashback? I'm really confused as to why you think this is so significant (other than some desperate desire to not accept who Jon's father is.) How would they have done the Tower of Joy scene without Arthur and the other dead men? How was that any more of a waste of money than hiring random extra #324 for the Battle of the Bastards? Because his sword was painted white and had his sigil on the pommel? How much do you seriously think that cost them? I'd imagine they'll recoup the cost just from their cut of the valyriansteel.com replica sales. Though I really doubt anyone involved in the production was concerned about the cost of the Dawn prop. 

My apologies--I should have been clearer: my point is that they bothered with THIS flashback in THIS way. They changed it in this way. And spent the money on showing us that Ned killed Arthur in a way NO ONE knew about. Bran's heard a different version a thousand times.

On the book forums (as you know) the discussions of Ned's tower dream often focus on the kingsguard and their duty. But that's NOT what the show had Bran and Bloodraven focus on. They focused on the fight between Ned and Arthur. On Bran's horror over the results. 

The other kingsguard did not matter. He at least gets a name in the books--two names, if we assume he's both Whent and Hightower. But in the show, he was completely unimportant and disposable. Arthur, and only Arthur, mattered. Ned and Howland only mattered. And how they killed him and it's impact on Bran--that really, really mattered. 

So, why spend the money on that as the reveal? Vs. Harrenhal. Or Dany's vision in the House of the Undying. Or Jon's recurring dreams. Or any of the other dreams or past events the books show or imply. 

No--they chose to make Arthur and his sword and his fight with Ned the focus. They were not at all subtle about that. So, why do Arthur and his sword matter so much?

At least one option has to be that Arthur is Jon's father and that Ned lied about the fight because he killed the man his sister loved. It can be other options, absolutely. But this one is still on the table.

[Sly Wren]

56 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

In the books [and show] he was smitten with her -or so it seemed but could've been calculation I suppose- when, as the winner of the Harrenhall tourney he skipped Elia and chose Lyanna as the Queen of Love and Beauty.

No--in the books we are told by some that he was smitten. And by others that he stole and raped her.

In the show, Sansa's story of Lyanna's kidnap and rape is eye-rolled by Baelish. But the real story? We don't have it.

Yes on the crowning--but we are never told why. We are told in the novels and in the World Book that the Starks' reaction to Lyanna's crowning was very unusual. And we are not told why the Starks were so upset. But we are told their anger and alarm was notable and very strange. And Baelish reiterates that in the crypts with Sansa.

So, clearly we are missing a big chunk of the story.

Quote

In the books solely, there's also a sequence where Rhaeger is playing his harp and speaking to someone [offscreen] and says, 'His is the song of Ice and Fire,' which many interpret to have been a vision of he and Elia about young Aegon, but it certainly isn't conclusive. An alternative could be he was harping in a windowed alcove of the Tower of Joy and speaking to a pregnant Lyanna [because of course Rhaegar would've been certain she was carrying a boy] 

Fair enough on this not being conclusive. I really think that's Rhaegar and Elia with Aegon, and I think there might be an SSM to that point. But, if not--yes, that's not conclusive.

But if he is in a windowed alcove of the tower, why is there a baby already in the woman's arms? Are you asserting that Lyanna gave birth to Rhaegar's child before he left for the Trident?

Quote

In regard to what the showrunners have tried to point out, as you say, I'd submit that line of rhetoric is just them attempting to justify stupid choices. 

HA! Fair enough. And there have been plenty of stupid choices. But when the showrunners go at their "symbols," they usually do so with heavy handed clarity. 

Like the focus on the sword was very heavy handed. And Bran's focus on the killing of Arthur was heavy handed. And the fade out between baby Jon and Sad-Puppy-Grown-Up Jon was heavy handed. 

[JGP]

18 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

No--in the books we are told by some that he was smitten. And by others that he stole and raped her. 

Yes on the crowning--but we are never told why. We are told int eh novels and in the World Book that the Starks' reaction to Lyanna's crowning was very unusual. And we are not told why the Starks were so upset. But we are told their anger and alarm was notable and very strange. 

So, clearly we are missing a big chunk of the story.

Totally. Hence my statement you quoted that itself was followed by a qualification. He gave her the winter roses instead of his wife, so really-- given the upset that would cause on the homefront [and politically] it could only be one or the other. The affection was genuine or in his studies he'd decided the prophecy might me mete out by breeding with a Stark, hence the calculation. I'd say there's cause enough to believe either or, so without further evidence [which we'll eventually get] neither can be dismissed out of hand. 

