Heresy Project X+Y=J: Rhaegar + Lyanna

[Black Crow]

Further to what King Monkey and I were discussing up-thread I do think that a red herring is involved here and that isn't in R+L=J itself but in the popular supplementary assumption that if it is true then Jon Snow is really Jon Targaryen etc etc...

An interesting parallel here is Bloodraven. Is the dead man in the tree Brynden Targaryen or Bryn Blackwood?

[Taenqyrhae]

To those saying R+L=J can't be a red herring because it's not presented to the reader - what's the point in all the dreams connecting Lyanna's death to a "bed of blood" and the events of the Tower of Joy?  In the first book we get strong hints that Lyanna died in childbirth at the Tower of Joy, though they are ambiguous and could be interpreted another way, the careful reader is going to suspect that Lyanna gave birth, and we're hit over the head repeatedly with knowledge she was kidnapped by Rhaegar Targaryan and that it's assumed he raped her.  Plenty of people jumped to the R+L=J assumption based on the first book alone.

It doesn't have to be served to the reader on a silver platter to be a red herring - those tend to be obvious.  Red herrings are clues that point towards one answer when the true answer is something else.  Almost all the clues to Jon's parentage point towards Rhaegar being the father in the first books, but we learn more through the course of the series that adds ambiguity.  

I'm leaning towards the HR+L=J&M theory myself, lately.  I admit I could be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if R+L=J is revealed to be the truth without any kind of twist on that…if GRRM goes with the obvious explanation, I hope he also reveals that most of the other characters had already figured it out.  If another theory is revealed, it would be great for others characters to say "I always assumed he was the child of Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar Targaryan, like half the realm, this is a shocking development!"

[wolfmaid7]

I wouldn't say so BC.I agree there is a lot of "king" symbolism around Jon but it all in the end comes down to which crown will he wear and which throne he'll sit.

So that isn't a herring for me but foreshadowing viewed through a limited scope.

[Black Crow]

But that was what I was saying; if there is red herring in this beyond what the fisherman's daughter will have caught and filleted, its in the popular assumption that R+L=J means that J is Jon Targaryen and all the fan fiction about secret [?] marriages in front of heart trees, Jon's "real name" and so on that tends to go with that assumption

[RedShirt47]

I wouldn't say so BC.I agree there is a lot of "king" symbolism around Jon but it all in the end comes down to which crown will he wear and which throne he'll sit.

So that isn't a herring for me but foreshadowing viewed through a limited scope.

I agree, I know several people in RL who read the books after the show was on tv and none of them (myself included) picked up on RLJ.

To classify as a Red Herring it must be obvious, like brick to the head obvious. Not simply can be worked out if you connect enough dots. Especially as these books were written (the early ones at least) before internet forums were dissecting the books to the Nth degree. The clues couldn't be too subtle back then or the number of people finding them would have been tiny. As it is the number of people getting them on a first read is still qute tiny.

[wolfmaid7]

I agree, I know several people in RL who read the books after the show was on tv and none of them (myself included) picked up on RLJ.

To classify as a Red Herring it must be obvious, like brick to the head obvious. Not simply can be worked out if you connect enough dots. Especially as these books were written (the early ones at least) before internet forums were dissecting the books to the Nth degree. The clues couldn't be too subtle back then or the number of people finding them would have been tiny. As it is the number of people getting them on a first read is still qute tiny.

That's the thing though the majority of readers claim RLJ is obvious and it is.So the question becomes why?

[Ser Creighton]

I had to drink something strong to assimilate this Ser Creighton

Hahaha you get me.Yeah it rings several bells but not Rhaegar and Lyanna in the tower motel 6 grinding it out  until she got preggers while the world burns. i'm one of those people who would see water running down the window pane and don't jump to the conclusion that rain is falling on the account of.

1. I don't hear raindrops on the roof and

2. I see a hose running from the standpipe to the window.

 

Ok first off, if you are going to make hotel jokes about Westeros it has to be Best Western. I am all about the numbers in the series but 6 ain't one of them.

