Not Confirmed

[Sly Wren]

On July 12, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Being Daenerys Targaryen said:

Wasn't he dead?

Yup. But they had the actor tell everyone in the cast and crew that he wasn't coming back. They told everyone that he wasn't coming back.

As late as March, Harrington gave an interview to the Guardian saying he, the actor, was not coming back the the show.

These guys like trolling us.

On July 13, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Being Daenerys Targaryen said:

What did you expect? Did you expect them to come on television and say everything? People kept asking them knowing that they wouldn't spoil it... So there is no comparison here because they already gave us hints about Rhaegar...

They also showed us how people can be resurrected. Showed us Thoros raising Beric. More than a hint. Yet they still denied it--didn't equivocate. Just flat out denied.

As you say, they wanted to keep the secret. Like they mumbled Lyanna's lines at the end of the scene in the finale. So, why if they bothered to mumble her scenes and haven't let the Lyanna actress, or Bran-actor, or episode director speak about who the father is--why would they then "confirm" it on a graphic?

Quote

So maybe Rhaegar is not the father... The graph from HBO doesn't prove anything because they could also be lying... But based on the SHOW... Who would the father be? 

My best guess would be the guy they spent a bunch of screen time on telling us that he was admired by Ned and yet was killed in a way that Bran never knew of. They guy Bran is horrified to discover how his father defeated. The guy who swings that highly conspicuous sword around for a while. Arthur.

The flashback to Winterfell--the big, important reveal was NOT subtle. Bran drew a big red circle around it: "Hodor talks!" Then, just in case the audience missed it, he asked grown up Hodor what happened.

The flashback to the tower--Bran and the Raven kept talking about Arthur. About how Ned beat him. The Raven even prompts Bran: "did he?" And, just in case we viewers don't get it, Bran narrates: "he stabbed him in the back!"

That's the big reveal to Bran. But we have not yet been told why this matters. We found out why the Hodor reveal mattered--horrible, wrenching and miserable.

So, why is Arthur's death a big deal? One answer has to be that Ned unknowingly killed the man his sister loved and the father of his nephew.

But, as you say, Rhaegar has been brought up since book and season one. And he is a VERY viable and even likely father for Lyanna's child. But something's up with Arthur.

In the books, Arthur is also present in every book. Show? They gave us all his fabulousness in one, big, obvious scene.

On July 13, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Being Daenerys Targaryen said:

Maybe it was just to show that Bran realised that everything he was told wasn't actually the truth... That was the first thing.. Because he said 'I know the story...' As he knew the story about Rhaegar and Lyanna... Also Jon's story... He realised that actually they knew NOTHING... He realised that anything he had been told, could have been a bloody LIE... imo

Very possible--but as stated above, the Hodor reveal had a very "Hodor-specific" result: the sacrifice of Hodor for Bran. Personal and miserable.

Seems like there's a good chance the reason for the Arthur reveal could be just as personal and miserable. The showrunners like to repeat their tropes and devices, after all. And they are not big on subtle.

[Asvpxkvng]

There isn't much I can remember of either Rhaegar or Arthur in the show as far as any actual meaningful character building. I guess they're both on equal grounds of likeliness until you factor in that Rhaegar is a Targaryen which is far more recognizable than a Dayne to show watchers casual or serious but not well read. Frankly if I hadn't read up on ASOIAF history on the wiki I'd have no idea what a Dayne was nor (and this is the only important part that makes being a Dayne interesting) what Dawn and the Sword of Morning are plus these were not touched upon in the show making it very unlikely the showrunners go in that direction.

[Tchzaelous]

On 6/27/2016 at 2:59 AM, Banner Without Brothers said:

R+L=J is not confirmed.

Now I'll probably get some hate for this and I have to start by saying that it is about 99% confirmed. But for anyone like me who hates the idea of Jon "Jesus" Targaryan being the magical Chosen royal blood Prophecy fulfiller I want to offer some hope, no matter how small. 

First big one the hair. We know how important hair is in the story. That baby is so blonde I think it would be more accurate to call it silver. If they wanted to 100% confirm Jon they would have had a baby with black hair. Of course babies hair can darken as they grow older but by the time that Ned brought him back to Winterfell? It's definitely a deliberate hole that will have to be filled in with either secret constant hair dye or magic, a glamour perhaps. https://youtu.be/dkvkT5D3fF4?t=280

No name. Why keep the name a secret? Is there really any need. Yes it was nicely done, the cut from the babies eyes into Jon's but we still could have had the name. Perhaps they could have had the "name is...." bit as the cut to Jon was happening. It's another deliberate hole 

Ah screw it, that's all I got if any other like minded optimists have anything else I'd love to hear it. But it's still enough for it to not be confirmed. It's just very, very, very likely that R+L=J.