Regardless, none of this can be used to prop up a Dayne romance. I'm sorry to be dismissive, but it's absolutely absurd. To me.

18 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

But if he is in a windowed alcove of the tower, why is there a baby already in the woman's arms? Are you asserting that Lyanna gave birth to Rhaegar's child before he left for the Trident?

You got me there. I was winging it from memory. If that's true, then yes, it was definitely not Lyanna-- unless one were willing to entertain the possibility that Lyanna didn't die in childbirth but had already delivered Jon and perhaps ...and this is a massive stretch here... her suicide helped preserve the protective fiction. 

I'm not even sure why I wrote that. No way I believe it hahaha...

18 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

HA! Fair enough. And there have been plenty of stupid choices. But when the showrunners go at their "symbols," they usually do so with heavy handed clarity. 

Like the focus on the sword was very heavy handed. And Bran's focus on the killing of Arthur was heavy handed. And the fade out between baby Jon and Sad-Puppy-Grown-Up Jon was heavy handed. 

And yeah, heavy handed is the means and the way. Subtlety is lost on DnD. They've appropriated the hype surrounding the show and think it's theirs. Which, if I were shallow enough, suppose I wouldn't necessarily fault them for given its ratings. 

[Weirdo]

3 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

At least one option has to be that Arthur is Jon's father and that Ned lied about the fight because he killed the man his sister loved. It can be other options, absolutely. But this one is still on the table.

Here's Ned talking to Bran in Clash of Kings:

“The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed.” Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more. Bran wished he had asked him what he meant.

Martin, George R.R. (2003-01-01). A Clash of Kings (A Song of Ice and Fire, Book 2) (pp. 250-251). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

Ned is not lying about the fight. He tells Bran that Howland saved him. Bran's disillusionment is show-only. 

[Chib]

8 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

But the show had Ned put it there AND focused the camera on it. So. . . . we're just supposed to ignore it???

They spelled out he's Lyanna's. They spelled out that the fact that Ned hasn't told how he killed Arthur was the important reveal of the fight scene. Rhaegar? Very possibly. But if he was the key, why is it so important that Ned lied about how he and Howland killed Arthur? Why does Bloodraven encourage Bran to get that point?

It was a fabulous, badass fight scene. But the flashback they showed with Hodor--WHY Hodor could talk and then couldn't--that ended up mattering rather a lot.

So, the fact that Ned lied about how he killed Arthur--or at least never corrected the story Bran heard "a thousand times"--seems like that fact was stressed to us for a reason.

Possible--but the books are clear--Only one from House Dayne. The show hasn't gone into that at all. But they made the specific sword.

My apologies--I should have been clearer: my point is that they bothered with THIS flashback in THIS way. They changed it in this way. And spent the money on showing us that Ned killed Arthur in a way NO ONE knew about. Bran's heard a different version a thousand times.

On the book forums (as you know) the discussions of Ned's tower dream often focus on the kingsguard and their duty. But that's NOT what the show had Bran and Bloodraven focus on. They focused on the fight between Ned and Arthur. On Bran's horror over the results. 

The other kingsguard did not matter. He at least gets a name in the books--two names, if we assume he's both Whent and Hightower. But in the show, he was completely unimportant and disposable. Arthur, and only Arthur, mattered. Ned and Howland only mattered. And how they killed him and it's impact on Bran--that really, really mattered. 

So, why spend the money on that as the reveal? Vs. Harrenhal. Or Dany's vision in the House of the Undying. Or Jon's recurring dreams. Or any of the other dreams or past events the books show or imply. 

No--they chose to make Arthur and his sword and his fight with Ned the focus. They were not at all subtle about that. So, why do Arthur and his sword matter so much?

At least one option has to be that Arthur is Jon's father and that Ned lied about the fight because he killed the man his sister loved. It can be other options, absolutely. But this one is still on the table.

 

 

The show runners do confirm that Rhaegar is Jon's father. http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/got-connections-ned-promise-tower-of-joy-infographic

There is no Arthur + Lyanna, sorry. And Jon is the only son of Lyanna, there is no twin. So Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon is CANON. 

[Lord Friendzone]

If Arthur is the father then why Ned never told him. He could've at some point and of course if you listen carefully se said that Robrt will kill him. Why would he go after Athur Dayne. He was set on to kill every Targaryen.

[ice_iridium]

But Isaac Hempstead (Bran) confirmed he didn't heard what Lyanna whispered to his brother :
http://watchersonthewall.com/isaac-hempstead-wright-robert-aramayo-discuss-tower-joy-game-thrones-endgame/
So, it's still a X+L=J.

