"Lyanna was at the TOJ" = semi-canon

[Voice]

why did you have so much trouble just stating that Willa was Jon's father. After all, it is just repeating a semi-claim already stated in the books

If Wylla turns out to be Jon's father, I will be thoroughly impressed by the author's subversion of every trope, ever. (Though it would kind of be copying South Park)

[Ser Leftwich]

I was just trying to pry a name out of someone that thinks personal secrecy(to hide personal confusion) is somehow a benefit to an argument between nerds on the internet about a fantasy novel.

I could tell you, but it would break the internet. So I can't.

[stateofdissipation]

So you think it is Willa. There, wasn't that easy? that is all you had to say. No one is attacking you. As for everything else. Ned is Eddard. Eddard is Ned. They are the same person, the Lord of Winterfell, a leader of the rebellion and one of two survivors of hte battle at the tower of Joy, where he found his sister, as shown to the reader in his fever dream, which although only a dream, has not been contradicted by anything else in the text, so is therefore "Canon."

why did you have so much trouble just stating that Willa was Jon's father. After all, it is just repeating a semi-claim already stated in the books

I was asked and answered what i was leaning towards-- not think...

I think there is not enough information to draw a single unassailable conclusion..

The book does not actually ever have Ned finding Lyanna... or even looking for her..

There is the showdown

--a blank spot--

Ned with Lyanna dying in her bed of blood...

I won't speculate as to the nature of the blank spot..... the story just jumps.

[J. Stargaryen]

So you have no idea who Jon's dad is. That's cool. It would have just been easier to say that and acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that his dad could very possibly be Rhaegar instead of dancing around what you do not know and claiming that folks are insulting you while talking down to folks who subscribe to the R+L=J theory

I'm going to address Snowfyre's post later, but for now I wanted to say that I strongly agree with the bold. Snowfyre has been rude and condescending to RLJers on a number of occasions, and even regularly participates -- last I checked, which admittedly was a few weeks ago -- in a forum created in part to trash RLJers, including myself. But then portrays himself as having been victimized in the RLJ threads.

I do tend to think Snowfyre has an alternative theory, but the non-bold has also occurred to me. There's a whole lot of urging other people to read carefully and whatnot. Crowd sourcing for ideas? As if it wasn't a careful reading of the text that led to RLJ in the first place. Curiously enough, despite nearly two decades of people carefully picking through the text, no consensus non-RLJ theory has ever emerged. Ffs, how carefully do you have to read?

[Voice]

New interpretation of Lyanna dying at Starfall & the weird "blue as the eyes of death" line from the fever dream (copied and pasted from my Dawn thread):

Could Lyanna have killed herself and died in a seabed of blood?

That is why he was so fast to squash rumors about Ashara and him.

Ashara is Lyanna.

Mayhaps.

Lyanna and Ashara were both real and two separate women, but their deaths seem to be strangely linked by Ned's journey to Dorne. Both were close to Ned. Ashara is said to have had a child, Lyanna is theorized to have had one.

In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit to entertaining the crackpot idea that Ned brought Ashara's remains to Winterfel instead of Lyanna'sl, as she was his true, first wife (and thus, the Lady of Winterfell), before the political marriage to Catelyn, but that is quite unsupported by text, not to mention crazytalk. LOL

Another facet to this is that if Lyanna died at Starfall, or threw herself from the Palestone Tower, it might explain this quote from the fever dream:

As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming. "Eddard!" she called. A storm of rose petals blew across a blood-streaked sky, as blue as the eyes of death.

This could be describing Lyanna's/Ashara's suicide. Streaking across the sky, falling ever downward, toward the deep blue sea...

[Ygrain]

As if it wasn't a careful reading of the text that led to RLJ in the first place.

Yeah, one would say that we came to the westeros.org as a tabula rasa, completely ignorant of Jon's parentage, and then were somehow indoctrinated by a RLJ conspiracy. It's not like almost each and every one of us came to the conclusion on our own, even before we found out about the existence of this forum.

