Jon Snow = Aegon in Daenerys' vision

[IceFire125]

24 minutes ago, ThePrinceThatKnewNothing said:

It's pretty open 

"..clues and the foreshadowing I have laid down since early on in the series (would be a mess if I change now)... I do not change midstream" - GRRM

 

[239JMFL34109]

34 minutes ago, ThePrinceThatKnewNothing said:

People always use the "grrm said Jon is roughly 8-9 months older than Dany". Sorry guys but unless it's in the book it's not concrete. Also don't you think him saying roughly 8-9months gives him the option to alter the story. It may just be R+L=J or R+L=D or R+L=J&D. It's pretty open 

R+L=D does not really change anything for dany so why does it matter? how would that change her and her journey and the overarcing story? 

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, ThePrinceThatKnewNothing said:

People always use the "grrm said Jon is roughly 8-9 months older than Dany". Sorry guys but unless it's in the book it's not concrete. Also don't you think him saying roughly 8-9months gives him the option to alter the story. It may just be R+L=J or R+L=D or R+L=J&D. It's pretty open 

Well, it's pretty much stated in the books that at the beginning of AGOT, Jon has already been fourteen and Dany not yet, and it is also stated that Dany was born 9 months after the Sack. Well before the Trident, Rhaegar was present at KL. So, even on book info, there is no way R+L=D. It is also stated in the books that Ned went to ToJ after the Sack and breaking the siege of SE and found there Lyanna in a bed of blood aka after childbirth, and that he and Cat spent a year apart since their marriage. That rules out R+L=J&D, as well. Book info, plain and simple. Which is also why GRRM replied to the SSM asking about the timeframe between Jon and Dany's birth, it was no earth-shattering reveal.

[Rippounet]

Right. I think this conversation is mostly over (hence why I took so long to answer). The SSM was found after all, and it's clear from the text that Cat had a lot of opportunities to see Jon.

On 05/04/2016 at 3:50 AM, corbon said:

I don't think 50% losses with no real battles and in their home/allied territory is a fair assumption. If their armies were wasting away at that rate then i) we'd surely have heard of such a notable thing and ii) they'd surely have moved on KL already as things were clearly getting worse rather than better.

Still, that leaves only 10,000 each for Riverlands (in their home territory!), Vale and the North if we assume the Stormlands is contributing only very small numbers, yet Robb alone brought more than twice that many south with him. If we up the Stormlands contributions we have even smaller numbers from each of the other regions.

50% losses is certainly an exaggeration, but with massive armies in the field, it's nonetheless at the high end of the spectrum, within the realm of possibility: large armies are hard to maintain over extended periods of time and require significant logistics. While it is unlikely that half the men were lost in combat, many would have been tempted to simply go home after the initial battles, and even the commanders might have found it hard to keep a large host together. I mean, this is a problem faced by many commanders during the Wo5K anyway, and which was certainly just as important during Robert's Rebellion: tens of thousands of men must be fed and equiped, and morale must be kept high.
So while the rebels ended the war with around 30,000 men, it's quite possible they initially had more men (at least 45k would be my guess). Of course, it's also possible that the rebels had some reinforcements (from the Riverlands, the Vale, or even the North) after the first battles. But reinforcements from the Stormlands were altogether unlikely because of the Tyrell invasion, and, as you point out, if the rebels' numbers had significantly increased over time, they would have been tempted to march on KL.
My point here is that the final number of 30,000 doesn't tell us that much about the numbers at the start of the war, and even less about the size of Robert's army. Robert could have started the war with 10 to 15 thousand men, and the numbers at the Trident would still make sense.

On 05/04/2016 at 3:50 AM, corbon said:

Sure. And then we revise everything to make sure all the data fits - after examining the quote for its veracity of course.

But, most importantly, is there such a quote?

 

No. But I'll keep that in mind for future research/re-reads.

What this discussion brought me was a better look at the numbers and the battles. Perhaps the next book will provide us with more information on this front as well.

On 05/04/2016 at 3:50 AM, corbon said:

We know the length of the war. We know the length of the siege. We can do an estimate of the end of the siege relative to the end of the war - not with high accuracy, but enough to say its not going to be multiple months later, because we know Ned left KL almost immediately, its a high priority to relieve SE because Stannis is still in there near-starving, and the Tyrells submitted meekly, so its just the time taken for Ned to get there.

Therefore we can estimate the start of the siege relative to the start of the war. Within wiggle room.
Whats circular in that?

 

What I meant is that the length of the siege and the length of the war are not sufficient to say they mostly took place at the same time.
You need additional information, which you provided: like the fact that Ned leaving KL after Robert saw the bodies of Rhaegar's children means the siege was lifted relatively shortly after the Sack.