Valar Morghulis R+L=D 

It is confirmed. In a really stupid way, but it was already confirmed the day after Episode 10 aired.

[brightflame princess]

3 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Not according to Ned. In the novels, he left the throne room in a "cold rage" when Robert condoned/accepted the murders of Rhaegar's two children, Rhaenys and Aegon. 

Ned's rage was so enormous that it took Lyanna's death to get him and Robert to speak again.

Then, in show and books, over Dany--Ned calls Robert a coward in front of the council for even thinking of planning her assassination. He quits his Handship, effecting breaking his oath to serve his king. A huge fight over killing Dany.

No--Ned is not remotely accepting of Robert's willingness to kill children connected to Rhaegar. He's willing to risk ruining his relationship with Roabert forever, willing to risk breaking oaths to Robert, rather than accept the deaths of children, no matter what.

On the bolded--Ned fights with Robert over Rhaegar's children after the Sack of King's Landing. He fights with Robert over Dany. At the risk of his own oath. In the books, he even wonders if Robert will call for his head after he breaks with Robert publicly over Dany. Ned will go to the bat for any child against Robert's rage.

Ned would fight with Robert over the murder of any child. And he fears Robert's rage against Rhaegar, in books and show, because of what Rhaegar supposedly did to Lyanna. NOT because of politics--he fears Robert's madness are and jealousy.

That's the fear--jealously and loss and rage. And Robert would feel that towards any man who he thinks took Lyanna from him--Rhaegar, Arthur, or stable boy #4.

Books and show have NOT been equivocal on this point.

And he would have the children executed because he feels jealous?  I don't see it. He was a better and smarter king than that. 

And I never said Ned would just accept it, only that it makes more sense why Robert would want to kill the baby. Him wanting to kill a dayne makes absolutely no sense! He has already slighted dorne, you really think he would do it again? He was trying to mend those wounds, not start another rebellion. The daynes are banner men to the martells, and they would be livid if Robert did that. The martells would be so mad and insulted. No way they would just take another hit without fighting bsck, and Robert would have known that. Plus he pissed Ned off too. I don't think he would kill a child again, especially one that is Neds kin, because he is jealous. That's a stupid reason, especially for a man who has lots of bastards and isn't even close to being true to his wife. He would be the biggest hypocrite, and that's not how he would want to start off his reign. Only if the child were a threat to his claim would he have good enough reason to murder it, in the eyes of the kingdoms. If he just went all psycho like that the kingdoms would revolt, dorne and the north would be first.

Plus, it was unknown at the time wether the deaths of elia and her children were ordered or if it was an accident, because tywin didn't explicitly say to spare them. If Robert killed another baby (targ or dayne) rumors would start that he ordered the murders. He would know these things! if it made him so mad that he wanted to kill a baby, he would at the very least THINK about it before actually doing it, because that's what kings have to do, if they want the loyalty of the people. Nobody likes a rash king. If it was rhaegars baby he might be counseled by tywin to kill it to secure the throne, like he told him after the deaths of aegon and rhaenys. If it were a dayne baby, tywin would say don't kill it, the people will view it as a vile act, and you will lose their respect. Let the child live, it doesn't threaten you.

This is simple logic, but you can think whatever you want.. r+l=j is confirmed. The kings guard were better off defending their Prince on the trident then protecting a dayne/stark bastard. That child was royalty for sure. Even the person I was originally discussing this with thinks so. They said it a few times.

[brightflame princess]

3 hours ago, Asvpxkvng said:

There isn't much I can remember of either Rhaegar or Arthur in the show as far as any actual meaningful character building. I guess they're both on equal grounds of likeliness until you factor in that Rhaegar is a Targaryen which is far more recognizable than a Dayne to show watchers casual or serious but not well read. Frankly if I hadn't read up on ASOIAF history on the wiki I'd have no idea what a Dayne was nor (and this is the only important part that makes being a Dayne interesting) what Dawn and the Sword of Morning are plus these were not touched upon in the show making it very unlikely the showrunners go in that direction.

You are right. There's not enough laid out for it to be arthur dayne.. If he was wouldn't lyanna have said his name is jon? That baby has a targ name, and we will find out what it is next season.

The ONLY thing going for jon being arthurs son is he could wield dawn. But since dawn hasn't ever been mentioned specifically, and jon already has an epic sword and an epic destiny, I don't see that happening. What does it add to the story of jon is the sword of he morning? Not much in my opinion. Plus the show has not talked enough about the azor ahai prophecy, show only people wouldn't get it.