And since Snowfyre has asked for it... Snowfyre of House Heretic, I name you intellectually dishonest.

[TheSmallOther]

New interpretation of Lyanna dying at Starfall & the weird "blue as the eyes of death" line from the fever dream (copied and pasted from my Dawn thread):

Mayhaps.

Lyanna and Ashara were both real and two separate women, but their deaths seem to be strangely linked by Ned's journey to Dorne. Both were close to Ned. Ashara is said to have had a child, Lyanna is theorized to have had one.

In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit to entertaining the crackpot idea that Ned brought Ashara's remains to Winterfel instead of Lyanna'sl, as she was his true, first wife (and thus, the Lady of Winterfell), before the political marriage to Catelyn, but that is quite unsupported by text, not to mention crazytalk. LOL

Another facet to this is that if Lyanna died at Starfall, or threw herself from the Palestone Tower, it might explain this quote from the fever dream:

As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming. "Eddard!" she called. A storm of rose petals blew across a blood-streaked sky, as blue as the eyes of death.

This could be describing Lyanna's/Ashara's suicide. Streaking across the sky, falling ever downward, toward the deep blue sea...

Sorry, can't agree with this one. Lyanna is the only woman in the crypts. Other ladies of Winterfell aren't there, despite site's long history. Surely, it's highly possible some of them wanted to be buried with their husbands, but that just never had happen. The fact that Ned agreed for Lyanna to be placed there is quite a mystery. I really doubt the only reason was that Lyanna asked him.

[J. Stargaryen]

In my opinion, Jon's mother is Lyanna Stark. And his father is... a mystery that can be solved through careful reading and thoughtful analysis of the text. It is not Rhaegar Targaryen. I also think more readers and fans might have discovered the true solution, if the R+L "answer" were not championed so forcefully (and often, so rudely) as to discourage other ideas when they are voiced here on Westeros.org.

So, not only do you evade the question, but you criticize RLJers. Not a bad start.

I've made it a point over the past year - first for my own sake, more recently for others - to encourage sustained consideration of the idea that "R+L#J," and to do it in a way that (I hope) enables the reader to search out new ideas and consider alternative (nonRLJ) solutions on their own merit. Over the past several months I've attempted to do this without unnecessarily imposing the solution I now see, as I know several others still hoping to figure it out on their own. Some of them read these very boards. (Now, these people might not give a flying flip what I think... and they shouldn't, in the end - because the best solution should make its own case, persuading on the merits. But given their persistence and interest, I see no reason to sway them or spoil their fun. If they can solve it themselves, then in my opinion they deserve the chance.

So that's one reason I have not said - and will not say here - who I think Jon Snow's father is: others deserve the opportunity to discover the solution for themselves.)

People come here looking for answers, so that seems like an extremely poor excuse to me.

Another, related reason, is that in my experience here on Westeros.org this question is frequently asked by "RLJers" who really are not interested in examining alternative (nonRLJ) solutions on their own. Perhaps they assume there is nothing worth considering. Perhaps they are incapable. Perhaps they are simply unwilling to invest the effort and time required to see past the popular theory, to identify and to build cases for less conventional possibilities. Perhaps there are other reasons for their lack of interest. But more often than not, the question is posed as a challenge against those who question R+L=J, rather than an invitation to work together toward the consideration of alternatives. In other words, it is very much an attempt to discourage doubts in the first place - and those who ask are typically more interested in attacking the doubter than in considering alternatives. Is that an unfair generalization? Perhaps. But in my personal experience, it has been true.

Right. You can't answer a simple question because the evil RLJers are to blame. Sounds legit.

