just how Targaryen is Jon?

[Maester Crypt]

On Invalid Date at 0:40 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Pardon, but you say there's barely any evidence that Jon is Lyanna's. Previously you said it will be a shock when it is revealed that Jon is Ashara's... does that mean you've found evidence supporting Ashara as Jon's mum? If so, please share. I've seen the claim many times but have yet to see any evidence to support it. 

I can be completely fine with Jon being Rhaegar and Lyannas child. I just think the theory of TPTWP is flawed in respect that AA was never said to be a prince I believe or that he came from Targaryan blood. It seems to me that the Sword of the Morning would be more likely associated with AA and the Long Night.

I would think the Asshai telling of the tale is older and at some point in time, that tale got adopted to suit Targaryan mythology. Unfortunately Baelor the Blessed conveniently burned a lot of books that might have shed light on what knowledge of the past the Targaryans or factions within the Citadel wanted destroyed.

The control of knowledge in Westeros comes pretty much from those associated with the Citadel. I would be inclined to believe in or decipher what the wildlings tell us or the tales of ancient civilizations before anything that comes from the Citadel as true history.

Jon could be all three through Rhaegar and Lyanna because of lineage leading to Maekar I and Dyanna Dayne. So there is always the possibility for R+L=J to be true.

I thought it interesting that Dyanna Dayne had daughter named Daella and grand daughter through Daeron named Vaella. Of course in the books we get Val and Dalla being associated with Mance. It could be written off as coincidental or maybe a hint of Mances true identity. If Val is perhaps the daughter to Rhaegar and Lyanna, the blue rose and the wall could be associated with her as she is at the wall when we get introduced to her.

We don't know what happened to the offspring of Daeron, Daella and Rhae. It is possible that some may have ended up with House Dayne and perhaps with Arthur and Ashara being their descendants. Jon would still have Targaryan blood except it comes through Maekar and not Rhaegar.

Do I have evidence, of course not. I'm just theorizing like everybody else. I do think Rhaegar and Lyanna had a child, I'm just not entrenched in the idea that it must be Jon. I understand the symbolism for the theory but it is also in GRRM best interest not to discredit it, if he indeed has other plans for the story. That way the reader still has some surprises in store for them in the final books. Having the tv show claim Jon as Rhaegar and Lyannas only encourages us more to believe it must be true.

If it turns out that Jon isn't Lyannas in the books, that doesn't take away anything from the show. It is still an amazing show and great story to tell.

 

[RagnarokKing]

17 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I don't think they necessarily guessed it, I think it far more likely that they read it, here or elsewhere. But my reply was only meant to stress the fact that R+L=J is far, far older than the TV show.

Lol, probably.  And that is of course true.  I think 1997 was the earliest known time it came up?  And it is the theory of Jon's parentage I most certainly prescribe to, JNR's thought exercise just got my mind rolling. 

17 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

My main problem with the idea that of Lyanna wasn't at the ToJ is, what are Dayne, Whent and Hightower doing there then? Not just any 3 KG, but the LC and Dayne, by all accounts Rhaegar's best friend?

Well if she wasn't that would be the million dragon question wouldn't it.  

17 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I'd have to check the timeline but I don't think that's actually possible at all!

It might not be, maybe if he got with some lady within a  week or two of being killed?  WHAT IF IT WAS QUEEN RHAELLA!  Regardless it was more a tongue in cheek statement. (I really hope I didn't give birth to a horrible theory right here.

17 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I agree. But there are way too many ideas thrown around that are simply not possible, and people need to accept that and move on instead of trying to twist logic into a pretzel.

That is very true.  However, I like to cover my bases so I'm not blindsided and forced to eat my hat later on...I don't think it would taste very good. 

[ravenous reader]

1 hour ago, RagnarokKing said:

But even that is an implication and not an explicit fact.  

