I read the most AMAZING theory! read it and have your mind blown!

[The hairy bear]

I'm not convinced with the theory, There are two main points against it, in my opinion:

• If the promise that Eddard made to Lyanna had included making Jon aware of his lineage at some point, Ned wouldn't have allowed Jon to say the vows of the Night's Watch renouncing to any family or inheritance rights.
• The appearance of Jon with Rhaegar's silver-stringed harp wouldn't convince anyone that he's Rhaegar's son. The Westerosi are aware that Rhaegar spent his last days in the Tower of Joy, and that Eddard went there to kill the last members of the KG and destroy the place where her sister had died. Therefore, the fact that the Starks owned Targareyen items would be easily explained as some looting of spoils of war.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

I like it, but it doesn't exactly prove legitimacy. All it would indicate is that Ned believed that Rhaegar and Lyanna's relationship was consensual. There's still no proof that they were married.

 

So, all it would "prove" is that Rhaegar didn't kidnap Lyanna. It still doesn't even show that she had a child at all. You would still need Howland for that reveal, and I'm sure he'd know just as well as Ned whether or not Rhaegar and Lyanna were in a consensual relationship. So I'm not sure why the Harp is needed at all...

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

• The appearance of Jon with Rhaegar's sivler-stringed harp wouldn't convince anyone that he's Rhaegar's son. The Westerosi are aware that Rhaegar spend his last days in the Tower of Joy, and that Eddard went there to kill the last members of the KG and destroy the place where her sister had died. Therefore, the fact that the Starks owned Targareyen items would be easily explained as some looting of spoils of war.

 

 

 

I believe it's the fact that the Harp is in Lyanna's tomb that is significant. You don't usually bury the spoils of war with your sister. It would look more as if the Harp held some significance to Lyanna.

[slant]

wow. sold. 

[The hairy bear]

Cyberdirectorfreedom,

I see your point, but there are also heroes that are buried with the broken swords of their enemies, the banners they conquered, or the spoils they captured. Rhaegar's harp in Lyanna's tomb could also be interpreted as Eddard's final revenge on him. After all, he destroyed stone by stone the tower Rhaegar "enjoyed". And then, there would also be doubts on whether the item had been in Lyanna's tomb originally or had been put there recently. All things considered, I think it would be a flimsy preposition.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

Cyberdirectorfreedom,

I see your point, but there are also heroes that are buried with the broken swords of their enemies, the banners they conquered, or the spoils they captured. Rhaegar's harp in Lyanna's tomb could also be interpreted as Eddard's final revenge on him. After all, he destroyed stone by stone the tower Rhaegar "enjoyed". And then, there would also be doubts on whether the item had been in Lyanna's tomb originally or had been put there recently. All things considered, I think it would be a flimsy preposition.

 

I quite agree. If I heard about something similar in real life, an object of a hated enemy possessed by the victor, trying to be used to legitimise somebody, I would be incredibly sceptical. And as such, I don't truly see this idea going anywhere. If something like this were to happen in the books, I imagine most concerned would treat it how they treat Stannis' claim that the Royal children are bastards; just another false claim of "proof" told by someone in order to conveniently place them into a position of basically absolute power.

 

And rightly so.

[Túrin the Turambar]

 

I'm not convinced with the theory, There are two main points against it, in my opinion:

• If the promise that Eddard made to Lyanna had included making Jon aware of his lineage at some point, Ned wouldn't have allowed Jon to say the vows of the Night's Watch renouncing to any family or inheritance rights.

 

I think it is perfectly in line with it.

knowing your history and lineage is one point; but claiming your heritage is a different one.

If Ned only promised that someday he will tell Jon about his parents, this doesn't mean that he would help him to claim the throne. Shipping Jon to the Night's Watch prevents possible conflicts between Ned's best friend and king, and Ned's own family.

[The hairy bear]

Turin,

 

Allowing Jon to take a life oath without all the information would be an awful thing to do, if he intended to reveal it one day. The prospects of a bastard son and a royal heir are completely different, and explaining Jon his origins after he has commited himself to the Watch would be a bertrayal  (to Jon and to the spirit of the oath to Lyanna).