So that's my answer, along with two reasons for the incomplete form of my response. Of those two, the first is more important to me than the second. Perhaps I would give you the benefit of the doubt and tell you the theory, in spite of past insults, if doing so would not be unfair to those still interested in working it out independently. As things stand, however, I expect you remain well-satisfied by "R+L," and are not likely to feel that I'm withholding valuable information. So at the risk of being called "intellectually dishonest," hypocritical, or insincere - I'll simply ask you to forgive me for not sharing the full solution. I expect we'll all know it soon enough, anyway.

There's a way to work around this supposed issue. You tell me your theory and I give you my word I will not reveal it to a single soul. I will, however, reserve the right to publicly state whether I think the theory is any good or not. But not in a way where I provide winky-wink clues. That would be cheating.

What's in it for you? Well, it's not an unreasonable position to believe that you're simply pretending to have a theory, which calls into question your credibility. I would be able to confirm that you do. Also, if I were to violate your trust on the issue that would paint me in an extremely poor light. You would be giving me enough rope to hang myself.

I'm pretty sure that you will decline this offer, but there it is.

I don't really see what the downside is in sharing theories with a community in which you regularly participate. If you're wrong nobody will really care, barely anybody will remember. Yours will just be one more piece on the scrap heap. But if you're right on this issue, legendary hero of the fandom. One day they may even prophesy your return. The Snowfyre Chorus reborn!

If you don't want to talk about your theory, fine, but why bring it up? When you and JNR do this it reminds me of Tormund bragging about his member.

In the meantime, if you find yourself willing and interested in making a good case against "R+L=J," I'd love to hear it. That theory is already well-built and overly reinforced. If it can't stand on its own by now... it never will.

So, you want me to make a case I don't believe, even though you won't answer a simple question about what you actually believe? Really? I shouldn't be too surprised though. That does seem like something you'd say.

Btw, what does it mean that RLJ can't stand on its own by now? Are you saying that because some people -- a clear minority among the hardcore fans, btw -- don't believe it, or argue against it, that it's not true? Which theory does stand on its own, the one you won't tell us?

[Voice]

Sorry, can't agree with this one. Lyanna is the only woman in the crypts. Other ladies of Winterfell aren't there, despite site's long history. Surely, it's highly possible some of them wanted to be buried with their husbands, but that just never had happen. The fact that Ned agreed for Lyanna to be placed there is quite a mystery. I really doubt the only reason was that Lyanna asked him.

Yeeah.... twas admittedly crackpot, there. I still like the idea of the fever dream describing Ashara/Lyanna's suicide. Happy thoughts.

So, not only do you evade the question, but you criticize RLJers. Not a bad start.

People come here looking for answers, so that seems like an extremely poor excuse to me.

Right. You can't answer a simple question because the evil RLJers are to blame. Sounds legit.

There's a way to work around this supposed issue. You tell me your theory and I give you my word I will not reveal it to a single soul. I will, however, reserve the right to publicly state whether I think the theory is any good or not. But not in a way where I provide winky-wink clues. That would be cheating.

What's in it for you? Well, it's not an unreasonable position to believe that you're simply pretending to have a theory, which calls into question your credibility. I would be able to confirm that you do. Also, if I were to violate your trust on the issue that would paint me in an extremely poor light. You would be giving me enough rope to hang myself.

I'm pretty sure that you will decline this offer, but there it is.

I don't really see what the downside in sharing theories with a community in which you regularly participate. If you're wrong nobody will really care, barely anybody will remember. Yours will just be one more piece on the scrap heap. But if you're right on this issue, legendary hero of the fandom. One day they may even prophesy your return. The Snowfyre Chorus reborn!

If you don't want to talk about your theory, fine, but why bring it up? When you and JNR do this it reminds me of Tormund bragging about his member.

So, you want me to make a case I don't believe, even though you won't answer a simple question about what you actually believe? Really? I shouldn't be too surprised though. That does seem like something you'd say.

Btw, what does it mean that RLJ can't stand on its own by now? Are you saying that because some people -- a clear minority among the hardcore fans, btw -- don't believe it, or argue against it, that it's not true? Which theory does stand on its own, the one you won't tell us?

