R+L=J v.164

[Kajjo]

9 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

is there anything to suggest that the broke betrothals without getting absolution from the Faith?  I don't recall that they did.

Hm, I don't really see the relevance.

Breaking a betrothal is immoral and prone to cause severe problems... as we see with Robb marrying Talisa and the Red Wedding because Walder Frey is really angry. But there is no indication that the marriage is not valid or the succession of heritage questioned. Robbs marriage counts, Talisa's child would be his legitimate heir.

Betrothals  are no weddings, but promises. They have not yet consequences for heritage and succession.

There are probably three Targaryens alive: Daenerys (for sure), Jon Snow (as possible hinted revelation) and, most probably, also Tyrion Lannister (as hinted by his hair color).

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

That was a long essay, but my main response is that the general belief is that to be a dragon rider, you need Targaryen blood.  But having Targaryen blood does not make you a prince, since bastard/dragonseeds can ride dragons.

That is certainly true. And in a hypothetical scenario where all of Westeros become Stannis and Euron sycophants, hating everything Targaryen - or a scenario where Daenerys and/or Aegon and their people have no intention to publicly believe that some Stark get is Rhaegar's son - Jon claiming a dragon is going to change nothing. Because power lies with the people who have power, not with 'the truth'.

And as I've said - we can take it as a given that Viserion and Rhaegal will be claimed by riders in Slaver's Bay. Else they simply won't go to Westeros. Dragons aren't people. They won't do what you want just if you tell them. And if anyone tried to imprison them in a ship said ship would burn and never get to Westeros.

Chances aren't that high that Daenerys - or anyone - is going to declare Brown Ben Plumm, Tyrion, Victarion, or whoever else is one of the first riders of Viserion and Rhaegal a Targaryen prince. And thus nobody is going to do that with Jon Snow unless Dany (or somebody else) really wants to believe that he is Rhaegar's (trueborn) son.

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

On Connington, the first thing I would say is that his POV proves that if there was a Rhaegar-Lyanna marriage, he did not know about it. He thinks that Rhaegar died married (only) to Elia Martell.

I don't think we can say that. Connington simply never thinks about Lyanna at all. He must know a lot about her but he seems to have buried that very deep considering that it must be very painful for him. After all, Lyanna most likely was the one Rhaegar truly loved. But Jon wanted to be that guy.

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I would go a little further.  It is not just that we can't rule it out.  The information from the World Book strongly suggests that Connington was one of Rhaegar's companions when Lyanna was kidnapped.  So I think it is fair to say that unless we get explicit confirmation that Connington was not there, we should assume he was.

That is pretty likely. The question how the half a dozen companions became only Dayne and Whent at the tower is one of the gaps in the story. There must be an explanation how Connington and Mooton eventually ended up at court and what the hell happened to Richard Lonmouth.

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Joffrey says that when he entered into his betrothal to Sansa, he took a solemn oath.  The parallel with Robert and Lyanna is obvious -- Robert took the same oath relating to Lyanna that Joffrey took relating to Lyanna.  The whole point of the scene where Joffrey seeks and obtains permission from the High Septon to end his betrothal to Sansa is to remind us that Robert and Lyanna were betrothed and to highlight the fact that Lyanna was still betrothed to Robert when she died.  That is why Robert thinks that if she lived, he would have gone through with the marriage to her.

He could have wed a widowed Lyanna, too, no? I mean, it is quite clear that he wanted to kill Rhaegar, and it would have been then sort of similar as Black Walder's suggestion how to resolve the Westerling situation - by making Robb a widower.

The Joffrey situation is clearly made for public display. It would be dishonorable for a king to just break a betrothal without going through the motions of feeling sorry for that or for asking permission to do so. But the king rules the Faith, and so that's not exactly asking for permission.

A betrothal is pretty much the same in Westeros as it is in our world. It is the promise of marriage, not an actual marriage. It is a dick move to break a betrothal but it can be done.

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Robb, of course, is different for two reasons.  First, he was a king (unlike either Rhaegar or Lyanna).  Second, his banner men killed him for it.

The Freys are a very special situation. Lord Walder felt slighted by his betters his entire life and was always unable to secure marriages and other deals with the other noble houses. That is why he decides to support Robb when Cat makes him the offers she does because he thinks those honorable Starks are true to their word and won't let him down - well, they did. Any lord would have reacted harshly to Robb's betrayal but not every lord would have plotted to kill him for that - and very few would have been willing to arrange something like the Red Wedding because of that.

