Aemon Targaryen

R + L = J .... but so what?

134 posts in this topic

On 6/27/2017 at 7:15 PM, MakeThemBurn said:

Please, never did I suggest that the Others are poor misunderstood creatures. I suggested that people won't be able to kill their way out of this one. I believe the Others are simply too big to kill and therefore a truce must be negotiated.

 

One way of doing this is to bond fire and ice in the form of Jon and Dany's child being offered to the Night King. Motherhood is such a massive theme in Dany's story and there has to be more to it. And then you have Jon with a Targaryen dad no one has the time to care about this late in the game. We know they will hook up and give birth to a "fire" baby. Add to this the weird plotline in Craster's Keep where babies were offered for the Night King in order to mantain peace. I can't help to think that there's a connection here and the story will end with the themes of ice and fire combining in the way it was implied in Craster's keep.

That's a good point! I forgot about the fact that suddenly, no more babies are being sacrificed. I wonder if that's partly why the Night King and WW are becoming more aggressive? Sacrificing a fire/ice baby would be messed up,  but I feel like this show needs a messed up ending. 

I mentioned this on another post, but I keep thinking that Westeros is about to have its own Doom. Maybe it can't be saved? Anyone who's lucky may have to migrate to Essos, or an unknown continent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

It's very unlikely that Rhaegar would have found someone that would marry him, only a Septon can get him married, since the targaryens technically follow the seven gods, and polygamy if forbidden on the faith of the seven, even if somehow some Sept on went against the rules of his religion and married him that marriage would not be recognised by anyone, Aegon IV also had a mock marriage with a blacksmith's wife before he became king, and no one recognised that marriage either. You are taking leaps if you say Aerys might have permitted him, aerys as the king permitting him to do that would have to come out in public and declare it, besides at that point Aerys clearly didn't trust Rhaegar, why would he do something like that for him?

Making the arguement that Rhaegar and his family followed the seven gods (and do can't do polygamy) doesn't work. The Targearyens were followers of the faith in name only, not in practice. Sure they had converted to the faith of the seven, but they never followed the rules. One of the main rules of the faith is that incest is not forbidden, yet the Targearyens sure didn't respect this rule as they had atleast 6-7 incest marriages (and that's just an estimate from the top of my head). Who's to say that polygamy would be any different? Other things that were forbidden in the faith were kinslaying and guest right - and the Targearyens never completely followed these either. They were never completely serious/followers of the faith, you could argue that they were still practicing the valaryian faith since they carried out Valaryian traditions and customs.

So if you use that point, and combine it with other factors proving that the marriage and Jon were both legitimate:

- The presence of the kingsguard at the tower of joy. After Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead, the kingsguard should have to get to Viserys on Dragonstone. But instead they had stayed at the tower, guarding Rhaegar's mistress/second wife/lover who was somehow more important than their King Viserys? Some argue 'well Rhaegar could have just commanded them to stay at the tower,' but this doesn't make any sense because once Rhaegar was dead, his orders wouldn't count anymore. The fact that they had stayed at the tower after Rhaegar was dead shows that they were there because of their kingsgaurd duty - which was to guard the King and true heir. Then you also have the whole dialogue between Ned and the kingsguard, and the KG are still calling Viserys their 'prince,' which again doesn't make sense if Viserys was the King.

- Then Gerold Hightower also says that they had 'made a vow,' referring to their KG vows. Now, we know from Jaime's POV that Hightower was very honourable and he would follow all his KG duty's (he was so serious about it that he let Rhaella be raped by Aerys, as it was part of being a KG). Sure, Dayne and Whent could have stayed there partly because of their love for Rhaegar, but Hightower wouldn't have done this as he was an Aerys-man, and he would have fled to guard Viserys (if he was the true king). So this means that Hightower was at the tower because the real heir and King was there, not because of Rhaegar's orders.

- The prophecy states that it has to be the 'prince that was promised' not the 'bastard that was promised.' I'm sure Rhaegar would have picked up on this wording as well, if he wanted all three of his 'dragon heads' to be legitimate, or if he believed that the child Lyanna bore was the PTWP and would therefore have to be legitimate. Either way, Rhaegar doesn't strike me as the sort of person to father a bastard since he knew that the prophecy and the three dragon heads require legitimate children.