Yeah, with all due respect, Snowfyre and JNR, I don't understand the the purpose in stating publicly that you've found a viable alternative without submitting it for public consideration.

You are free to use your private interpretation as a basis for arguments, of course, but you can't blame others for not taking it seriously when you decline to explain what your private interpretation is. I'm not saying you should, I'm only explaining why I think some might perceive that as nonconstructive.

We state our views, then let others critique them. That's how it all moves forward, and becomes part of the collective consciousness of the forum.

Otherwise, it sounds like you're just telling people you think they're wrong without explaining why. You are free to do that, of course, but offering your alternative for comment and criticism would be a more constructive way to go about it, in my opinion. People will concur, and offer you words of encouragement, or they will disagree, and offer their criticism. Either way, the conversation moves forward. I don't see the point in preventing that conversation from happening.

Sharing your interpretation will not spoil anything for anybody who has read the books. We all have the same text. That is the very purpose of the forum after all. It's a place to discuss the literature, and share our opinions and insights. Just my $0.02...

[Peach Fuzz]

If two lived to ride away, and the skirmish between Ned and his men V the three KG was outside TOJ and Lyanna was inside, then where were they riding away too? Surely they would be riding on into the TOJ?

[Ygrain]

Yeah, with all due respect, Snowfyre and JNR, I don't understand the the purpose in stating publicly that you've found a viable alternative without submitting it for public consideration.

Well, haven't you heard? JNR wants to make a fortune by goading us into betting money on Jon's parentage. Deigning the light of his weisdom on us would spoil his profit.

[stateofdissipation]

If two lived to ride away, and the skirmish between Ned and his men V the three KG was outside TOJ and Lyanna was inside, then where were they riding away too? Surely they would be riding on into the TOJ?

They had been seven against three yet only two had lived to ride away, Eddard Stark and the little Crannogman Howland Reed---

Only 2 of the 10 men listed in the sentence lived to ride away.

Anybody not listed in those 10 can be the "they" finding Ned with Lyanna's body.

[Peach Fuzz]

But Ride away from what to where ? The skirmish to the TOJ?

[stateofdissipation]

But Ride away from what to where ? The skirmish to the TOJ?

If we keep the sentence together.....

They had been seven against three yet only two had lived to ride away, Eddard Stark and the little Crannogman Howland Reed---

Ned and Howland lived to ride away from "They" (the group) and/or "against" (the skirmish)

The " to" is not found in the sentence....

If we want to include the ToJ and all present to the sentence we can... but in doing so we have to add them to the original 10 and account for others leaving from the tower by adding to the 2.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Curiously enough, despite nearly two decades of people carefully picking through the text, no consensus non-RLJ theory has ever emerged. Ffs, how carefully do you have to read?

In answer to this question, I can only speak for myself. For me, it took a long time and a lot of work. Others I know have arrived there more quickly, by intuition or inspiration. But I don't know anyone who's arrived at the solution without first acknowledging and familiarizing themselves with the shortcomings of "R+L=J."

And since Snowfyre has asked for it... Snowfyre of House Heretic, I name you intellectually dishonest.

(chuckle) Thanks. I saw that one coming. ;)

So, not only do you evade the question, but you criticize RLJers.... You can't answer a simple question because the evil RLJers are to blame. Sounds legit.

I criticized those who discourage others from entertaining nonRLJ alternatives here on Westeros.org, yes. But that's not the same as criticizing all RLJers. Far from it, actually. (Unless you define "RLJer" as someone who discourages other ideas.)

I don't really see what the downside is in sharing theories with a community in which you regularly participate. If you're wrong nobody will really care, barely anybody will remember. Yours will just be one more piece on the scrap heap. But if you're right on this issue, legendary hero of the fandom. One day they may even prophesy your return. The Snowfyre Chorus reborn!