[The Fattest Leech]

3 hours ago, Kajjo said:

Hm, I don't really see the relevance.

Breaking a betrothal is immoral and prone to cause severe problems... as we see with Robb marrying Talisa and the Red Wedding because Walder Frey is really angry. But there is no indication that the marriage is not valid or the succession of heritage questioned. Robbs marriage counts, Talisa's child would be his legitimate heir.

Betrothals  are no weddings, but promises. They have not yet consequences for heritage and succession.

There are probably three Targaryens alive: Daenerys (for sure), Jon Snow (as possible hinted revelation) and, most probably, also Tyrion Lannister (as hinted by his hair color).

Who is this "Talisa" you frequently speak of??? 

[Kajjo]

8 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Who is this "Talisa" you frequently speak of?

The woman that Robb Stark married when he was King of the North. Talisa was performing medical treatment to injured soldiers when Robb and she met on the battlefield.

http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Talisa_Stark

 

[IceFire125]

2 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

The woman that Robb Stark married when he was King of the North. Talisa was performing medical treatment to injured soldiers when Robb and she met on the battlefield.

http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Talisa_Stark

 

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Jeyne_Westerling

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Hello, old friends. Just dropping in to say that I don't care about the show, and I think Jon's parentage is not "R+L" in GRRM's books.  Also, that while I think I have a better idea who Jon's parents are, I have no plans to actually explain what that idea is.   

Anyway. Hope you're well.  All the best. 

[Consigliere]

The denial is strong in this one.

[IceFire125]

57 minutes ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

Hello, old friends. Just dropping in to say that I don't care about the show, and I think Jon's parentage is not "R+L" in GRRM's books.  Also, that while I think I have a better idea who Jon's parents are, I have no plans to actually explain what that idea is.   

Anyway. Hope you're well.  All the best. 

Awesome!

Whenever you wanna share the explanation of your better idea, don't hesitate to share it with us.  Methodically dissecting alternatives to the R+L=J theory, is what we like to do too. 

Cheers~

 

[The Twinslayer]

22 hours ago, SFDanny said:

SSM on the subject under discussion

I think this proves my point.  A person being betrothed takes a sacred vow.  Here, GRRM said that the person can't be forced to say the words.  (Although it looks like he said this before Euron imposed a marriage on Asha while she wasn't even present, so he may have changed his mind on that one, too).  

Anyway, unlike the Blackfish, Robert and Lyanna did say the words.  They were betrothed.  I don't think Lyanna was free to marry someone else unless/until she was released from that vow and neither she nor Rhaegar had the power to do that.  

Just as Rhaegar took a sacred vow to the Seven that he would be monogamous with Elia.  After that, he was not free to marry anyone else (unless he put Elia aside, since Cersei seems to suggest that Robert could have done that to her.  But that would have likely required the approval of the king and the High Septon and Connington would have known about, so I think we can safely conclude that that did not happen).  

17 hours ago, Shmedricko said:

And GRRM indicated he's known Jon was going to be stabbed since at least 2001 (and there are potential clues in the first three books):

[ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY]: How long have you intended for that incident [Jon's stabbing] to happen?

[GEORGE R.R. MARTIN]: For many years. Some of the stuff about Melisandre warning Jon of “daggers in the dark” was written 10 years ago.

-George R.R. Martin talks 'Dance With Dragons', 2011

Yes, and per his original outline for the story, we know that he intended for Robb and Joffrey to meet in battle and for Robb to wound Joffrey.  And for Tyrion to sack Winterfell.  And for Catelyn and Arya to travel beyond the Wall with Bran.  But none of that happened either.  

I would not assume that Jon is still alive, or that he will be resurrected, based on an SSM saying he would one day learn who his mother is.  

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is certainly true. And in a hypothetical scenario where all of Westeros become Stannis and Euron sycophants, hating everything Targaryen - or a scenario where Daenerys and/or Aegon and their people have no intention to publicly believe that some Stark get is Rhaegar's son - Jon claiming a dragon is going to change nothing. Because power lies with the people who have power, not with 'the truth'.