- There are hints throughout the whole series portraying Jon as a King...which would make absolutely no sense if he was just a bastard. We all know GRRM loves foreshadowing and double meanings (which this is), but be never lies to us - he had never portrayed Joffrey as being a King, instead as the bastard which he truly was. If Jon was a bastard like Joffrey, wouldn't he portray him as a bastard? But no, we get 'king' hints everywhere in Jon's story, so his role as a bastard is definitely just a red herring. 

- Politically, it would be in Aerys's best interest for the Targearyen family to accept the polygamous marriage as a true one.   If Lyanna marries Rhaegar and lives with (and becomes pregnant with a Targearyen child later, which we know she did) then the Starks, Tullys and Arryns have no reason to rebel. Once the marriage and deed was done, the Starks cannot rebel anymore as Lyanna and her child would be part of the Targearayen family. The Tullys would follow, since Cat would be married into the Stark family, and the Arryns as they had fostered Ned. Aerys was insane, but not stupid - he could use Lyanna as leverage against her family and their allies, just as he did with Elia. So now all Aerys had to do was deal with the Baratheons and Martells, by just giving them some sort of compensation, which is way easier than going to war over it. Even if Aerys was hesitating in this matter, we know Rhaegar was planning to take over from him anyway as a regent ruler (and eventually King) so we have evidence that the marriage would be accepted anyway, if it wasn't already.  

So if you use all these factors together, it makes a lot of sense if Rhaegar and Lyanna were married. You may think along the lines of it being 'cheesy' and 'cliche,' but this is what the story is telling us. Again, arguing that GRRM doesn't do fantasy tropes wouldn't go, as he has already broken this - or may break it as he may not even end the story with Jon on the throne, so who knows?

Edited by WeKnowNothing
Meant incest IS forbidden, but the Targearyens still did it. And the faith didn't rebel against this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, WeKnowNothing said:

Making the arguement that Rhaegar and his family followed the seven gods (and do can't do polygamy) doesn't work. The Targearyens were followers of the faith in name only, not in practice. Sure they had converted to the faith of the seven, but they never followed the rules. One of the main rules of the faith is that incest is not forbidden, yet the Targearyens sure didn't respect this rule as they had atleast 6-7 incest marriages (and that's just an estimate from the top of my head). Who's to say that polygamy would be any different? Other things that were forbidden in the faith were kinslaying and guest right - and the Targearyens never completely followed these either. They were never completely serious/followers of the faith, you could argue that they were still practicing the valaryian faith since they carried out Valaryian traditions and customs.

So if you use that point, and combine it with other factors proving that the marriage and Jon were both legitimate:

- The presence of the kingsguard at the tower of joy. After Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead, the kingsguard should have to get to Viserys on Dragonstone. But instead they had stayed at the tower, guarding Rhaegar's mistress/second wife/lover who was somehow more important than their King Viserys? Some argue 'well Rhaegar could have just commanded them to stay at the tower,' but this doesn't make any sense because once Rhaegar was dead, his orders wouldn't count anymore. The fact that they had stayed at the tower after Rhaegar was dead shows that they were there because of their kingsgaurd duty - which was to guard the King and true heir. Then you also have the whole dialogue between Ned and the kingsguard, and the KG are still calling Viserys their 'prince,' which again doesn't make sense if Viserys was the King.

- Then Gerold Hightower also says that they had 'made a vow,' referring to their KG vows. Now, we know from Jaime's POV that Hightower was very honourable and he would follow all his KG duty's (he was so serious about it that he let Rhaella be raped by Aerys, as it was part of being a KG). Sure, Dayne and Whent could have stayed there partly because of their love for Rhaegar, but Hightower wouldn't have done this as he was an Aerys-man, and he would have fled to guard Viserys (if he was the true king). So this means that Hightower was at the tower because the real heir and King was there, not because of Rhaegar's orders.

- The prophecy states that it has to be the 'prince that was promised' not the 'bastard that was promised.' I'm sure Rhaegar would have picked up on this wording as well, if he wanted all three of his 'dragon heads' to be legitimate, or if he believed that the child Lyanna bore was the PTWP and would therefore have to be legitimate. Either way, Rhaegar doesn't strike me as the sort of person to father a bastard since he knew that the prophecy and the three dragon heads require legitimate children.