If you don't want to talk about your theory, fine, but why bring it up? When you and JNR do this it reminds me of Tormund bragging about his member.

Well, I do share theories. I'm just not sharing this theory. In this case, I brought it up because you asked. At other times, I've brought it up because I hoped it would encourage others to continue looking beyond RLJ for a better solution. Some will think that's ridiculous. Some might appreciate it - as I did, when another reader once did the same for me.

Believe it or not, I could care less whether I personally get any credit for anything. It's not my story, and it's not my solution - it's all George R. R. Martin. When all this is over, nobody will remember The Snowfyre Chorus one way or the other. In the meantime, I think George and his readers all deserve to enjoy this little surprise. After 20+ years, everybody's earned it.

So, you want me to make a case I don't believe, even though you won't answer a simple question about what you actually believe? Really? I shouldn't be too surprised though. That does seem like something you'd say.

Btw, what does it mean that RLJ can't stand on its own by now? Are you saying that because some people -- a clear minority among the hardcore fans, btw -- don't believe it, or argue against it, that it's not true? Which theory does stand on its own, the one you won't tell us?

My point there was that RLJ is already a well-built theory, and has been for years. It is constructed on a foundation of clear textual evidence, framed by reasoned inferences drawn from those clues. It's a good theory, reasonably solid, and in the end it will stand (or fall) on its own merit - regardless of belief. To my mind, the ongoing collection of evidence to "support" the theory seems unnecessary at best. To continue with the home-building analogy... the foundation and load-bearing walls may be strong, the floor plan enticing... but if the roof leaks or the contractor neglected to insulate and waterproof, then discussing curtains, carpet, and paint colors is just a waste of time. Winter is coming. It's a good time to inspect the house.

Yeah, with all due respect, Snowfyre and JNR, I don't understand the the purpose in stating publicly that you've found a viable alternative without submitting it for public consideration.

You are free to use your private interpretation as a basis for arguments, of course, but you can't blame others for not taking it seriously when you decline to explain what your private interpretation is. I'm not saying you should, I'm only explaining why I think some might perceive that as nonconstructive.

We state our views, then let others critique them. That's how it all moves forward, and becomes part of the collective consciousness of the forum.

Otherwise, it sounds like you're just telling people you think they're wrong without explaining why. You are free to do that, of course, but offering your alternative for comment and criticism would be a more constructive way to go about it, in my opinion. People will concur, and offer you words of encouragement, or they will disagree, and offer their criticism. Either way, the conversation moves forward. I don't see the point in preventing that conversation from happening.

Sharing your interpretation will not spoil anything for anybody who has read the books. We all have the same text. That is the very purpose of the forum after all. It's a place to discuss the literature, and share our opinions and insights. Just my $0.02...

:lol: Believe me, I don't blame anyone for failing to take seriously an interpretation I haven't shared. And I've spent a good amount of time already explaining the various reasons why I think R+L=J is wrong. What folks around here don't seem to understand is that these two things have very little to do with one another. I mentioned the unshared solution because I was asked. But folks are either satisfied with RLJ, or they're not. They're either looking for alternatives, or they're not. No unshared theory is likely to convince people that RLJ is flawed. But for those already seeking alternatives, a little encouragement might go a long way.

All of this seems a bit off topic, outside the RLJ pinned thread. But in my opinion, that last comment sums up the benefit of WeaselPie's OP here - not that it will change the mind of anyone already persuaded to RLJ, but that it might encourage readers willing to think in other directions. In my experience, that kind of thinking is not without its reward! :cool4:

[Frey family reunion]