So basiclly when you see smoke you don't think fire? That's okay, lots of people have died that way but that's okay we all make choices. Believe me it is not that I think exploring different ideas is wrong or bad. I always go outside the box, and I try to give every theory a chance, you know some are meant to be crackpot, it's deliberate. And like I mentioned sometimes people get bored and they want to be creative.  Like for me I get bored here, and I might toss out a parody. I might have a little fun joking around.

Repetition, it's a big thing with Martin, he repeats himself a lot. In fact you find most of the good theories (non deliberate crackpot) are based on a reader noticing Martin has done something repeatedly and it becomes core support for the theory. Sometimes it's a word or a phrase, an allusion, corn king, John Barleycorn, Kings under the snow etc... all being used around a person. It might be a number 13, 3, 7. Prominent numbers in the series that he applies something to, 7, symbolism? 7 pointed star. Meaning? Religion, the faith, 7 gods, and each god he applied symbolism, imagery and meaning too. People? The Andals, the men of the axe. A King? Hugor Hill. All applied to 7. Sometimes he does it to an idea, unity of opposition. Two naturally opposing forces coming together. Sun and Moon, and you got something from it, dragons, 3 dragons a number not unknown to Targaryens.  Maiden and Lion, night and day, what came from that? A child, does Dany refer to her dragons as her children? Azor and Nissa, they got a sword, a sword instead of a child just like Dany got dragons instead of child. The world book actually mentions the curious nature of the sword instead of the child. And the dragon and the sword have been referenced by the author in canon as being essentially synonymous. So if dragons can be a sword and a sword can be a dragon, can a dragon also be a child? Ice and fire. There was a pact wasn't there? About the unity between Targaryens and Starks, the pact of Ice and fire. Naturally opposing opposition, so if Rhaegar and Lyanna had a kid not only would it fit the repeated theme that Martin has done with the unity of opposition in this case Ice and fire. That child would also be a Dragon as that is what Targaryens are often referred to as.

Now sometimes he applies meaning to an item or object like a blue rose, Bael the Bard. An abduction story, the symbolic blue rose and eventually after they vanish, a woman and child. Similar to Lyanna and Rhaegar, whoever you think Jon's parents are that is what started this story. Rhaegar and Lyanna, and he does come back with a child. Along comes Dany, the girl with the single most symbolism in the books, the most prophecies, the most visions, lots of magic, lots of three. Now she sees one of those blue roses, just like she saw Robb, her son, Varys, Rhaegar, Aegon, etc... Big vision day. It's hard not to notice a blue rose growing from a wall of ice and not think Stark and the Wall. The blue rose has been used twice, Stark women though, so it can't be Jon he is a boy? Except if the author plays with role reversal. You ever notice how often Dany has been referenced as Rhaegar? Hell in one of her dreams she is Rhaegar.

I got a series called Ice and fire, I got a pact called Ice and fire about Starks and Targs getting together, I have a repeated theme of the unity of opposition which fits perfectly, and you got the blue rose and a wall of ice. It's not rocket science. It's not a matter of if I mind the idea of Jon having different parents. I don't and I never have, it's that I don't find it plausible. If anything you are looking at the wrong surprise, the wrong Dragon, the wrong mystery. I think there is a better chance that there is a unknown mystery, than a known mystery established in the first book that has been by and large figured out over a 20 year period. Is the real trick Jon's parents? Or is that to distract you from something else?

I think it has always been meant to be an open and exposed mystery as he introduced it. Hi here is a mystery about this boys parents and he is a primary pov. Here is a mystery about Rhaegar and Lyanna. You ever think maybe he isn't trying to hide it that much? There are dozens and dozens of other mysteries in the books, I hardly give R+L=J that much of my time.