 

I'm not sold on the theory.

[Faceless Man Friday]

Possession of the Harp alone does not establish legitimacy.  However, since this is fantasy and there is magic in the story, especially the story of the prince that was promised, there maybe something magical about the harp.  Something that has been hinted at but not explicitly stated.  It seems Rhaegar's playing of the harp had a significant effect on those who heard it.  Maybe there is something more to his song than good music.  So possession of the harp by Jon may not be enough to establish anything but maybe the Harp in the hands of the Prince that was Promised may be magical and that is what is calling Jon to the cripts and his destiny.  Its not having the Harp it is what he may do with the Harp.

[Faceless Man Friday]

Hairy Bear,

 

What about this?  If R+L=J is true and Ned knew it to be true, Ned could have still done what Lyanna asked without knowing or caring why she asked him to do it.  Ned was always the dutiful one.  As far as Ned knew he was protecting Jon from Robert and the Lannisters.  What better place to protect him than to have him safely in the Nights Watch were his oath would prevent him from being a threat to Robert.  Afterall he would not be the first Targ, at the wall bound by his oath to not oppose Robert.  The Ops theory does not need Ned to know the purpose of his actions.  Neither does it preclude Ned from having his own plan on how to protect both Jon and Robert, even if it conflicts with the original plan of R+L.  That is the thing about plans in the Song of Ice and Fire, they never seem to work out as you expect.

[Túrin the Turambar]

Turin,

 

Allowing Jon to take a life oath without all the information would be an awful thing to do, if he intended to reveal it one day. The prospects of a bastard son and a royal heir are completely different, and explaining Jon his origins after he has commited himself to the Watch would be a bertrayal  (to Jon and to the spirit of the oath to Lyanna).

 

I'm not sold on the theory.

 

Jon would not be (and is not) heir to the throne, because his dynasty wasn't in power any more. Robert sat the throne and, for all Ned knew, his sons were his heirs.

Yes, it wasn't honest to let him swear a life oath before telling him of his ancestry, but you have to keep in mind the good for the realm. The prospect of another civil war was not one that Ned had liked. Furthermore he would be torn between his nephiew (whose ancestor killed his father and brother) and his best friend and king.

AND, not telling Jon was also for his own good, because of Robert's hate for every person that was the offspring of a Targaryen.

[The hairy bear]

Yes, it wasn't honest to let him swear a life oath before telling him of his ancestry, but you have to keep in mind the good for the realm. The prospect of another civil war was not one that Ned had liked. Furthermore he would be torn between his nephiew (whose ancestor killed his father and brother) and his best friend and king.

I agree with all this. That's why I don't believe in a theory that assumes that the "promise me Ned" included telling Jon of his ancestry at one point.

 

The theory states that "What seems likely is that she is asking him to preserve Jon's heritage, which is something Ned would never want to do",and then identifies as Lyanna's motivation that "She also believes in the prophecy of the prince that was promised." If that was the case, allowing Jon to joins the Night's Watch renouncing his lineage and taking a vow of castity would be a betrayal of the promise.

 

It's worth noting that Eddard thinks to himself that he is keeping the promise: "He thought of the promises he’d made Lyanna as she lay dying, and the price he’d paid to keep them".

[yankee211]

i like the article, but what about Ashara. I can't get it out of my head in the first book that Ned will not allow anyone at court to talk about Ashara. She is also mentioned by Barristan and Merra. There is a mystery about her i believe we are overlooking because we focus so much on Lyanna. 

[Faceless Man Friday]

Good point Hairy Bear;

 

To modify the Op's theory, maybe the reason for preserving his "heritage" as the Prince that was Promised had nothing to do with ruling Westeros but was part of a larger plan to save the world from the Others.  Rhaegar was presented with an opportunity to seize the throne from his father but declined.  Instead he ran off with Lyanna supposedly to breed the Prince that was Promised.  I always thought that he believed he was answering to a higher calling than just King of Westeros.  This modification fits with my earlier post that the importance of the Harp is the magic it holds, whatever that may be, rather than as a dynastic symbol.  I think the Op is onto something but its not quite what the Op thinks.