I do think this topic is starting to lose the OP's point a bit. Personally I don't have a huge problem with RLJ, in fact I think it is one of three plausible possibilities of Jon's parentage. What I do have a huge problem with is the editing of the wiki to include events and "facts" that are not contained in the story. Such as Lyanna dying in the tower of joy, Whent and Dayne kidnapping Lyanna, Aerys sending Hightower to retrieve Rhaegar. These events are being added to the wiki as if they are events that occurred within the book. In fact it is making me second guess my own memories of the actual story. For a while now I assumed that somewhere in the books was a recollection that Aerys sent Hightower to retrieve Rhaegar. But this is apparently not actually in the books. While some may feel that these conclusions are logical inferences, the fact remains that they are only inferences. If someone wants to write a fan fiction account of Rhaegar and Lyanna's torrid, doomed love affair fine go to it. Just don't then go edit the wiki to include your story within Martin's.

[Voice]

:lol: Believe me, I don't blame anyone for failing to take seriously an interpretation I haven't shared. And I've spent a good amount of time already explaining the various reasons why I think R+L=J is wrong. What folks around here don't seem to understand is that these two things have very little to do with one another. I mentioned the unshared solution because I was asked. But folks are either satisfied with RLJ, or they're not. They're either looking for alternatives, or they're not. No unshared theory is likely to convince people that RLJ is flawed. But for those already seeking alternatives, a little encouragement might go a long way.

All of this seems a bit off topic here, outside the RLJ pinned thread. But in my opinion, that last comment sums up the benefit of WeaselPie's OP here - not that it will change the mind of anyone already persuaded to RLJ, but that it might encourage readers willing to think in other directions. In my experience, that kind of thinking is not without its reward! :cool4:

I hear ya.

I definitely fall into the unsatisfied group, and I very much agree that WP's thread is valuable for the same reason. But, I'm not sure people need encouragement to dig for alternatives, particularly those who are unsatisfied with RLJ.

I like putting my cards on the table, I like arguing my views. The whole dynamic is rewarding, even when facing staunch opposition. My Bran thread is a good example of this. As I argue against opposition, I find more evidence for my own interpretation, and my views are strengthened. The same is true when I lock horns with BC over in Heresy LOL.

For me, the debate itself is the reward. The debate is what moves things forward. Merely hinting that there is another debate to be had does little and less for that process.

As I think J Star was suggesting, people don't come here looking for encouragement, they come for insight. (Granted, it is hard to say that with a straight face considering some of the hilarious things people come up with, and the snake pit that General can be.)

[Daendrew]

You are far more delicious pie than you have ever been weasle, Weasle.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

I'm not sure people need encouragement to dig for alternatives, particularly those who are unsatisfied with RLJ.

Oh I don't know. You and I may disagree on how this sort of thing plays out, but I've seen long-time fans get down off "the fence" on this issue even in just the last couple weeks, because they finally made the effort to take a closer look themselves. Was it the result of outside encouragement? Not entirely, I'm sure. But I'd have to ask the former fence-sitter himself to know why he spent so long on that fence-post, and what factors finally motivated him to come down. :)

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I do think this topic is starting to lose the OP's point a bit. Personally I don't have a huge problem with RLJ, in fact I think it is one of three plausible possibilities of Jon's parentage. What I do have a huge problem with is the editing of the wiki to include events and "facts" that are not contained in the story. Such as Lyanna dying in the tower of joy, Whent and Dayne kidnapping Lyanna, Aerys sending Hightower to retrieve Rhaegar. These events are being added to the wiki as if they are events that occurred within the book. In fact it is making me second guess my own memories of the actual story. For a while now I assumed that somewhere in the books was a recollection that Aerys sent Hightower to retrieve Rhaegar. But this is apparently not actually in the books. While some may feel that these conclusions are logical inferences the fact remains that they are in fact only that. If someone wants to write a fan fiction account of Rhaegar and Lyanna's torrid, doomed love affair fine go to it. Just don't then go edit the wiki to include your story within Martin's.

Yet, we do have a source for these events.. That's what the whole ToJ thing was about.. people wanting certainty about the canonicity of the source. With Martin as the established source of the info, it is certainly allowed on the wiki.