While so many focus on this, I think about the Night's King, Bloodraven, the three heads of the dragon, the last hero, Azor and Nissa, the seasons, the red sands and the fire, Dany losing her hair and white ravens always flying right after that, prophecies, the Harpy, the Valonqar, Aegons Story, Robert Strong, all the POV's and their intricate stories, the parallels of the Others and Qarth, the Ghost Grass and the red grass, the parallels of weirwood and shade trees. The list goes on and on, there is this entire rich world to explore, and way more than one mystery and one question. In canon out of canon, symbolism literary devices, meaning and theme. There is so much.

Why would I waste my time with something that was basically already figured out, why would anyone? There is always some reason someone wants Jon to have different parents, they hate Targs, they want Jon to have Dawn and have yet to realize the last magic sword he got was not from his house. They want Ned to be his dad cause they love Ned, they want Ashara to be his mom because she is a Dayne and Daynes have dawn, they want Arthur to be his dad because he was the best, the want Jon to have humble roots so he is a cabbage, a cabbage was named after all.

It's always something. People have argued about a bed of blood since before I got here and they will argue about it after I am gone. There are better topics for me to spend my time on. We need something to talk about lets find a creative way to give Jon different parents. Or, or, maybe talk about the other 99% of the books.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Black Crow]

I agree, I know several people in RL who read the books after the show was on tv and none of them (myself included) picked up on RLJ.

To classify as a Red Herring it must be obvious, like brick to the head obvious. Not simply can be worked out if you connect enough dots. Especially as these books were written (the early ones at least) before internet forums were dissecting the books to the Nth degree. The clues couldn't be too subtle back then or the number of people finding them would have been tiny. As it is the number of people getting them on a first read is still qute tiny.

It is, but as as King Monkey and I discussed earlier the question isn't quite so simple as that. Most people don't pick up that there is even a mystery on the first reading or watching. Its only when they realise that there is a mystery that the clues are picked up.

[RedShirt47]

It is, but as as King Monkey and I discussed earlier the question isn't quite so simple as that. Most people don't pick up that there is even a mystery on the first reading or watching. Its only when they realise that there is a mystery that the clues are picked up.

that's hidden enough to not qualify as a Red Herring. A Red Herring is so obvious most casual readers think it's fact. Of course RLJ can be worked out whena little effort is put into it, most people won't put that effort in because it's not obvious. The mystery is there, who is Jon Snow's mother? although not many folk as Who is Jon Snow's Father?

Dany being AAR is a candidate for a Red Herring. A lot of people believe it and it seems obvious, she's woken dragons from stone and was reborn in smoke and has undisputable (even if some folk try to dispute it on here) Targ blood. Her AARness is blatantly obvious. Which means if she is not AAR she was a Red Herring. She may well be AAR in which case she isn't a Red Herring (d'uh).

Even if RLJ is wrong, it's not a Red Herring as it is not obvious enough to casual readers.

[Black Crow]

Ah, but what's being argued is not whether R+L=J is a red herring in itself, but the supplementary [and very widespread] assumption after having figured it out, that J is therefore Jon Targaryen.

[SFDanny]

Ah, but what's being argued is not whether R+L=J is a red herring in itself, but the supplementary [and very widespread] assumption after having figured it out, that J is therefore Jon Targaryen.

So, you are suggesting Martin has worked subtle clues into the series leading us to the revelation that Jon is really the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, but some how he has made it obvious to the reader that Jon is really a Targaryen? It seems to me the second is dependent on reaching the first, so I'm not sure how that really works, but it sounds diabolical! That George is a tricksy fellow.

As someone who argued the "Jon Targaryen" conclusion for many years, let me say it may seem widespread now in its acceptance, but it sure as hell wasn't when I argued it against what seemed to be everybody on the board about eight years ago.

[wolfmaid7]

 

Why would I waste my time with something that was basically already figured out, why would anyone? There is always some reason someone wants Jon to have different parents, they hate Targs, they want Jon to have Dawn and have yet to realize the last magic sword he got was not from his house. They want Ned to be his dad cause they love Ned, they want Ashara to be his mom because she is a Dayne and Daynes have dawn, they want Arthur to be his dad because he was the best, the want Jon to have humble roots so he is a cabbage, a cabbage was named after all.