 

[Bael's Bastard]

On 4/8/2016 at 0:22 AM, Ygrain said:

Well, it's pretty much stated in the books that at the beginning of AGOT, Jon has already been fourteen and Dany not yet, and it is also stated that Dany was born 9 months after the Sack. Well before the Trident, Rhaegar was present at KL. So, even on book info, there is no way R+L=D. It is also stated in the books that Ned went to ToJ after the Sack and breaking the siege of SE and found there Lyanna in a bed of blood aka after childbirth, and that he and Cat spent a year apart since their marriage. That rules out R+L=J&D, as well. Book info, plain and simple. Which is also why GRRM replied to the SSM asking about the timeframe between Jon and Dany's birth, it was no earth-shattering reveal.

Yep, GRRM only confirmed what others had deduced from the books and asked him about. It is funny that people are in denial about this. When GRRM doesn't want to answer something or wants to be vague, he does it. The SSMs are full of questions GRRM made no attempt to answer, or used creative language to answer. He answers very clearly in this case.

[Tywin Tytosson]

On 3/7/2016 at 11:35 AM, ShadowCat Rivers said:

Timeline issues aside, what would the fllow-up line "there must be one more" be there for?

To tell Dany that a 3rd Dragonrider exists.

She is one.

The child in the vision is the 2nd.

There _must_ be a 3rd.  Rhaegar does not know who that is.

By now, we pretty much have been shown/told/know:

Dany is Aery's daughter.  And her mother (Aerys sister?) died giving birth to her.

Jon is Rhaegar's son.  And his mother died giving birth to him.

There is a 3rd person that we know of whose mother died giving birthing them.  My bet is that is the 3rd rider.  

 

 

[Lost Melnibonean]

On 11/8/2016 at 0:25 AM, Thror Baratheon said:

To tell Dany that a 3rd Dragonrider exists.

She is one.

The child in the vision is the 2nd.

There _must_ be a 3rd.  Rhaegar does not know who that is.

By now, we pretty much have been shown/told/know:

Dany is Aery's daughter.  And her mother (Aerys sister?) died giving birth to her.

Jon is Rhaegar's son.  And his mother died giving birth to him.

There is a 3rd person that we know of whose mother died giving birthing them.  My bet is that is the 3rd rider.  

 

 

The three heads of Rhaegar's dragon are not necessarily the same as those persons who will ride each of Daenerys's three dragons. We all know it, but the special snowflake has not yet been revealed to be a dragon. The first was Daenerys. There have been others, but they are dead or just seeds. But a second dragon has been revealed, Aegon. "Black or red, a dragon is still a dragon." Jon, who apparently died, will be the third. "The first head devours the dying, and the reborn emerge from the third. I don't know what the middle head's supposed to do." 

[Isobel Harper]

2 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

The three heads of Rhaegar's dragon are not necessarily the same as those persons who will ride each of Daenerys's three dragons. We all know it, but the special snowflake has not yet been revealed to be a dragon. The first was Daenerys. There have been others, but they are dead or just seeds. But a second dragon has been revealed, Aegon. "Black or red, a dragon is still a dragon." Jon, who apparently died, will be the third. "The first head devours the dying, and the reborn emerge from the third. I don't know what the middle head's supposed to do." 

I wonder which order the dragons are supposed to be in though...  Viserion hatched first and Drogon, last.  This makes Rhaegal the second hatched.  

But Rhaegal was placed near Drogo's head, Rhaegal was placed in one of Drogo's arms, and Viserion was placed between Drogo's legs.  So, in order from top to bottom, that's 1. Rhaegal, 2. Drogon, 3. Viserion. 

So is Drogon the last or the second head?

ETA: Or is Drogon the first since he was the first to be ridden? 

[ThePrinceThatKnewNothing]

On Monday, March 07, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Imisowo said:

 Is it possible that Rhaegar took Lyanna away because she was pregnant? He understands what taking her away will do and I think only an event like this can account for Rhaegar's rash action of taking her away. Maybe he then married her to to make sure his child was not born a bastard and stayed with her to see his child's birth

"He has a song", the man replied. He is the prince that was promised and his song is the song of ice and fire."

before returning to face Robert in battle. Moreover if Jon's birth name is Aegon (or anything Rhaegar had named him), Eddard Stark will have changed his name when he brought him home. I know Lyanna was found in blood suggesting child birth, but that could have been from something else e.g. protecting her child. 

I know there will be several lope holes to this theory but I keep thinking about it.

 

On Monday, March 07, 2016 at 8:55 PM, LiveFirstDieLater said:

I've been saying this for years!

At this point I honestly believe that R+L=J&D...

Now people get their panties all in a bunch about the timeline and Rob's comparative age to Jon. But let me address those, and add a few other nice supporting details...

First, to be clear I'm proposing (and I'm sure not the first to do so) that Lyanna ran away with Rheagar because she found out she was pregnant... With Jon, who Rheagar calls Aegon. Then she get pregnant again, and dies giving birth to Dany. 