- There are hints throughout the whole series portraying Jon as a King...which would make absolutely no sense if he was just a bastard. We all know GRRM loves foreshadowing and double meanings (which this is), but be never lies to us - he had never portrayed Joffrey as being a King, instead as the bastard which he truly was. If Jon was a bastard like Joffrey, wouldn't he portray him as a bastard? But no, we get 'king' hints everywhere in Jon's story, so his role as a bastard is definitely just a red herring. 

- Politically, it would be in Aerys's best interest for the Targearyen family to accept the polygamous marriage as a true one.   If Lyanna marries Rhaegar and lives with (and becomes pregnant with a Targearyen child later, which we know she did) then the Starks, Tullys and Arryns have no reason to rebel. Once the marriage and deed was done, the Starks cannot rebel anymore as Lyanna and her child would be part of the Targearayen family. The Tullys would follow, since Cat would be married into the Stark family, and the Arryns as they had fostered Ned. Aerys was insane, but not stupid - he could use Lyanna as leverage against her family and their allies, just as he did with Elia. So now all Aerys had to do was deal with the Baratheons and Martells, by just giving them some sort of compensation, which is way easier than going to war over it. Even if Aerys was hesitating in this matter, we know Rhaegar was planning to take over from him anyway as a regent ruler (and eventually King) so we have evidence that the marriage would be accepted anyway, if it wasn't already.  

So if you use all these factors together, it makes a lot of sense if Rhaegar and Lyanna were married. You may think along the lines of it being 'cheesy' and 'cliche,' but this is what the story is telling us. Again, arguing that GRRM doesn't do fantasy tropes wouldn't go, as he has already broken this - or may break it as he may not even end the story with Jon on the throne, so who knows?

Exactly.  People can't seem to see the forest for the trees.  The ToJ, and the way GRRM (and the show) deals with it, prove beyond all reasonable literary/aesthetic doubt that Jon was the true heir.  The irony is that he gets to the same place by being a bastard, and then, when he finds out he is the true heir, won't care or will renounce it.

As you say, Gerold Hightower as an Aerys man (vs. Arthur Dayne) puts it beyond reasonable doubt, as a matter of literal in-story logic ... let alone all the other ways it makes story sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2017 at 8:42 AM, A Ghost of Someone said:

Well, how is Jon going to be able to prove to anyone who he is at this point? Even if we know it to be true, he looks like a Stark and unless Bran can somehow (if he survives) gathers enough lords together, joins hands, touches a heart tree and replays the whole back story of Rheagar and Lyanna, then how would it affect the potential owner/sitter of the Iron Throne when this is all done. Also, I have doubts of the survival of all major players on this show with the exception of the Imp, the showrunners love him too much to kill him.

Good point. Perhaps ultimately he gains support, based on his own merits, which would perhaps be best anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2017 at 2:14 AM, Nocturne said:

R+L=J will matter in the show, as its painfully obvious that Dany won't survive the war that's coming with the dead. Jon will end up as king, and this will be at lest D&D's idea of a bittersweet ending: Dany gets it all, but ends up being dead in the end, Jon who  doesn't want to end up king,  ends up as one and probably marries someone out of duty and not love in the end.

 

 

At a crisis moment, with our two principals, I agree and think Dany, who wants to break the wheel and change society, will die, and Jon will get exactly what he has never wanted and lose the father he had idolized.

I actually can see Jon on the throne and married to Lyanna Mormont. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10 July 2017 at 0:09 AM, Aemon Targaryen said:

Exactly.  People can't seem to see the forest for the trees.  The ToJ, and the way GRRM (and the show) deals with it, prove beyond all reasonable literary/aesthetic doubt that Jon was the true heir.  The irony is that he gets to the same place by being a bastard, and then, when he finds out he is the true heir, won't care or will renounce it.

As you say, Gerold Hightower as an Aerys man (vs. Arthur Dayne) puts it beyond reasonable doubt, as a matter of literal in-story logic ... let alone all the other ways it makes story sense.

Your spot on in what you just said here. People seem to take the facts that "polygamy is illegal," and that "Rhaegar rapes Lyanna because it says so in the books" or "Jon would always remain a bastard" at face value and don't even CONSIDER the other side of the argument. The way it is handled in the books and in the show, points towards Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love, were most likely married and Jon being legitimate. 

