R+L=J v.22

[Lady Octarina]

My favorites for confirmation of Jon's parentage (or at least, the possibility) would be Benjen and Barristan. Benjen probably knew of R+L, and we know Barristan knew. Lastly, Bran or Bloodraven might be a possibility, particularly if we get a more explicit scene with Ned in front of the heart tree of Winterfell, or if Rhaegar and Lyanna married in front of a weirwood. And then there still might be some info hidden in the crypts of Winterfell...

The problem with Bran or Bloodraven is that they could only confirm R+L=J to the readers. If it becomes necessary for the characters to learn about that, it has to be through someone who is not in a cave and who has a believable claim to knowing the truth. As for Barristan, well... he doesn't know about Jon, but I do wonder if he wouldn't see something of Rhaegar in him, if he had a good look at Jon. Not to mention that his word would be the only one to convince Daenerys, if it becomes necessary for her to learn of his identity, so...

[Dragonfish]

It isn't known when those men were commanded to guard Lyanna there. They could have been there for months, it's not like everything had happened at once.

Oh, they most certainly went there before Aerys was dead. But as I explained in a post above, the real question is why they stayed there after Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon were dead.

And I'm not sure about this but doesn't one need to be crowned in order officially become the king?

One becomes king through inheritance (unless you are the first of a dynasty, as Aegont the Conqueror was). A coronation ceremony may make it official, but it is the inheritance that gives you the right, and it is the right that (theoretically) makes people follow you. As such, the Kingsguard's loyalty ought to have transfered to Viserys after Aerys death ("the king is dead, long live the king" and all that).

Viserys was fleeing the country, which makes him a deserter and traitor.

Viserys did not flee, his father ordered that he and his mother be taken to Dragonstone (which, by the way, is still technically a part of Westeros). This does not make him a traitor, it makes him a king in exile.

[Gentso]

Firstly, Viserys was still on Dragonstone, and that is still in Westeros so he hadn't and wasn't fleeing the country. Secondly, being a king isn't like being in the Night's Watch so I don't think there is such a thing as punishment for being a deserter king. Also if he was the king and he left the country, who is he being a traitor to? Himself?Thirdly, he was just a little boy, if he was 'fleeing' I don't think anyone would blame him, in fact it probably wasn't a bad idea for his supporters to take him into exile for his own safety.

I just reread the Tower of Joy sequence. The kingsguard obviously felt that retreating even to Dragonstone WAS fleeing because when asked when they aren't there they reply with the kingsuard doesn't flee. It's probably implied that by being in Dragonstone that they were leaving the country. There isn't a punishment, but there are obvious consequences. It allows the usurper to be king and from that point on anyone will have to fight for the crown.

[butterbumps!]

Taking out whether R+L=J is actually true, do readers want Jon to be a Targaryen, and if so, what would this add to Jon's arc?

I came to R + L = J a while back on my own, and I had to say that I actually felt disappointed over the prospect. I'm not 100% sold on "fire and ice" being the ultimate endgame of the plot, and I innately want to believe that whatever balance must be restored will not be done so through the properties of genetics (i.e. that Jon is in a unique position to accomplish whatever he does because of his bloodline). I know that free will versus prophesy/ bloodline is an ongoing theme of the series, and I suppose I would find it disappointing if everything suddenly resolved itself in Jon's arc because "he's blood of the dragon, and thus has both a huge advantage in destroying the Others and, oh, by the way, Westeros suddenly acknowledges him as having the best claim to the Throne" or something.

But on a re-read, I became hopeful about the prospect of R+L=J to the degree that it could undermine the role of genetic advantage/ prophesy in favor of personal choice-- i.e. that if Jon does find out about his "true" origins, that he negates whatever advantages or characteristics that come with this knowledge, and that THAT's what the point of R+L=J is in the first place. In another thread, Tze outlined a much more beautifully articulated argument for this that I think ought to be cited: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/52225-evidence-to-discredit-rlj-thread/page__pid__3064210__st__240#entry3064210

Anyway, just curious.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I just reread the Tower of Joy sequence. The kingsguard obviously felt that retreating even to Dragonstone WAS fleeing because when asked when they aren't there they reply with the kingsuard doesn't flee. It's probably implied that by being in Dragonstone that they were leaving the country. There isn't a punishment, but there are obvious consequences. It allows the usurper to be king and from that point on anyone will have to fight for the crown.

Retreating to Dragonstone would have been fleeing for them because the king was not on Dragonstone. If Viserys was on Dragonstone and he was actually the king, going to Dragonstone would not have been fleeing. You're not understanding the text. Dragonstone is part of Westeros proper, even though it's on an island. It is not foreign territory and if you have that impression it's an incorrect one.

[Jem]

I just reread the Tower of Joy sequence. The kingsguard obviously felt that retreating even to Dragonstone WAS fleeing because when asked when they aren't there they reply with the kingsuard doesn't flee. It's probably implied that by being in Dragonstone that they were leaving the country. There isn't a punishment, but there are obvious consequences. It allows the usurper to be king and from that point on anyone will have to fight for the crown.