They showed dawn for a second or two, just as a nod to the book readers. Wouldn't they have made it more recognizable if jon was going to wield it in the future? It looks very plain to me..

There's way more points for rhaegar being the father. In season 5 sansa and littlefinger talk about him in the crypts, and LFs face tells all. He doesn't believe lyanna was raped by rhaegar. The show runners thought that was enough info for us to get it.

[ToTheWolves]

5 hours ago, Asvpxkvng said:

There isn't much I can remember of either Rhaegar or Arthur in the show as far as any actual meaningful character building. I guess they're both on equal grounds of likeliness until you factor in that Rhaegar is a Targaryen which is far more recognizable than a Dayne to show watchers casual or serious but not well read. Frankly if I hadn't read up on ASOIAF history on the wiki I'd have no idea what a Dayne was nor (and this is the only important part that makes being a Dayne interesting) what Dawn and the Sword of Morning are plus these were not touched upon in the show making it very unlikely the showrunners go in that direction.

season 4 or 5 barristan tells dany how good of a guy Rhaegar was and how everyone loved him. He also goes on to say how Rhaegar would walk the streets playing his harp for the small folk. Of course that's not in the books but, I guess that's the shows way of showing that there was more to Rhaegar. 

 

Also in season 4 oberyn says something like "before Rhaegar ran off with that other woman" I forget who he was talking too.

There isn't much about Arthur Dayne in the Show. Other than Jamie reading the white book.

 

 

 

 

 

[Blueroses]

7 hours ago, ToTheWolves said:

Also in season 4 oberyn says something like "before Rhaegar ran off with that other woman" I forget who he was talking too.

To Tyrion when he was talking about the murder of Elia and her children... "... And beautiful noble Rhaegar Targaryen left her for another women. That started a war, and the war ended right here, when your father's army took the city. "

[Being Daenerys Targaryen]

18 hours ago, brightflame princess said:

No because as a king, Robert has the right to want rhaegars baby dead. Ned would fight with robert to keep a dayne/lyanna baby alive, as that baby is not a threat.

He has the right??ok.

Are you Robert Baratheon? GRRM? What do you know about his intention? How can you state firmly that Robert wouldn't kill Arthur's son? Did you speak to him? Have you talked about that lately? 

Anyways, there is no point to continue that discussion... Seems like you're trying your best not to understand the point I'm trying to make. 

R+L=J confirmed... Thanks for this conversation...

18 hours ago, brightflame princess said:

Can you seriously imagine? The Starks raising a child of rhaegars, who someday could usurp Robert?

That child will usurp only IF he KNOWS he's a TARGARYEN! He was raised a Stark... He doesn't know he's a Targaryen...

18 hours ago, brightflame princess said:

He cares enough for Ned and lyanna that he would let that child live. He might think about killing it, he might be super angry, but would he actually do it? I don't think so. Not only is it horrible, it's also really stupid, as he already has baby blood in his hands, and the martells aren't happy with him because of it

so he cares enough for Ned and Lyanna that he wouldn't kill Arthur's baby but would kill Rhaegar's baby? So Arthur's baby is also Lyanna's baby, but Rhaegar's baby is another thing? right? You said that he might be angry but in the end, you don't think he would have killed Arthur's baby... But Rhaegar's? That's the point!! He was angry because of what he assumed Rhaegar had done to Lyanna... "He raped her and then killed her"... 

[Rory Snow]

If the choice is between Rhaegar Targaryen & Arthur Dayne as Jon's father, the clear choice is Rhaegar if for no other reason than Jon being Dayne's son doesn't advance the story one bit. What would even be the point of Jon Dayne? It accomplishes nothing.

[Hot Capicola]

On 6/27/2016 at 3:01 AM, Banner Without Brothers said:

?+L= Silver haired baby is 100% confirmed. It's 99% Jon is the baby but until I see absolute confirmation, preferably GRRM confirmation there's still hope, even if it's a slim hope. 

 

Go watch M Knight Shamalamadingdong if you want pointless plot twists.  Throwing in pointless plot twists without any leadup is jarring and makes for bad storytelling.

[Being Daenerys Targaryen]

18 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Yup. But they had the actor tell everyone in the cast and crew that he wasn't coming back. They told everyone that he wasn't coming back.

As late as March, Harrington gave an interview to the Guardian saying he, the actor, was not coming back the the show.

These guys like trolling us.

They also showed us how people can be resurrected. Showed us Thoros raising Beric. More than a hint. Yet they still denied it--didn't equivocate. Just flat out denied.