[Wouter]

On 28-6-2016 at 7:20 PM, Ser Leftwich said:

Arthur is not the key element. The point is that Bran learns that he father is a liar. That Ned's reputation of honor is all based on lies. He lied about Arthur's death. He lied about Jon. He lied about Lyanna. He lied to Robert. He lied to everyone.

Bran learned that his father lied about the fight (in the show, only; he told the truth in the books). That does not mean his honorable reputation is all based on lie. He is not honorable because he killed Dayne; he is honorable because he is a decent man and a good leader/administrator. What Bran is learning here - that Ned besmirched his reputation in order to protect his nephew and to keep the promise to his sister - only serves to cement just how good a man Ned was.

In other news, not much movement on the A+J=T front. No mention of dragonriding or hints about Joanna, on the other hand Tyrion has grown really close to Dany in a short amount of time. It was a nice surprise to see that he could get her to avoid going all "strategic air command" with her dragons on Yunkai, I hope this will be true in the books as well (be it Barristan, Tyrion or someone else who manages to temper her).

I'll guess we'll have to wait another season - or till TWOW comes out, but somehow I think S7 will have been broadcasted before that.

One book-and-show theory that took a beating in the latest episode is the "mad queen Dany" one. "Blood and Fire" isn't eaten as hot as it is served, it seems.

 

 

[Sly Wren]

23 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

Totally. Hence my statement you quoted that itself was followed by a qualification. He gave her the winter roses instead of his wife, so really-- given the upset that would cause on the homefront [and politically] it could only be one or the other.

Rhaegar is described in the books as careful and dutiful. Cersei is romantic about him. Butut he's not described as romantic by others.

The World Book makes it pretty clear he had careful political plans. There's implications he was working with Tywin. And Jaime's moment with him in Feast make it clear that Rhaegar was focused and careful on how he would proceed. 

In short--we know he gave her the roses. But we don't know why. When other people give roses at tourneys in the books, there is nothing like the reaction to Lyanna's crowning. Something was overly wrong there. And we don't know what it was. It could have been misplaced affection/compliment for Lyanna. No question. But nothing in the books says that it couldn't have been something else--an intended insult, for example, like the blue rose in the Bael the Bard Tale was a completely intended insult.

23 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

he affection was genuine or in his studies he'd decided the prophecy might me mete out by breeding with a Stark, hence the calculation. I'd say there's cause enough to believe either or, so without further evidence [which we'll eventually get] neither can be dismissed out of hand. 

I fully agree that they can't be dismissed out of hand.

But they also cannot be used to dismiss other options out of hand--not until we have more of the story. The books make too much of the Stark reaction. The show even made a fuss re: the Stark reaction. Until we know why that mattered so much, we don't know what Rhaegar was up to.

And on the prophecy and the scholarship--it's a possibility re: motive. But so far, the show has cut prophecy re: Rhaegar altogether, far as I can remember.

Quote

Regardless, none of this can be used to prop up a Dayne romance. I'm sorry to be dismissive, but it's absolutely absurd. To me.

All fair. And I apologize if I presented the Rhaegar crown issues as "propping up" the Dayne potential. That was not my intent. Only trying to show that the crown can't be used to dismiss the Dayne option. 

The books connect the Daynes to the Starks multiple times. The show did it, too. And the books make Jon's connection to the Sword of the Morning very clear. Could that just mean that the sword can be wielded by other than a Dayne? Maybe. So far, the books say otherwise--so, it also for at least the possibility that Jon is part Dayne.

23 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

You got me there. I was winging it from memory. If that's true, then yes, it was definitely not Lyanna-- unless one were willing to entertain the possibility that Lyanna didn't die in childbirth but had already delivered Jon and perhaps ...and this is a massive stretch here... her suicide helped preserve the protective fiction. 

I'm not even sure why I wrote that. No way I believe it hahaha...

All good. 

23 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

And yeah, heavy handed is the means and the way. Subtlety is lost on DnD. They've appropriated the hype surrounding the show and think it's theirs. Which, if I were shallow enough, suppose I wouldn't necessarily fault them for given its ratings. 

Yup.

[Sly Wren]

19 hours ago, Weirdo said:

Here's Ned talking to Bran in Clash of Kings:

“The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed.” Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more. Bran wished he had asked him what he meant.

Martin, George R.R. (2003-01-01). A Clash of Kings (A Song of Ice and Fire, Book 2) (pp. 250-251). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

Ned is not lying about the fight. He tells Bran that Howland saved him. Bran's disillusionment is show-only. 