Yes it would be fleeing for the Kingsguard - because they would be fleeing from the king (ie Jon), not because they were fleeing from the country (which, as I said, Dragonstone is still in the country, so is not fleeing from the country).

[Alia of the knife]

Taking out whether R+L=J is actually true, do readers want Jon to be a Targaryen, and if so, what would this add to Jon's arc?

I came to R + L = J a while back on my own, and I had to say that I actually felt disappointed over the prospect. I'm not 100% sold on "fire and ice" being the ultimate endgame of the plot, and I innately want to believe that whatever balance must be restored will not be done so through the properties of genetics (i.e. that Jon is in a unique position to accomplish whatever he does because of his bloodline). I know that free will versus prophesy/ bloodline is an ongoing theme of the series, and I suppose I would find it disappointing if everything suddenly resolved itself in Jon's arc because "he's blood of the dragon, and thus has both a huge advantage in destroying the Others and, oh, by the way, Westeros suddenly acknowledges him as having the best claim to the Throne" or something.

But on a re-read, I became hopeful about the prospect of R+L=J to the degree that it could undermine the role of genetic advantage/ prophesy in favor of personal choice-- i.e. that if Jon does find out about his "true" origins, that he negates whatever advantages or characteristics that come with this knowledge, and that THAT's what the point of R+L=J is in the first place. In another thread, Tze outlined a much more beautifully articulated argument for this that I think ought to be cited: http://asoiaf.wester...40#entry3064210

Anyway, just curious.

That was an awesome post.

I have always felt that for Jon, that other than finding out who his Mother was, he would inevitably be disappointed that Ned was not his real Father, though it made him a bastard, and he would not be happy at all to be the Heir to the Iron Throne.

[Ser Justin Scummy]

You know before I joined this forum I never even suspected that Jon was anything other then Ned's bastard. Why?

Well because Ned was like the perfect person Honorable, True, and and Sincere...so for him to have a "Skeleton" in his closet makes him more human and I believe that is why eveyone accepted his story because They wanted to believe that he is not such a goody-goody but Now that I have had time to think and with the Kingguard being at the ToJ and Ned's promise to Lyanna before she died it really makes sense and another thing is Ned's adversion to killing off all the Targaryens...Dany and her baby...If he condoned killing them then he would have no excuse for protecting Jon the way he did ....I mean even if Jon wasn;t there I don't think he would have doen it still but I also believe that Jon being half Targ had an influence on his response to Robert about Killing them.

[Gentso]

Retreating to Dragonstone would have been fleeing for them because the king was not on Dragonstone. If Viserys was on Dragonstone and he was actually the king, going to Dragonstone would not have been fleeing. You're not understanding the text. Dragonstone is part of Westeros proper, even though it's on an island. It is not foreign territory and if you have that impression it's an incorrect one.

You need to convince the Kingsguard, not me. They are the ones who said they don't flee when asked about Viserys on Dragonstone, which is the point I'm trying to convey.

Yes it would be fleeing for the Kingsguard - because they would be fleeing from the king (ie Jon), not because they were fleeing from the country (which, as I said, Dragonstone is still in the country, so is not fleeing from the country).

But Viserys is next in line after Aerys? o_O

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

You need to convince the Kingsguard, not me. They are the ones who said they don't flee when asked about Viserys on Dragonstone, which is the point I'm trying to convey.

I don't know what about this you don't understand. Going to Viserys on Dragonstone would have been fleeing because Viserys was not the king, not because Dragonstone is foreign territory. It's about the person, not the place.

But Viserys is next in line after Aerys? o_O

Your succession is incorrect. If Jon is legitimate (which the presence of the Kingsguard suggests), then he is the king, not Viserys. It'd be Aerys -> Rhaegar -> Aegon -> Jon -> Viserys. Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon are all dead by that point (or believed dead). So Jon, if he's legitimate, would be the king.

[butterbumps!]

I have always felt that for Jon, that other than finding out who his Mother was, he would inevitably be disappointed that Ned was not his real Father, though it made him a bastard, and he would not be happy at all to be the Heir to the Iron Throne.

My thoughts exactly.

[Noelle Snow]

Just bumping so this can be pinned.

[Ser Justin Scummy]

Just bumping so this can be pinned.

bump away

[Knight of the Crying Bush]

Im new here and have been a fan and reader of the books for some years and lingered on the threads for a while. Sorry if im late but wanted to comment on something from the previous thread. Do we have a COD for Lyanna? I don't ever remember reading it. And in regards to Neds explanation for Jon, there isn't any reason he couldn't be his son and no one would really know whether or not Lyanna had a child while she was gone so while the events are mysterious and suspicions could be raised what appeared on the surface and whatever Ned did say probably made perfect sense. It seems if anything any questions that may be raised would be more about who is the mother of neds child, not whether the child is his or not. Unless there are people somewhere that know Lyanna was pregnant or why she died no one could really assume she was pregnant. And after all of that is said and done, then no one really cares all that much beyond whatever Ned told them. And if some people suspect it was ashara, they figure well she has passed away so why dwell on it. I would like to hear any opinions on what the consensus opinion of lyannas COD was though.