As you say, they wanted to keep the secret. Like they mumbled Lyanna's lines at the end of the scene in the finale. So, why if they bothered to mumble her scenes and haven't let the Lyanna actress, or Bran-actor, or episode director speak about who the father is--why would they then "confirm" it on a graphic?

My best guess would be the guy they spent a bunch of screen time on telling us that he was admired by Ned and yet was killed in a way that Bran never knew of. They guy Bran is horrified to discover how his father defeated. The guy who swings that highly conspicuous sword around for a while. Arthur.

The flashback to Winterfell--the big, important reveal was NOT subtle. Bran drew a big red circle around it: "Hodor talks!" Then, just in case the audience missed it, he asked grown up Hodor what happened.

The flashback to the tower--Bran and the Raven kept talking about Arthur. About how Ned beat him. The Raven even prompts Bran: "did he?" And, just in case we viewers don't get it, Bran narrates: "he stabbed him in the back!"

That's the big reveal to Bran. But we have not yet been told why this matters. We found out why the Hodor reveal mattered--horrible, wrenching and miserable.

So, why is Arthur's death a big deal? One answer has to be that Ned unknowingly killed the man his sister loved and the father of his nephew.

But, as you say, Rhaegar has been brought up since book and season one. And he is a VERY viable and even likely father for Lyanna's child. But something's up with Arthur.

In the books, Arthur is also present in every book. Show? They gave us all his fabulousness in one, big, obvious scene.

Very possible--but as stated above, the Hodor reveal had a very "Hodor-specific" result: the sacrifice of Hodor for Bran. Personal and miserable.

Seems like there's a good chance the reason for the Arthur reveal could be just as personal and miserable. The showrunners like to repeat their tropes and devices, after all. And they are not big on subtle.

Ok... Very interesting but please... I cannot see Jon as Arthur's baby... I mean, WHY? 'A song of ice and fire ' makes more sense to me... Rhaegar is fire and Lyanna is ice... And with the threat beyond the wall, I don't understand why Jon being Arthur's son would be an important plot... WWs are cold (ice). And they don't like people with hot blood... Jon being half Targ and half Stark means that he has both (the cold and the heat)... That would make more sense if Jon is Rhaegar's son than Arthur's... I don't know...

[Being Daenerys Targaryen]

18 hours ago, Asvpxkvng said:

There isn't much I can remember of either Rhaegar or Arthur in the show as far as any actual meaningful character building. I guess they're both on equal grounds of likeliness until you factor in that Rhaegar is a Targaryen which is far more recognizable than a Dayne to show watchers casual or serious but not well read. Frankly if I hadn't read up on ASOIAF history on the wiki I'd have no idea what a Dayne was nor (and this is the only important part that makes being a Dayne interesting) what Dawn and the Sword of Morning are plus these were not touched upon in the show making it very unlikely the showrunners go in that direction.

I still don't know anything else about him than just the fact that he was at the tower of Joy because his prince wanted him there... And also that they lied about the way he died...

[Being Daenerys Targaryen]

1 hour ago, Hot Capicola said:

Go watch M Knight Shamalamadingdong if you want pointless plot twists.  Throwing in pointless plot twists without any leadup is jarring and makes for bad storytelling.

We've already had a Shaddydog story in this Show... If they put another Shaggydog story, I'm out!

[lakin1013]

On 7/12/2016 at 9:31 AM, Cron said:

Of course I'm guessing, but my current opinion is they will be Dany, Jon and Tyrion.

Bran is a possibility, but I actually believe he will play a slightly different role in the war against the White Walker crew.

Parf of the reason I believe the 3 heads will be Dany, Jon and Tyrion is b/c I believe the 3 heads are NOT ONLY dragon riders, but also the members of a tri-archy government (basically, 3 monarchs of equal power ruling the 7 Kingdoms,

Despite any blood comingling, Dany represents the Targaryens, Tyrion is Lannister, and Jon is Stark.  The 3 main houses represent the 3 heads of the dragon.  Like you, Bran is always a good outside bet but it seems to me that the books and show are leading to these 3 characters. Whether these folks actually 'ride' a dragon, or if they simply represent the dragon is yet to be known, but I am kind of hoping we do NOT get an Atreyu-Falkor scene tripled.

[Sly Wren]

16 hours ago, brightflame princess said:

And he would have the children executed because he feels jealous?  I don't see it. He was a better and smarter king than that. 

Not just for jealousy. My apologies if I made it seem like I meant just that.

No--for jealousy, rage, vengeance, grief and loss. Robert's emotional--not wise. "Ours is the Fury." 

And Robert's emotions seem a dangerous thing from Ned's perspective--especially in the books.