People love to misquote the SSM where George said that Jon was closer to 8 or 9 months than a year older than Dany... But he's still very vaugue. And I think it is all intentionally pretty vaugue to leave wiggle room for just this twist.

Next, Jon's age difference with Rob is actually directly addressed in the text, as we get a weird quote about Bastards growing up faster... Not to mention that the timelines are vague enough that it's all foggy

But I think there are a number of hints that are very hard to explain unless Dany is Lyanna's daughter... Like why is it a flaming man and a giant wolf in MMD's tent... Repeatedly mentioned and referred to later... And the House of the undying is full of visions of Starks... Why would Dany see Starks if she had no relation? Everyone else seems to be related to her... (I think the wolf headed king at the feast of the dead looking at her with "mute appeal" is no the red wedding at all but Jon and Ghost, the only wolf notoriously mute, but either way) Also some odd lines at the end of the house like the cup of ice, cup of fire bit...

Of course the house with the red door and the lemon tree beg questions... And Ser Willem is remembered with a limp... Hmm Ned remembers only two men lived to ride away... But he only brings back Lyanna's bones... Of note is Lord Dustin, who's Ref Stalion is returned but not him... We didn't learn until the appendix of Dance that his first name was William... And I believe he is the man Dany remembers at the house with the red door with its lemon tree.

In Dany's 'wake the dragon' dream sequence she runs down a stone hallway with dead kings on either side... Sounds a hell of a lot like a Crypt dream, you know, like all the Stark children get... Where she sees herself as Rheagar.

Finally for now, is Ned's quote about having to "save the children"... But there is so much more

 

I agree with both of you. I think there's more to all this. And there's nothing to say that Rhaegar and Lyanna didn't have sex at the tourney of harrenhall. I believe they get married on their way to ToJ. I know there's many loop holes and timeline issues but hasn't GRRM said that he is aware he has timeline issues himself? I also love both of your interpretations of Dany's House of the undying visions not many people have looked at it like that.  I also think there's every chance Jon was the one Rhaegar was referring to when he said his is the song of ice and fire. There must be one more could definitely be Dany. 

I remember prior to season 6 of the show and it was said that the ending would be the same but the road leading to it from season 5 onwards would be different. I think about this when it comes to R+L=J vs R+L=J&D. 

Personally I'd quite like for Jon and Dany to be siblings, I think it would add more meaning to their connection. 

[JaneStarkgaryen]

On 3/7/2016 at 10:32 AM, Imisowo said:

 Is it possible that Rhaegar took Lyanna away because she was pregnant? He understands what taking her away will do and I think only an event like this can account for Rhaegar's rash action of taking her away. Maybe he then married her to to make sure his child was not born a bastard and stayed with her to see his child's birth

"He has a song", the man replied. He is the prince that was promised and his song is the song of ice and fire."

before returning to face Robert in battle. Moreover if Jon's birth name is Aegon (or anything Rhaegar had named him), Eddard Stark will have changed his name when he brought him home. I know Lyanna was found in blood suggesting child birth, but that could have been from something else e.g. protecting her child. 

I know there will be several lope holes to this theory but I keep thinking about it.

It's really sad that this poor guy with one post from over a year ago didn't know how right he was about -- a multitude of things. Or, maybe he knows now lol. Well done!

[kissdbyfire]

4 hours ago, JaneStarkgaryen said:

It's really sad that this poor guy with one post from over a year ago didn't know how right he was about -- a multitude of things. Or, maybe he knows now lol. Well done!

How can you know he was right? Did I somehow miss the publication of TWoW and or ADoS? 

[TMIFairy]

On 12.11.2016 at 6:39 PM, ThePrinceThatKnewNothing said:

 

And there's nothing to say that Rhaegar and Lyanna didn't have sex at the tourney of harrenhall.

Absolutely!

Truer words hath not been spoke!

And there is nothing to say that Rheagar and Lyanna didn't have sex at the tourney of Harrenhall in a wild foursome with Howard Reed and Cersei Lannister.

[Makk]

I don't think the timeline works does it? The period of time between Lyanna's disappearance and Ned arriving at the Tower of Joy was well over a year, probably closer to two. Yet everything points to Jon just being born when Ned arrives. For her to be pregnant before that makes Jon far too old imo.

[Ygrain]

12 minutes ago, Makk said:

I don't think the timeline works does it? The period of time between Lyanna's disappearance and Ned arriving at the Tower of Joy was well over a year, probably closer to two. Yet everything points to Jon just being born when Ned arrives. For her to be pregnant before that makes Jon far too old imo.

Indeed, not to mention the whole "born 8-9 months before Dany" stuff, unless one wants to delve into "Dany is not Dany" etc.