Right--Ned does not lie to Bran in the books. But he doesn't elaborate. And Bran regrets not asking more.

Plus, the story that others tell in the books leaves out the Howland bit:

Quote

That cut deep. Ned would not speak of the mother, not so much as a word, but a castle has no secrets, and Catelyn heard her maids repeating tales they heard from the lips of her husband's soldiers. They whispered of Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's Kingsguard, and of how their young lord had slain him in single combat. And they told how afterward Ned had carried Ser Arthur's sword back to the beautiful young sister who awaited him in a castle called Starfall on the shores of the Summer Sea. The Lady Ashara Dayne, tall and fair, with haunting violet eyes. It had taken her a fortnight to marshal her courage, but finally, in bed one night, Catelyn had asked her husband the truth of it, asked him to his face. Game, Catelyn II

So, the standard rumor in the North is that Ned killed Arthur in single combat. And though Ned later silences all rumors of Ashara, apparently he never corrects the tale going around re: Arthur's death.

As for how the story is told out in the south:

Quote

"Honor," she spat. "How dare you play the noble lord with me! What do you take me for? You've a bastard of your own, I've seen him. Who was the mother, I wonder? Some Dornish peasant you raped while her holdfast burned? A whore? Or was it the grieving sister, the Lady Ashara? She threw herself into the sea, I'm told. Why was that? For the brother you slew, or the child you stole? Tell me, my honorable Lord Eddard, how are you any different from Robert, or me, or Jaime?" Game, Eddard XII

Cersei is angry and venomous towards Ned at this point. Now, maybe she knows Howland helped Ned and just doesn't get around to insulting him. But seems like there's a really good chance, given all the rest of what she says, that if she had heard that Howland stabbed Arthur first, she'd have thrown that fact in Ned's face.

So, yes--Bran's disillusionment is show-only. But the fact that Ned never told anyone the whole story and/or never corrected the story that was going around re: Arthur's death--that's in both the books and the show.

And, apparently, it's a detail that mattered enough for both the books and the show to bring it up.

[Sly Wren]

15 hours ago, Chib said:

The show runners do confirm that Rhaegar is Jon's father. http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/got-connections-ned-promise-tower-of-joy-infographic

This is just a blog. Does it say the showrunners made that graphic? Because I couldn't find it. It seems like it was just a graphic made by a fan. Any evidence that this is more than an HBO sanctioned fan site which may or may not have any info from the showrunners?

I'm not trying to be snarky--I really don't know. Just seems like there's no evidence that was written by the showrunners. And, since the show only showed the mother and VERY clearly and intentionally garbled Lyanna's words. . . why on earth would the showrunners hide information IN THE SHOW and then reveal it on a blog graphic?

ETA: as @ice_iridium pointed out a few posts up, the actor who plays Bran said flat out that he didn't hear what was said. The show hid the info from both actors and viewers. So, why would they then reveal it on a blog? 

Quote

There is no Arthur + Lyanna, sorry. And Jon is the only son of Lyanna, there is no twin. So Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon is CANON. 

If the evidence is a graphic from an HBO fan blog. . . is that canon? 

[Sly Wren]

14 hours ago, Lord Friendzone said:

If Arthur is the father then why Ned never told him. He could've at some point and of course if you listen carefully se said that Robrt will kill him. Why would he go after Athur Dayne. He was set on to kill every Targaryen.

Robert doesn't hate Targaryens "just because." He hates them because Rhaegar took, raped, and killed Lyanna--in his opinion. Robert was set to kill every Targaryen for what Rhaegar did to Lyanna--a fact Robert makes clear in the first two episodes of the show. Let alone in the book when he talks about Rhaegar's raping Lyanna hundreds of times.

Would Robert really hate Arthur any less if he thought Rhaegar had handed Lyanna to his best friend (Arthur)?

Or would Robert just assume that Arthur was the one who had raped and killed Lyanna? And thus be just as likely to hate and kill the baby?

[CrypticWeirwood]

2 hours ago, ice_iridium said:

But Isaac Hempstead (Bran) confirmed he didn't heard what Lyanna whispered to his brother :
http://watchersonthewall.com/isaac-hempstead-wright-robert-aramayo-discuss-tower-joy-game-thrones-endgame/
So, it's still a X+L=J.

Nope. Bran just doesn’t know that FakeJon’s true name is Aemon Targaryen, as has been repeatedly foreshadowed in the books.

That's a big thing and they are wanting to keep it back for a bit so that it can be properly given and understood. 