Another thing is (though this is slightly confusing to some) is the reason why Ned hid Jon in the manner that he did. Now, we know that Ned thought very strongly that if Robert or anyone found out that Jon is Rhaegar's son, Jon's death would be ordered right away. We can conclude that Lyanna also thought the same and had hung on to her life so she can make Ned promise to take care of him, and as soon as Ned did so, the 'fear went out of her eyes.' Lyanna wouldn't have reason to fear for Jon's life if he was a bastard - since politically, bastards can do no harm unless legitimised, which no one was going to do for Jon. However, also politically - everyone would now have reasons to kill Jon (which is what Ned was afraid of) if his legitimacy and true parenage was known. After all it's why Robert was so relieved Rhaegar's other kids were dead, so he has no other legitimate contenders of the throne to deal with. So according to Lyanna's last moments and Ned's actions, we can therefore conclude that Jon was worth something for others to kill him or order his immediate death - and this can only be because of his legitimate claim to the throne. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WeKnowNothing said:

Your spot on in what you just said here. People seem to take the facts that "polygamy is illegal," and that "Rhaegar rapes Lyanna because it says so in the books" or "Jon would always remain a bastard" at face value and don't even CONSIDER the other side of the argument. The way it is handled in the books and in the show, points towards Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love, were most likely married and Jon being legitimate. 

Another thing is (though this is slightly confusing to some) is the reason why Ned hid Jon in the manner that he did. Now, we know that Ned thought very strongly that if Robert or anyone found out that Jon is Rhaegar's son, Jon's death would be ordered right away. We can conclude that Lyanna also thought the same and had hung on to her life so she can make Ned promise to take care of him, and as soon as Ned did so, the 'fear went out of her eyes.' Lyanna wouldn't have reason to fear for Jon's life if he was a bastard - since politically, bastards can do no harm unless legitimised, which no one was going to do for Jon. However, also politically - everyone would now have reasons to kill Jon (which is what Ned was afraid of) if his legitimacy and true parenage was known. After all it's why Robert was so relieved Rhaegar's other kids were dead, so he has no other legitimate contenders of the throne to deal with. So according to Lyanna's last moments and Ned's actions, we can therefore conclude that Jon was worth something for others to kill him or order his immediate death - and this can only be because of his legitimate claim to the throne. 

You can argue all you want. Ned letting jon join the NW without telling him the truth is a betrayal towards jon and lyanna in favor of robert. That to me is unforgivable and uncompreensible. I would like to know what grrm has to say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, divica said:

You can argue all you want. Ned letting jon join the NW without telling him the truth is a betrayal towards jon and lyanna in favor of robert. That to me is unforgivable and uncompreensible. I would like to know what grrm has to say about it.

Not sure what that's unforgivable. Either way, he'll be betraying either Robert or Lyanna/Jon in the way you phrased it.

Like Ned said a bastard could raise high in the Night's Watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, divica said:

You can argue all you want. Ned letting jon join the NW without telling him the truth is a betrayal towards jon and lyanna in favor of robert. That to me is unforgivable and uncompreensible. I would like to know what grrm has to say about it.

It definitely was. Ned made Jon make his night watch vows so when Jon finds out he is the result of R+L, he wouldn't be able to make a claim for the throne.

I think that one of the promises Lyanna made Ned make was that he would put foward Jon's claim to the throne and allow Jon to grow up aware of his heritage/inheritance as a Targearyen. Now obviously, Ned never followed this and that's why he reflects upon his 'broken promises' to Lyanna in the black cells. So allowing Jon to take his night watch vows, was going against Lyanna's wishes. But either way, Ned would be cheating someone - if he hid Jon like does in the books, he's cheating Lyanna. And if he doesn't tell Robert that Lyanna never loved him and about Jon, then he's cheating Robert. The fact that he does both of these makes him cheating both Robert and Lyanna.

14 hours ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Like Ned said a bastard could raise high in the Night's Watch.