[The Great Cornholio!]

Finding a harp in the tombs proves nothing about Jon. 

[avernite]

I disagree with the theory.

 

The only way to recognize a dragon is another dragon. I.E. if Jon is recognised by Dany or rides a dragon, he is a Targ. If not, no amount of minor items is gonna work. Aegon has the advantage of circumstantial evidence and NOT obviously being something else for ages. Plus not being in the NW. But even he can only be a Targaryen by Dany or by recognition of the great Lords of Westeros.

[Black Crow]

As to the Targaryen Succession.

 

Aerys pops his clogs in King's Landing, along with various other members of the Royal family, so who's next?

1. First off the blocks is Viserys Targaryen, the King's second son and seemingly proclaimed as heir by Aerys himself after the first son (ungrateful wretch) has gotten himself killed. Problem is that Viserys is also the Beggar King and as his sister sadly observes, no dragon.

2. Then there's the sister, again a good claim albeit she's a woman, but she does have dragons so there's no doubting she's Aerys' daughter. Trouble is she's in the land of far far away and by all accounts making a complete hash of things.

3. Fear not, up comes number three, Aegon son of Rhaegar and allegedly not dead after all. Great start, unlike 1 & 2 he's actually made it to Westeros, raised his banners and isn't demonstrably mad. In fact looks pretty good all round. OK too good to be true but we're the readers not the actors and real or not he's a better bet than Cersei Lannister.

4. Yes there is a four, because following all historical precedent if no.3 comes to an untimely end as confidently predicted there's too much at stake not for someone else to turn up proclaiming himself the true Aegon, or for that matter if Aegon could be spirited away from that massacre at King's Landing what of his sister, might she too have gotten away and be available? Never mind Perkin Warbeck, there's scope enough for a whole string of False Dimitri claimants.

5. And so we come to Kit Harrington, sorry Jon Snow, the bastard boy from up north. Sorry, who? Another bloody son of Rhaegar? How many more are there out there?

So after all that, after all the blood and treasure lost in supporting one claimant after another, why go through it all again for a nobody with ice in his veins even if this entirely imaginary harp really does exist?

[Taemlyn Blackfyre]

Rhaegar's sons come before his siblings. Which is why the Golden Company have raised fAegon and have dithered over whether to wed him to Dany. 

 

Bring on Howland Reed to end this speculation.

 

P.S. something tells me that Jon's hair will turn silver while he is "dead", which won't give him legitimacy but may bring out his likeness to Rhaegar.

[Black Crow]

Rhaegar's sons come before his siblings. Which is why the Golden Company have raised fAegon and have dithered over whether to wed him to Dany. 

 

 

Not according to GRRM in the world book; after Rhaegar died, Aerys named Viserys his heir in favour of Rhaegar's children. Ran questioned this with him and GRRM confirmed it was so.

 

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/120966-errors-in-the-woiaf/page-4

 

"Not an error. Primogeniture is customary, but not binding... especially not to a king. We have other examples of people being passed over, or potentially passed over, for others.

 

Maester Yandel is merely reporting based on historical records on events of the time."

[Bran the Bringer]

Sorry to say my mind still quite intact. If that is what comes to be I might never pick up another GRRM book again.

 

There are so many ways already built into the text that Jon could discover/inherit his "Targness" as it were it would surprise me if that was it.

 

And I get the whole allusion to songs it being titled "A Song of Ice and Fire" and all, but we have little evidence that actual songs sung by humans in the story have much power beyond inspiring emotions like all good songs do.

 

So I am uncertain what good a harp that no one mentions has any magical properties will be how Jon, and apparently only Jon according to the theory, will set things to rights.

 

If its just some silly old harp down there in the crypts of Winterfell we would lose out on so much of the magic and mystery that is already present in the text it would be quite a let down for me and really bad storytelling which we know GRRM doesn't do often.