The show has made it perfectly clear that Rhaegar is his father; they just haven't given away FakeJon’s real name yet. The Making Of graphic is completely unambiguous in all regards on this point.

People need to let it go and move on.

[Lord Friendzone]

1 hour ago, Sly Wren said:

Robert doesn't hate Targaryens "just because." He hates them because Rhaegar took, raped, and killed Lyanna--in his opinion. Robert was set to kill every Targaryen for what Rhaegar did to Lyanna--a fact Robert makes clear in the first two episodes of the show. Let alone in the book when he talks about Rhaegar's raping Lyanna hundreds of times.

Would Robert really hate Arthur any less if he thought Rhaegar had handed Lyanna to his best friend (Arthur)?

Or would Robert just assume that Arthur was the one who had raped and killed Lyanna? And thus be just as likely to hate and kill the baby?

It was hammered time and time again in the books and show that Rhaegar and Lyanna had an affair and he was obsessed with prophecy and since Elia couldn't have another child. He was set on on this. Barry saying Rhaegar loved his Lady Lyanna, died with a name of woman he loved on his lips. He didn't hated Elia but loved her neither. Hiding that Arthur Dayne is his father makes very title sense. Yes, he was fighting for Targaryens and yes he was Rhaegar's best friend but he clearly said Rhaegar wanted to be there. It was his command.

Just because Dawn was focused for a few seconds doesn't mean Arthur is his father. Some people took it as that it's a bleeding star. Dawn wasmade out of fallen star and a lot of blood around. What am really interested if the girl who handd baby Jon to Ned was Wylla. And if Howland went there too.

[Mandzipop]

2 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

This is just a blog. Does it say the showrunners made that graphic? Because I couldn't find it. It seems like it was just a graphic made by a fan. Any evidence that this is more than an HBO sanctioned fan site which may or may not have any info from the showrunners?

I'm not trying to be snarky--I really don't know. Just seems like there's no evidence that was written by the showrunners. And, since the show only showed the mother and VERY clearly and intentionally garbled Lyanna's words. . . why on earth would the showrunners hide information IN THE SHOW and then reveal it on a blog graphic?

ETA: as @ice_iridium pointed out a few posts up, the actor who plays Bran said flat out that he didn't hear what was said. The show hid the info from both actors and viewers. So, why would they then reveal it on a blog? 

If the evidence is a graphic from an HBO fan blog. . . is that canon? 

It is using the official HBO logo, it has clearly been running for a long time. If it was fake HBO would have pulled it. It has the HBO copyright and terms of use. It states it is the official making of game of thrones site. http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/

It is also on the official Game of Thrones facebook page.

[Leticia Stark]

1 hour ago, Sly Wren said:

This is just a blog. Does it say the showrunners made that graphic? Because I couldn't find it. It seems like it was just a graphic made by a fan. Any evidence that this is more than an HBO sanctioned fan site which may or may not have any info from the showrunners?

I'm not trying to be snarky--I really don't know. Just seems like there's no evidence that was written by the showrunners. And, since the show only showed the mother and VERY clearly and intentionally garbled Lyanna's words. . . why on earth would the showrunners hide information IN THE SHOW and then reveal it on a blog graphic?

ETA: as @ice_iridium pointed out a few posts up, the actor who plays Bran said flat out that he didn't hear what was said. The show hid the info from both actors and viewers. So, why would they then reveal it on a blog? 

If the evidence is a graphic from an HBO fan blog. . . is that canon? 

It's a blog OWNED by HBO, so yeah...

 

And what about this? 

This one is even better lol

 

 

[princess_snow]

21 minutes ago, Leticia Stark said:

It's a blog OWNED by HBO, so yeah...

 

And what about this? 

This one is even better lol

 

 

That's hilarious and wonderful.

[Mandzipop]

Even the House Targaryan page on Wikipedia has been updated to include Jon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_House_Targaryen

Not that that means much, but it is nice to see.

[Lord Friendzone]

47 minutes ago, princess_snow said:

That's hilarious and wonderful.

All lies. Jokes aside while it as never stated it's pretty clear who is his father. I mean like a biological father because Ned will always be his true father who raised him, taught him everything he knew and loved him as one of his own. Also protected him from everyone and lied because of that even to his wife.

[princess_snow]

12 minutes ago, Lord Friendzone said:

All lies. Jokes aside while it as never stated it's pretty clear who is his father. I man like a biological father.

Yes I agree. I can see where sly wren is coming from theyre valid points, but I'm def on team Rhaegar here.