And a bastard (especially highborn bastards) can rise high in Kingslanding. Yet Ned still makes the poor excuse of 'Jon being a bastard' as the reason why he can't take him to Kings landing. It's double standard, and Ned knows this - but he must strongly feel he definitely cannot take Jon to KL for obvious reasons, so he uses the excuse of him being a bastard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WeKnowNothing said:

It definitely was. Ned made Jon make his night watch vows so when Jon finds out he is the result of R+L, he wouldn't be able to make a claim for the throne.

I think that one of the promises Lyanna made Ned make was that he would put foward Jon's claim to the throne and allow Jon to grow up aware of his heritage/inheritance as a Targearyen. Now obviously, Ned never followed this and that's why he reflects upon his 'broken promises' to Lyanna in the black cells. So allowing Jon to take his night watch vows, was going against Lyanna's wishes. But either way, Ned would be cheating someone - if he hid Jon like does in the books, he's cheating Lyanna. And if he doesn't tell Robert that Lyanna never loved him and about Jon, then he's cheating Robert. The fact that he does both of these makes him cheating both Robert and Lyanna.

And a bastard (especially highborn bastards) can rise high in Kingslanding. Yet Ned still makes the poor excuse of 'Jon being a bastard' as the reason why he can't take him to Kings landing. It's double standard, and Ned knows this - but he must strongly feel he definitely cannot take Jon to KL for obvious reasons, so he uses the excuse of him being a bastard.

I don t remember what he says to varys on the dungeons, but in the show ned literally says he doesn t want a life in the NW for himself.

And I would understand if jon joined the NW even after learning about his parents. He wouldn t tell anyone else the truth. He might go looking for the other targs, but they wouldn t believe him and a life on the run with 2 strangers isn t that appealing. And he wouldn t want to start a war for the iron throne. What could a northern bastard do? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/05/2017 at 9:44 AM, Lady Sansa's Direwolf said:

The reason R+L=J is important is because, it makes Jon the legitimate Tarygaryen heir, not Dany. But Jon will never identify with his Targ ancestry, he is a Stark in coloring and temperament. He is just as much a Stark as any of Ned and Cat's children, perhaps more so because it is the only name he identifies with.

It also makes Jon and Dany aunt and nephew, which reinforces the theory of the Targ line being reestablished. 

The question isn't about who Jon is, the question is, will Bran and Sam tell Jon once they discover the truth? With everything that is happening, I could see them withholding that information until the Great War is completed. Who knows, he might be the only one left standing who has even a remote claim to the title.

I think Either little finger or bran will tell Jon, on the I believe episode two plot summary it says Jon faces a revolt, I just realized maybe the fact that his lineage gets out may be the cause of the revolt. Basically Jon was the result of the war against his father and grandfather which caused many northern casualties. Maybe not but the thought just came to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15 July 2017 at 6:01 PM, divica said:

I don t remember what he says to varys on the dungeons, but in the show ned literally says he doesn t want a life in the NW for himself.

And I would understand if jon joined the NW even after learning about his parents. He wouldn t tell anyone else the truth. He might go looking for the other targs, but they wouldn t believe him and a life on the run with 2 strangers isn t that appealing. And he wouldn t want to start a war for the iron throne. What could a northern bastard do? 

In the books, Ned thinks a lot on Lyanna's "promise me Ned," and then thinks with regret on his "broken promises," especially when he's having the fever induced dreams in the black cells/when he hurts his leg. His 'broken promises,' can only mean he broke more than one aspect of his promise to Lyanna. He kept the part about looking after Jon and keeping him safe, but there were other promises he kept to Lyanna which he didn't keep.

After joining the nights watch, Jon wonders why Ned never tells him the truth about the place - that it was now filled with rapists, thieves and other criminals. Of course, the reason Ned never tells thus to Jon was because he wanted Jon to unintentionally give up his claim to the throne - and if he told Jon the truth, Jon probably wouldn't join the NW. Jon as a high born bastard and then also the bastard of the hand of the King, could have gone to Kings landing and have had real oppurtunities in life. As 'Lord Eddard's bastard son,' he could have trained in fighting in the red keep, had lessons in live-politics, he could have become a squire for the King, Ned himself, or even for a kingsguard like Barristan Selmy. He could have even learnt his own apprentice, like swordfighting, or on the ships, etc. We see bastards do this in the books plenty, yet Ned still refuses to take Jon to KG and uses the excuse of 'bastardy' as the reason why Jon can't stay at court. Which implies that he didn't want Jon to ever be seen at court - but why? I feel it's definitely R+L related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17.07.2017 at 3:49 AM, WeKnowNothing said:

In the books, Ned thinks a lot on Lyanna's "promise me Ned," and then thinks with regret on his "broken promises," especially when he's having the fever induced dreams in the black cells/when he hurts his leg. His 'broken promises,' can only mean he broke more than one aspect of his promise to Lyanna. He kept the part about looking after Jon and keeping him safe, but there were other promises he kept to Lyanna which he didn't keep.