To what are you referring?  I'd say the fact Ned does not immediately count Jon among his children rules out Ned being the father.  You are right; it is not made explicit.  We are suppose to deduce a few things!

Quote

It also doesn't prove that Jon is a nephew of Eddard, though that would be a very plausible explanation.  Maybe he is actually Rickard's child and Jon is actually Eddard's brother, whom he claims is his bastard for some unknown reason, this is a not very plausible possibility.  

Ned confirms that Jon is 'his blood', so the father if a Stark would have to be one of the male Starks of reproductive age alive at the time of Jon's conception -- so basically one of the brothers or Rickard, although the latter is highly unlikely, especially in the case of Lyanna as the mother, considering the narrow window involved between Lyanna's disappearance in 281 AC and his death at Aerys's hand in 282 AC, with Jon's birth date thought to be somewhere in 283 AC.  In order for that to be the case, Rickard would have had to impregnate his daughter shortly before her disappearance and Jon's birthdate would have to be moved up a year.  I guess it could be possible, but in your words 'not very plausible.'

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Catelyn II

That cut deep. Ned would not speak of the mother, not so much as a word, but a castle has no secrets, and Catelyn heard her maids repeating tales they heard from the lips of her husband's soldiers. They whispered of Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's Kingsguard, and of how their young lord had slain him in single combat. And they told how afterward Ned had carried Ser Arthur's sword back to the beautiful young sister who awaited him in a castle called Starfall on the shores of the Summer Sea. The Lady Ashara Dayne, tall and fair, with haunting violet eyes. It had taken her a fortnight to marshal her courage, but finally, in bed one night, Catelyn had asked her husband the truth of it, asked him to his face.

That was the only time in all their years that Ned had ever frightened her. "Never ask me about Jon," he said, cold as ice. "He is my blood, and that is all you need to know. And now I will learn where you heard that name, my lady." She had pledged to obey; she told him; and from that day on, the whispering had stopped, and Ashara Dayne's name was never heard in Winterfell again.

 

Quote

The point is that we need to be able to separate between what we know, what we think is probably true but accept that we don't actually know it to be true or not, and what we believe is true even though we don't actually know it to be true.

The more I read GRRM, the more I'm convinced there are very few things we 'know' with certainty.  Most of his novel falls into the second category you've highlighted.

[LynnS]

46 minutes ago, RagnarokKing said:

The point is that we need to be able to separate between what we know, what we think is probably true but accept that we don't actually know it to be true or not, and what we believe is true even though we don't actually know it to be true.

The only thing I know for sure is that Jon is a Stark, has more of the north in him and little of his mother.   I'm not sure what is meant when we are told that Martin left small clues.  Perhaps these are the things that he has left out, these small omissions.  I imagine that would be one of his private jokes, readers chasing after what he has said, rather than what he has pointedly left out.

There is also the suggestion that Jon might be a Great Bastard, rather than a plain ordinary bastard. 

Quote

 

A Storm of Swords - Jon II

And even more telling, only one in a hundred wildlings was mounted. The Old Bear will go through them like an axe through porridge. And when that happened, Mance must give chase with his center, to try and blunt the threat. If he should fall in the fight that must follow, the Wall would be safe for another hundred years, Jon judged. And if not . . .

He flexed the burned fingers of his sword hand. Longclaw was slung to his saddle, the carved stone wolf's-head pommel and soft leather grip of the great bastard sword within easy reach.

 

This is the only time that Longclaw is called a great bastard sword.  Ironically, it's King Stannis who offers to legitimize Jon.  Also, following in the footsteps of Brynden Rivers in more ways that one.   So yes to royal blood, but it's still a toss up for me if it comes from the Targaryens or Baratheons.  Either way, he has fire and ice in his blood.

[ravenous reader]

5 minutes ago, LynnS said:

The only thing I know for sure is that Jon is a Stark, has more of the north in him and little of his mother.   I'm not sure what is meant when we are told that Martin left small clues.  Perhaps these are the things that he has left out, these small omissions.  I imagine that would be one of his private jokes, readers chasing after what he has said, rather than what he has pointedly left out.