In the first episode, Robert says, "In my dreams, I kill him every night." Says similar things in the book. Those are not the words of a man thinking about politics. He's so overwhelmed with his loss, even all these years later, that he keeps killing the man who took his love form him in his dreams.

In the second episode, Robert says he will kill every Targaryen he can get his hands on because of what Rhaegar did to the woman he loved.  Very similar scene in the books. He may use politics as an excuse, but Robert wants Targs dead not for smart politics, but for vengeance, rage, grief and loss. 

If he lost Lyanna to a different man, why on earth wouldn't Ned fear Robert's rage against that man and his family?

You are right that it would be a mess politically. But the Robert that Ned sees in the books and in the show, the Robert we see in Ned's head in the books--Ned fears that rage and grief and vengeance. Ned calls it a madness in the books.

In both books and show, seems like there's a good case to be made that Ned doesn't fear the politics--he fears the grief and vengeance in Robert that still drive Robert to kill Rhaegar in his dreams every night. A vengeance and grief Robert still can't get over the need for.

[Sly Wren]

4 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

If the choice is between Rhaegar Targaryen & Arthur Dayne as Jon's father, the clear choice is Rhaegar if for no other reason than Jon being Dayne's son doesn't advance the story one bit. What would even be the point of Jon Dayne? It accomplishes nothing.

 

2 hours ago, Being Daenerys Targaryen said:

Ok... Very interesting but please... I cannot see Jon as Arthur's baby... I mean, WHY? 'A song of ice and fire ' makes more sense to me... Rhaegar is fire and Lyanna is ice... And with the threat beyond the wall, I don't understand why Jon being Arthur's son would be an important plot... WWs are cold (ice). And they don't like people with hot blood... Jon being half Targ and half Stark means that he has both (the cold and the heat)... That would make more sense if Jon is Rhaegar's son than Arthur's... I don't know...

Because of Dawn and the Sword of the Morning.

The first fight against the White Walkers was to end The Long Night. The Battle for the Dawn.

The Sword of the Morning wielding the sword Dawn--that really sounds like a key player in the upcoming Battle for the Dawn.

In the World Book, the Daynes are as old if not older than the Starks, have been in Westeros even longer. Their sword and the title of Sword of the Morning go back millennia. And there's a strong case to be made that the title originates with the Battle for the Dawn. 

And Dawn, according to the World Book, can only be wielded by a Dayne who is deemed "worthy" by House Dayne to wield it. Otherwise, according to an SSM from Martin, "Dawn remains at Starfall until another Sword of the Morning shall arise." 

Which really makes it sound like another Sword of the Morning will rise in this story. If Jon's a Dayne--he's our boy.

And the gut punch, the horror that Ned killed Arthur in a way that sickens Bran--the man that Jon idealizes and loves as his father actually killed his real father--that sounds like an emotional misery Martin would LOVE to put his characters and his readers through.

[Ashes Of Westeros]

@Sly Wren It sounds reasonable to me. But it seems to me there is no way to prove it. All the participants are presumably dead. If Lyanna slept with both Arthur and Rhaegar, how could you know which one is the father?

[Sly Wren]

2 minutes ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

@Sly Wren It sounds reasonable to me. But it seems to me there is no way to prove it. All the participants are presumably dead. If Lyanna slept with both Arthur and Rhaegar, how could you know which one is the father?

1. 

2. Any reason why Lyanna would have had sex with both men? Robert assumes Rhaegar took her and raped her. But the books and show are filled with assumed "facts" that end up being revealed as nothing but fantasy.

So, if Lyanna only had sex with Arthur, seems like there's an excellent chance she'd know who the father was. And tell Ned.

[MtnLion]

26 minutes ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

@Sly Wren It sounds reasonable to me. But it seems to me there is no way to prove it. All the participants are presumably dead. If Lyanna slept with both Arthur and Rhaegar, how could you know which one is the father?

What in Lyanna's character suggests that she would sleep with anyone without being married to them?

What in the Kingsguard's behavior at the tower is contrary to defending the heir to the throne, as they state that they are doing, and giving their lives for? 

[Rory Snow]

3 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

And the gut punch, the horror that Ned killed Arthur in a way that sickens Bran--the man that Jon idealizes and loves as his father actually killed his real father--that sounds like an emotional misery Martin would LOVE to put his characters and his readers through

Wasn't it Howland Reed that stabbed Dayne from behind? I only watched the scene once but thought it was Reed who got up after being injured that stuck Dayne in the back.

Also, all the legend surrounding Dawn is great and all, but it's all book stuff. I don't recall much if any backstory or foreshadowing regarding Dawn's importance in the show, especially when compared to all the hints and inferences concerning Rhaegar.