After joining the nights watch, Jon wonders why Ned never tells him the truth about the place - that it was now filled with rapists, thieves and other criminals. Of course, the reason Ned never tells thus to Jon was because he wanted Jon to unintentionally give up his claim to the throne - and if he told Jon the truth, Jon probably wouldn't join the NW. Jon as a high born bastard and then also the bastard of the hand of the King, could have gone to Kings landing and have had real oppurtunities in life. As 'Lord Eddard's bastard son,' he could have trained in fighting in the red keep, had lessons in live-politics, he could have become a squire for the King, Ned himself, or even for a kingsguard like Barristan Selmy. He could have even learnt his own apprentice, like swordfighting, or on the ships, etc. We see bastards do this in the books plenty, yet Ned still refuses to take Jon to KG and uses the excuse of 'bastardy' as the reason why Jon can't stay at court. Which implies that he didn't want Jon to ever be seen at court - but why? I feel it's definitely R+L related.

It makes sense. I don't think Ned has even considered taking Jon to the court, b/c there are two many people familiar with the events and any new person would rise questions. Varys/LF would start digging and probably would find out the truth or ask more questions about Jon. Ned didn't want it.  Actually Ned could have sent Jon to Free Cities, to the Oldtown or elsewhere to take chances in life. But he preffered to keep him away from the whole world, in the NW, where nobody would care or look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think King’s Landing was a dangerous place for Jon, perhaps more dangerous than the Night’s Watch.

It's not hard to imagine Ned wanting Jon as far as possible from Robert, that friend he had not seen in ages, but who is still obsessed with Lyanna to the point that the first thing he does when he sets  foot on Winterfell, is asking for Lyanna’s grave.

We are told that Jon, of all Ned’s sons, is the one who ressembles more his father.  That ressemblance is one of the reasons Cat dislike Jon so much.  Jon and Arya  look “Stark”, the other siblings look more Tully. We are told that Arya “took after their lord father” (GoT), but also that she looks like her aunt Lyanna, to the point that Bran in a vision sees  Lyanna playing with Benjen Stark through the weirwood, and at first, he thinks she is Arya. So, Martin uses Arya (Arya’s aspect) as a sort of link or bridge between Jon and Lyanna, just as a device to preserve the mistery of Jon's birth and avoiding being too obvious about the resemblance between mother and son.

My take is that keeping Jon in the court,  in Robert’s sight and proximity, would have raised doubts and would have led to unavoidable questions… who knows when a look, a gesture, could have struck a chord in Robert’s memories, or in any other person who knew Lyanna. It would only take a second of realization, and all that careful hiding for years would go to hell.

We do not know yet the full conversation between Ned and Lyanna. Did Ned realize in that specific moment that Lyanna was never raped? It had to be one hell of a shock; to finally locate your kidnapped sister only to find out that she is about to die, and to be informed that she was not kidnapped, she was not raped, and discover that the rebellion you carried out against the crown turned out in you stripping the baby you’re holding in your arms (your own blood!) of his rights and his crown.

As tragic as it was, Westeros could have not afforded another civil war.  That’s the reason why  I do not believe that Lyanna asked Ned to inform Jon of his heritage. It would have implied asking Ned to support Jon’s claim with the full strength of House Stark and to go to war against your former allies. I don’t think Lyanna wanted that.

Anyway,  all this thing between Lyanna and Rhaegar doesn’t make much sense to me.  I hope someday we’ll get some better explanation from GRRM. None  of the versions of the tale we are told (rape from Rhaegar or voluntary elopement)  suit a Prince Crowned. And if he wanted to marry her, even as second wife, surely he could have found a better way to proceed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now