There is also the suggestion that Jon might be a Great Bastard, rather than a plain ordinary bastard. 

 

 

This is the only time that Longclaw is called a great bastard sword.  Ironically, it's King Stannis who offers to legitimize Jon.  Also, following in the footsteps of Brynden Rivers in more ways that one.   So yes to royal blood, but it's still a toss up for me if it comes from the Targaryens or Baratheons.  Either way, he has fire and ice in his blood.

But don't you see Lynn, after your pristine logic, you've ultimately resorted to a symbolic reading (by invoking the 'great bastard sword'), instead of following RagnarokKing's advice to only accept what you can prove definitively!  Symbolic allusion can not be proved.

[Ygrain]

59 minutes ago, RagnarokKing said:

 After all the dream, fever dream I might add, could actually be bringing together two different events and locations together because of some weird association in Eddard's mind.

Eddard's mind does what GRRM wants it to do. Yes, it is a fever dream, but it is not a dream you or I would have, it is a piece of very deliberate writing. It is an old dream about the three KG, the tower and Lyanna in her bed of blood, meaning Ned had had a dream containing these three elements at least once before, and certainly not feverish. Some elements which seem symbolic in the dream - blood, roses, "promise me" actually echo a real memory of Lyanna's death. We know that the fight and the outcome were real because Ned elaborates on them when awake. We know even that the tower was real - so what would be the point of introducing all those realistic elements to create a false conclusion? Lyanna's death occured at a particular location, which has to be revealed at some point, anyway, and iit's not like the location is the mystery here.

[RagnarokKing]

 

5 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

The more I read GRRM, the more I'm convinced there are very few things we 'know' with certainty.  Most of his novel falls into the second category you've highlighted.

Exactly... it's about holding to the first and second catergories, 

17 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

"what we know, what we think is probably true but accept that we don't actually know it to be true or not"

and not falling into the trap of the third catergory, 

18 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

"what we believe is true even though we don't actually know it to be true."

It's about not taking something that is not a sure thing and holding it as gospel truth, but rather holding it up as the most reasonable explanation/theory based on evidence and plausibility.

[RagnarokKing]

6 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Eddard's mind does what GRRM wants it to do. Yes, it is a fever dream, but it is not a dream you or I would have, it is a piece of very deliberate writing. It is an old dream about the three KG, the tower and Lyanna in her bed of blood, meaning Ned had had a dream containing these three elements at least once before, and certainly not feverish. Some elements which seem symbolic in the dream - blood, roses, "promise me" actually echo a real memory of Lyanna's death. We know that the fight and the outcome were real because Ned elaborates on them when awake. We know even that the tower was real - so what would be the point of introducing all those realistic elements to create a false conclusion? Lyanna's death occured at a particular location, which has to be revealed at some point, anyway, and iit's not like the location is the mystery here.

Yes and the most reasonable explanation of Lyanna's location when Eddard found her is the Tower of Joy based on that very dream.  But it is not an absolute certainty, see my most recent response to ravenous reader, should be just above this post.

[sweetsunray]

3 hours ago, TMIFairy said:

I peed myself.

Thank you.

I think I may write a fanfic based around this idea ...

I believe there already has been written one like that. And it was a triangle with silver-haired Jon warging into Arya while a legitimized Gendry tried to court her, and Jon trying to steal her several times. I stopped reading after a few switches, because of the high level soap opera.   

[LynnS]

26 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

But don't you see Lynn, after your pristine logic, you've ultimately resorted to a symbolic reading (by invoking the 'great bastard sword'), instead of following RagnarokKing's advice to only accept what you can prove definitively!  Symbolic allusion can not be proved.