And as I've said - we can take it as a given that Viserion and Rhaegal will be claimed by riders in Slaver's Bay. Else they simply won't go to Westeros. Dragons aren't people. They won't do what you want just if you tell them. And if anyone tried to imprison them in a ship said ship would burn and never get to Westeros.

Chances aren't that high that Daenerys - or anyone - is going to declare Brown Ben Plumm, Tyrion, Victarion, or whoever else is one of the first riders of Viserion and Rhaegal a Targaryen prince. And thus nobody is going to do that with Jon Snow unless Dany (or somebody else) really wants to believe that he is Rhaegar's (trueborn) son.

I don't think we can say that. Connington simply never thinks about Lyanna at all. He must know a lot about her but he seems to have buried that very deep considering that it must be very painful for him. After all, Lyanna most likely was the one Rhaegar truly loved. But Jon wanted to be that guy.

That is pretty likely. The question how the half a dozen companions became only Dayne and Whent at the tower is one of the gaps in the story. There must be an explanation how Connington and Mooton eventually ended up at court and what the hell happened to Richard Lonmouth.

He could have wed a widowed Lyanna, too, no? I mean, it is quite clear that he wanted to kill Rhaegar, and it would have been then sort of similar as Black Walder's suggestion how to resolve the Westerling situation - by making Robb a widower.

The Joffrey situation is clearly made for public display. It would be dishonorable for a king to just break a betrothal without going through the motions of feeling sorry for that or for asking permission to do so. But the king rules the Faith, and so that's not exactly asking for permission.

A betrothal is pretty much the same in Westeros as it is in our world. It is the promise of marriage, not an actual marriage. It is a dick move to break a betrothal but it can be done.

The Freys are a very special situation. Lord Walder felt slighted by his betters his entire life and was always unable to secure marriages and other deals with the other noble houses. That is why he decides to support Robb when Cat makes him the offers she does because he thinks those honorable Starks are true to their word and won't let him down - well, they did. Any lord would have reacted harshly to Robb's betrayal but not every lord would have plotted to kill him for that - and very few would have been willing to arrange something like the Red Wedding because of that.

I think it is pretty clear from Connington's POV that he was present at Elia's wedding and he believes that is the only wedding Rhaegar had.  We also know that Connington was one of Rhaegar's closest companions, he was closely involved in Aerys' counsels as Hand of the King for a good portion of the rebellion, and that he likely was with Rhaegar when Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna.  So if someone comes along claiming that Rhaegar and Lyanna married and that Jon is Rhaegar's true born son, Connington is going to dispute that in a very persuasive way.  

And I don't think the Freys are unusual in their view of betrothals.    Robert certainly seems to have shared their view.  As did Brandon Stark.  

[Ygrain]

7 hours ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

Hello, old friends. Just dropping in to say that I don't care about the show, and I think Jon's parentage is not "R+L" in GRRM's books.  Also, that while I think I have a better idea who Jon's parents are, I have no plans to actually explain what that idea is.   

Somehow, I am not surprised. Just out of curiosity, what will you do if, or when, the books confirm RLJ? Scream that GRRM changed his mind and resorted to fanservice?

[Eira Seren]

On 8/28/2017 at 10:33 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

Would love to hear more about this event I must have missed. Was busy that evening watching Twin Peaks and GoT.

Oh, with Kyle M or a remake?  (Kyle's from my hometown).  

No, when this event that happened somewhere (we aren't supposed to talk about in this board), I started giggling, because it was so completely fantasy of the stripe GRRM doesn't do.  Wrap it up with a lace ribbon, why don't they.

By the time of the auntie shagging, I was laughing Torumund-style.  I used to think RLJ was the the obvious answer.  But now I think there are others, and at least one I like better than the two I've come up with.

[TMIFairy]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Just out of curiosity, what will you do if, or when, the books confirm RLJ? Scream that GRRM changed his mind and resorted to fanservice?

The question was asked of Snowfyre Chorus but, as I am in the same camp, I will answer for myself.

I will hold my breath - demanding GRRM retract RLJ - until I am blue in the face, of course! And then I will scream and stomp my feet and make faces!

LOL!

Now, seriously, if RLJ is repeated in the books, I will just shrug and say "I guessed wrong". RLJ is not a first world problem.

[Eira Seren]

On 8/29/2017 at 11:47 AM, TMIFairy said:

Double standard for men and women?