It's always something. People have argued about a bed of blood since before I got here and they will argue about it after I am gone. There are better topics for me to spend my time on. We need something to talk about lets find a creative way to give Jon different parents. Or, or, maybe talk about the other 99% of the books.

 

 

Ser Creighton if you think its figured out and not worth your time and you prefer to talk about something else the entire board and the interesting read is your Oyster.Have at it.

It is, but as as King Monkey and I discussed earlier the question isn't quite so simple as that. Most people don't pick up that there is even a mystery on the first reading or watching. Its only when they realise that there is a mystery that the clues are picked up.

Then let's see what the clues are and see where that brings us.What we have is.

1.Rhaegar gives Lyanna a crown of roses.What happens then? It just sits on her lap until Ned grabs it and his reaction in addition to Brandon is not a nice one.She doesn't touch it which i think given the reactions of her brothers is a clue.

2.A year later she turns up missing and someone tells Brandon something.We actually don't get what Cat says " Brandon rushed to KL when he heard about Lyanna." We actually don't know what he heard.But according to Jamie he rushes in the Crown room and demands Rhaegar come out and die???? Wouldn't he ask to get his sister back.

3. We hear from Bran he abducted her and sevearl people think he ran off with her.

4. We have the Bael the Bard story which fits perfectly "if" the events are true and Rhaegar did have anything to do with Lyanna's disappearence. We actually don't have any contact with them beyond he giving her the laurel.

that's hidden enough to not qualify as a Red Herring. A Red Herring is so obvious most casual readers think it's fact. Of course RLJ can be worked out whena little effort is put into it, most people won't put that effort in because it's not obvious. The mystery is there, who is Jon Snow's mother? although not many folk as Who is Jon Snow's Father?

Dany being AAR is a candidate for a Red Herring. A lot of people believe it and it seems obvious, she's woken dragons from stone and was reborn in smoke and has undisputable (even if some folk try to dispute it on here) Targ blood. Her AARness is blatantly obvious. Which means if she is not AAR she was a Red Herring. She may well be AAR in which case she isn't a Red Herring (d'uh).

Even if RLJ is wrong, it's not a Red Herring as it is not obvious enough to casual readers.

Again if we just look at the threads started up on this board on how many people believe it because it was so obvious you would be in the minority. Take that outside and you may still be.And that's me just eyeballing other sites and just people talking.

[kimim]

Re red herrings: there is no rule that the solution to a mystery must be so unlikely that the reader/viewer could never figure it out. In fact, in a good mystery, the reader/viewer should go "yes, why didn't I think of that," once the mystery is divulged. The solution has to be a possibility, and worked well into the text.

 

[Black Crow]

So, you are suggesting Martin has worked subtle clues into the series leading us to the revelation that Jon is really the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, but some how he has made it obvious to the reader that Jon is really a Targaryen? It seems to me the second is dependent on reaching the first, so I'm not sure how that really works, but it sounds diabolical! That George is a tricksy fellow.

As someone who argued the "Jon Targaryen" conclusion for many years, let me say it may seem widespread now in its acceptance, but it sure as hell wasn't when I argued it against what seemed to be everybody on the board about eight years ago.

Nah, what I'm suggesting is that there isn't a simple question at all. In the first place most readers don't start off thinking that the mystery of Jon Snow extends beyond his mother. Its when they start to realise [or are tipped off] that Eddard Stark may not be his father that the clues pointing to R+L=J are relatively easy to find and acclaimed as obvious once discovered. What King Monkey and I are suggesting is that its what comes next that is the important bit and that using the three guys in white as an identifier may not necessarily indicate the outcome, especially given the contra-indicators.