LOL! Martin decided to give Jon a great bastard sword and Jon is 'the sword", is he not?    I don't have a problem holding different potentialities in mind.  You realize that I still think the Mountain is going to show up with Robert's head perched on his shoulders.

Quote

 

A Dance with Dragons - Cersei I

"And who would you have him name?"

She did not have a ready answer. My champion will need a new name as well as a new face. "Qyburn will know. Trust him in this. You and I have had our differences, Uncle, but for the blood we share and the love you bore my father, for Tommen's sake and the sake of his poor maimed sister, do as I ask you. Go to Lord Qyburn on my behalf, bring him a white cloak, and tell him that the time has come."

 

I'm expecting a completely twisted version of  Darth Vader to be revealed at some point.   That kindly old man, Qyburn is ready to help Queen Cersei in matters of state!  He has a kind of greasy Palpatine/puppeteer feel to his character.  Don't forget that Robert was more than a brother to uncle Ned. 

 

[ravenous reader]

30 minutes ago, RagnarokKing said:

 

Exactly... it's about holding to the first and second catergories, 

and not falling into the trap of the third catergory, 

It's about not taking something that is not a sure thing and holding it as gospel truth, but rather holding it up as the most reasonable explanation/theory based on evidence and plausibility.

Grooooooaaaaan...am I sensing 'Occam's razor' approaching me again with its mercilessly blunt blade?  You deserve a   just for that!

Instead of attempting to interpret literature -- which I believe cannot be undertaken without an understanding of symbolism -- why don't you stick to doing scientific experiments in the lab?  The statistics in that venue has better odds of satisfying you -- more maths .

[RagnarokKing]

5 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

Grooooooaaaaan...am I sensing 'Occam's razor' approaching me again with its mercilessly blunt blade?  You deserve a   just for that!

Instead of attempting to interpret literature -- which I believe cannot be undertaken without an understanding of symbolism -- why don't you stick to doing scientific experiments in the lab?  The statistics in that venue has better odds of satisfying you -- more maths .

Hahaha , well I will admit Occam's Razor is what I generally try to use to solve problems with competing answers, or at least that is the ideal I uphold, but I don't think that takes away from my ability to understand and consider symbolism.  Indeed I think symbolism provides evidence, though it is untenable at times, for various theories.  The fact that is literature simply needs to be taken into account, because then that adds plenty of variables, that don't apply in the real world; basically things happening and being a certain way for the sake of drama.

[JNR]

9 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

I'm curious as to why you believe Lyanna was there, despite no conclusive canonical proof?

Mainly?  The same reasons Ygrain cites. 

It's an old dream, meaning he's had it when he wasn't febrile; it mentions Lyanna in her bed of blood; and then we have Lyanna actually present and screaming his name at the end, right before the storm of rose petals blow up against the blood-red sky. 

Logically and symbolically it seems fairly sound to guess she was there, but not at all, as you say, conclusive.  I also have another reason I will explain in time.

10 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

You don't think, as @Voice does, that three of the finest kingsguard whose services could better have been employed elsewhere in this crucial time

I think they could certainly have been better employed, and absolutely would have been better employed...

...except that Aerys had no clue where they were and hence, had no power to command them to do a thing.

I also think they themselves weren't too chuffed about that.  Both for canonical reasons and because of this:

Quote

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

Obviously, Prince Rhaegar could only have given them such an order long before the Trident, though we don't know where they were then -- when the order was given -- or afterwards, and therefore, we don't know how long they had been at the ToJ with Lyanna when Ned found them (assuming that was the case).

[Graydon Hicks]

11 hours ago, Crona said:

That's interesting, but I thought skinchanging has to do with the animal's intelligence? How intelligent are dragons? And how would his targ blood factor in with skin changing, if that is his Stark trait. It doesn't seem like he has been training his skin changing skills either nor does it seem he has much control of Ghost when he wargs him. And how do dragons pick their riders, is it because they can sense targ blood? Or is it similar to dogs and you have to gain their trust? I've always thought it was the latter. 