I found this statement confusing as well, as it's pretty clear from Lyanna's statements to Ned about Robert that she doesn't actually want to marry him, but that despite these concerns, she was betrothed to him anyway.  In a political match, I'm not sure Rickard was feeling so concerned about Lyanna's feelings on the matter, which led to her (most likely) hightailing it when the opportunity presented itself.

[J. Stargaryen]

56 minutes ago, Eira Seren said:

Oh, with Kyle M or a remake?  (Kyle's from my hometown).  

No, when this event that happened somewhere (we aren't supposed to talk about in this board), I started giggling, because it was so completely fantasy of the stripe GRRM doesn't do.  Wrap it up with a lace ribbon, why don't they.

By the time of the auntie shagging, I was laughing Torumund-style.  I used to think RLJ was the the obvious answer.  But now I think there are others, and at least one I like better than the two I've come up with.

It's called Twin Peaks: The Return, aka, season 3.

We're not supposed to talk about show spoilers here, so it's probably better to err on the side of caution. Also, I'm not sure which specific event you're talking about, so I don't have much to add. PM is open though.

[Eira Seren]

59 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

It's called Twin Peaks: The Return, aka, season 3.

We're not supposed to talk about show spoilers here, so it's probably better to err on the side of caution. Also, I'm not sure which specific event you're talking about, so I don't have much to add. PM is open though.

Oh, ok.  I haven't seen that yet.  I stopped watching the initial show after a while and should've gone back to it but didn't. . . Since regardless of whether I had or not, the friend I walked home from school with had the hugest crush on Kyle M, and he filled me in in great detail about every single episode on the way (and also mentioned at least once every time that Kyle M was from our town. . . ) 

As for the event, I speak of course, of that big reveal that I suspect will not be the outcome of R+L much debated and predicted in this thread.  I just think Jon has a different parent.  There are a few cases for it that I've enjoyed hearing about, and I still can't account well for some of the details of the R+L theory, such as the fact that Lyanna had the common sense not to want to marry Randy Robert, but was willing to run off with a married (or annulled) man.  Practical Lyanna might have figured despite her wildness that if he'd do it to Elia, he'd do the same to her.

Plus, I still kinda think Rhaegar might really have been rather in love with Dayne.

[House Balstroko]

I know this must have been brought up before, but in light of latest episode's reveal. I put it under spoilers just in case someone hasn't caught up with the show.

Spoiler

Jon's name is Aegon and we already have an Aegon in the books. How will that impact Jon's heritage in the books? 

 

[Eira Seren]

22 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

I know this must have been brought up before, but in light of latest episode's reveal. I put it under spoilers just in case someone hasn't caught up with the show.

  Hide contents

Jon's name is Aegon and we already have an Aegon in the books. How will that impact Jon's heritage in the books? 

 

This is yet another suggestion to me that

Jon is not Aegon.  It doesn't makes sense to have two in the same family.  Unless the Targs are Monty Python fans and suddenly got the bright idea, given their incestuous nature, to just do names like Bruce.  

 

 

[TMIFairy]

24 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

I know this must have been brought up before, but in light of latest episode's reveal. I put it under spoilers just in case someone hasn't caught up with the show.

  Reveal hidden contents

Jon's name is Aegon and we already have an Aegon in the books. How will that impact Jon's heritage in the books? 

 

I understand your enthusiasm in spreading the word but some people here - like me - are Simply.Not.Interested.In.The.TV.Show.  

Jon is a bastard of unknown parentage and dead.

[Faceless User]

Recently I've seen many people suggesting that Jon may have a secret "Targaryen name" (I'm assuming it's a show reveal).

What I don't understand is, why? Why call him Aemon/Aegon/etc. and then keep it a secret? Does it change something if he is Aerys Targaryen instead of Jon Targaryen?  Am I missing something?

[J. Stargaryen]

43 minutes ago, Faceless User said:

Recently I've seen many people suggesting that Jon may have a secret "Targaryen name" (I'm assuming it's a show reveal).

What I don't understand is, why? Why call him Aemon/Aegon/etc. and then keep it a secret? Does it change something if he is Aerys Targaryen instead of Jon Targaryen?  Am I missing something?

This has been speculated on for as long as I've been around, and I assume well before that. So, probably well before the show. If Jon had a Targaryen name like Aemon or Aegon it would stick out like a sore thumb. And characters might start to piece together what so many fans have, that Jon is Rhaegar's son.