As I probably won't be on this thread again tonight; Merry Christmas to you and everybody else 

[SFDanny]

Nah, what I'm suggesting is that there isn't a simple question at all. In the first place most readers don't start off thinking that the mystery of Jon Snow extends beyond his mother. Its when they start to realise [or are tipped off] that Eddard Stark may not be his father that the clues pointing to R+L=J are relatively easy to find and acclaimed as obvious once discovered. What King Monkey and I are suggesting is that its what comes next that is the important bit and that using the three guys in white as an identifier may not necessarily indicate the outcome, especially given the contra-indicators.

As I probably won't be on this thread again tonight; Merry Christmas to you and everybody else 

All good, and Merry Christmas to you as well! 

[RedShirt47]

Again if we just look at the threads started up on this board on how many people believe it because it was so obvious you would be in the minority. Take that outside and you may still be.And that's me just eyeballing other sites and just people talking.

There was a thread on here some time back asking people how they found RLJ, more than half learnt it on the internet after they read the books. And these forums are populated by people who are curious about these mysteries and care enough to come and discuss the books, so are beyond normal casual readers. So I don't believe I am in the minority for not spotting RLJ on my first read nor thinking it is that obvious (before the clues are pointed out).

[RedShirt47]

Re red herrings: there is no rule that the solution to a mystery must be so unlikely that the reader/viewer could never figure it out. In fact, in a good mystery, the reader/viewer should go "yes, why didn't I think of that," once the mystery is divulged. The solution has to be a possibility, and worked well into the text.

 

true. And most red herrings will fall apart under scrutiny. A real red herring works because people don't put the effort in to figure it out. Which is why Wylla and Ashara Dayna are the Red Herrings here, not RLJ. People after a single read will likely believe Wylla is Jon's mother as that's what's implied by the text at face value.

[aquintus]

Re red herrings: there is no rule that the solution to a mystery must be so unlikely that the reader/viewer could never figure it out. In fact, in a good mystery, the reader/viewer should go "yes, why didn't I think of that," once the mystery is divulged. The solution has to be a possibility, and worked well into the text.

 

Exactly. If the mystery is well written, then when all of the clues are compiled and the solution is figured out, it should be obvious in hindsight. 

[Ygrain]

There was a thread on here some time back asking people how they found RLJ, more than half learnt it on the internet after they read the books. And these forums are populated by people who are curious about these mysteries and care enough to come and discuss the books, so are beyond normal casual readers. So I don't believe I am in the minority for not spotting RLJ on my first read nor thinking it is that obvious (before the clues are pointed out).

You're definitely not. Out of the ten or so people whom I asked "who is Jon's mother?", only one had figured out. It is not enough to base statistics on, but it does tell something. Most people just read the current story and don't bother thinking much about the past.

[Kingmonkey]

Nah, what I'm suggesting is that there isn't a simple question at all. In the first place most readers don't start off thinking that the mystery of Jon Snow extends beyond his mother. Its when they start to realise [or are tipped off] that Eddard Stark may not be his father that the clues pointing to R+L=J are relatively easy to find and acclaimed as obvious once discovered. What King Monkey and I are suggesting is that its what comes next that is the important bit and that using the three guys in white as an identifier may not necessarily indicate the outcome, especially given the contra-indicators.

To elaborate on this idea a little, if there is a red herring involved, it may not be RLJ itself, but rather the nature of the puzzle. Jon's birth is clearly presented as being a mystery, but perhaps the red herring here is the idea that the mystery of Jon's birth is purely about who his parents are.

As for those three white cloaks, it's easy to see three white cloaks and think prince of the blood. Done deal. However when you have three bloodriders, the Dothraki equivalent of Kingsguard, facing seven in a show down outside a tent that bears a striking similarity to the ToJ scene, you'd hardly say that it was all about Rhaego. 

RLJ seems to be the hypothesis for Jon's parentage that fits the evidence best and ticks the most boxes. That doesn't mean that what happened at the ToJ  was any closer to the singer's version of the story that it was to what happened at the tent.

We absolutely should be suspicious of the singer's version, but that simply doesn't argue against the identity of Jon's parents in the slightest. It argues against it being a simplistic story of tragic love and unicorns that piss rainbows.