I guess he would control a dragon,  but I don't know how he's going to do it.

well, i have read that the more predatory the animal the skinchanger wargs into, the harder it is to control the beast, and the more dagnerous it becomes to keep you yourself. the bond with the wolves is one thing, i think it has to do witht he nature of wolves, they form a naturally stronger bond with their "person", and they are more intelligent than a regular dog. in fact, most predatory creatures are more intelligent than prey. and i wouldnt be surprised that the dragon are definitely smarter than your average bear, lol. and we know the valyrians of old could control dragons with magic, but we dont have much to gone about that. a lot of that knowledge has been lost since the Doom, and the targaryens likely never share it outside of an active dragonrider.

[Graydon Hicks]

2 hours ago, JNR said:

Mainly?  The same reasons Ygrain cites. 

It's an old dream, meaning he's had it when he wasn't febrile; it mentions Lyanna in her bed of blood; and then we have Lyanna actually present and screaming his name at the end, right before the storm of rose petals blow up against the blood-red sky. 

Logically and symbolically it seems fairly sound to guess she was there, but not at all, as you say, conclusive.  I also have another reason I will explain in time.

I think they could certainly have been better employed, and absolutely would have been better employed...

...except that Aerys had no clue where they were and hence, had no power to command them to do a thing.

I also think they themselves weren't too chuffed about that.  Both for canonical reasons and because of this:

Obviously, Prince Rhaegar could only have given them such an order long before the Trident, though we don't know where they were then -- when the order was given -- or afterwards, and therefore, we don't know how long they had been at the ToJ with Lyanna when Ned found them (assuming that was the case).

folks keep forgetting that arthur dayne and oswell whent werent just rhaegar's bodyguards, they were also his friends, probably his closest. he might not have needed to order, simply asked them to watch over lyanna and the coming child.

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, Graydon Hicks said:

folks keep forgetting that arthur dayne and oswell whent werent just rhaegar's bodyguards, they were also his friends, probably his closest. he might not have needed to order, simply asked them to watch over lyanna and the coming child.

That might be possible if they were the only KG present. However, there was Hightower, as well, Mr Obey-the-king-not-judge-him, who happens to be Lord Commander of the KG. So even if Dayne and Whent might be swayed into going against their vows at least a wee bit, Hightower is not the case, unless his lecture to Jaime about the KG duties was just a sham.

[Graydon Hicks]

10 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

That might be possible if they were the only KG present. However, there was Hightower, as well, Mr Obey-the-king-not-judge-him, who happens to be Lord Commander of the KG. So even if Dayne and Whent might be swayed into going against their vows at least a wee bit, Hightower is not the case, unless his lecture to Jaime about the KG duties was just a sham.

but what if it was more a case that the kingsguard of that day were following the spirit of their oaths, if not the letter? and, unlike the KG of the baratheon/lannister reign, who are all thugs that lannisters want for their level of obedience, not their integrity, the Kg of the targaryen riegn seem to have been considered the paramount of knighthood.

[Ygrain]

29 minutes ago, Graydon Hicks said:

but what if it was more a case that the kingsguard of that day were following the spirit of their oaths, if not the letter? and, unlike the KG of the baratheon/lannister reign, who are all thugs that lannisters want for their level of obedience, not their integrity, the Kg of the targaryen riegn seem to have been considered the paramount of knighthood.

And what oaths would have them guard their friend's baby when their duty is to the king?

[Graydon Hicks]

because that friend's baby is also their prince.

[JNR]

3 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

folks keep forgetting that arthur dayne and oswell whent werent just rhaegar's bodyguards, they were also his friends, probably his closest. he might not have needed to order, simply asked them to watch over lyanna and the coming child.

Those folks apparently including GRRM. 

It's a good interview, full of lots of interesting details.  That bit in which he specifically suggests the KG didn't like the order they got from Rhaegar just being one.