[kephv]

I would like to hear any opinions on what the consensus opinion of lyannas COD was though.

COD?

[corbon]

@Screaming Knight

I'm having a tough time conveying my thoughts clearly I guess. I believe R+L=J. I believe it partly because of Ned's thoughts of rhaegar when he was at the brothel and his dream in the dungeon. I primarily believe it because of the KG being at the TOJ and there he found Lyanna in her bed of blood. I have reason to believe everyone knows Ned was involved in a fight with the KG based on cersei's words to Ned about ashara.

Cersei's words about Ashara point to the fact that everyone knows he went to Starfall (to return Dawn) and came away from Starfall with Jon (and Lyanna's bones), and left Ashara apparently having committed suicide.

I don't think anyone knows any more than that. There is an inference that he probably fought Arthur Dayne, but I don't think that possibility automatically transfers to the rest of the missing KG. Arthur Dayne was initially separated from them, and probably always presumed to be alone with Lyanna, since Rhaegar reappeared without him.

I have to believe that cersei would have talked to jaime about this. They seemed to share everything with one another. And the timing of events alone are so blatantly obvious that anyone who gave these events, the possibility of rhaegar and Lyanna having intercourse, and Ned returning with a bastard son while refusing to speak of the mother, a little bit of thought could come to the conclusion that this bastard may be the son rhaegar targaryen. And that is a very big deal. One more time, I am annoyed( not skeptical) that I have to believe because Ned said it and that no one gives a shit about bastards that everyone kept quiet on the matter. I mean Jon could possibly be a Targaryen and a Stark. If anyone in a position of power suspected that they would without a doubt bring it forward. It would seem so obvious that many other lords ( especially southern lords) would support it, because of the threat someone with those blood lines would pose.

As I have already said, I think the answer is that it is not just because 'Ned said' and 'no one cares about bastards' that people don't seem to suspect that Jon is R=L.

It is because Ned didn't say, but also didn't deny and tried to shut down rumours, that the logical explanation for the 'known facts' is that Ashara was Jon's mother and Ned really is is father.

Reiterating.

1. Ned is known to have 'reappeared' after the war at Starfall.

2. Jon's first public appearance is at Starfall.

3. Ned takes Jon away from Starfall.

4. Ashara of Starfall commits suicide when Ned does this (or so people believe).

5. There may be old rumours of Ashara Dayne being dishonoured at Harrenhal, possibly by a Stark.

1+2+3+4, possibly+5= Jon is a Stark bastard that Ned takes home to be raised as a Stark, against Ashara's will, causing her suicide.

6. Rumour of Ashara being Jon's mother are shut down by Ned at Winterfell. But never denied.

No need to hunt further. Ashara is the mother, who cares which Stark is the father. Nothing particularly interesting to delve deeper here.

Its very simple. People have worked out on their own a naughty, delicious, salacious, romantic, tragic tale that fits everything perfectly. And is later confirmed by Jon having the Stark look.

They don't push further because they believe they have already worked out the answer, and it wasn't force-fed them either.

[corbon]

Do we have a COD for Lyanna? I don't ever remember reading it.

She had a fever, and was lying in a bed of blood. Then she died.

Bed of Blood is used in several places as a synonym for giving birth.

Perpueral Fever, from childbirth, was a massive killer before modern sanitary and antiseptic practices historically.

For example, Henry VIII's mother died from perpeural fever contracted during his delivery a week after his birth.

So the general consensus is that Lyanna died as a result of post-birth complications, probably perpeural fever. A few crackpots try uo theorise that she was wounded in fighting or some other crazy theories, but they fit firmly into the crackpottery realm.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

She had a fever, and was lying in a bed of blood. Then she died.

Bed of Blood is used in several places as a synonym for giving birth.

Perpueral Fever, from childbirth, was a massive killer before modern sanitary and antiseptic practices historically.

For example, Henry VIII's mother died from perpeural fever contracted during his delivery a week after his birth.

So the general consensus is that Lyanna died as a result of post-birth complications, probably perpeural fever. A few crackpots try uo theorise that she was wounded in fighting or some other crazy theories, but they fit firmly into the crackpottery realm.

Correct on all counts except ... Elizabeth of York died of puerperal fever after giving birth to her youngest daughter (who also died). Years after Henry VIII was born, it wasn't related to his delivery. Carry on. ;)

[Lord Damian]

The thing about Lyanna, She was so tough, a she wolf. i understand that giving birth, including a first child was dangerous for the mother in medeval society. After reading ADwD I was hit by the possibility that maybe she gave birth to twins and that trauma, being her first birth would be enough to kill such a strong woman. "Whylla" is a name that might be more than a red herring or maybe not. Switching babies seems to be something that could have been pulled off but not here. Jon is definitely a Stark either through Lyanna as mother or Ned or Brandon as a father. Ned never calls directly to Jon as "son" in AGoT and that is signifigant. I am paranoid of twists in this series after Aegon/Young Griff that it would not surprise me if GRRM has Jon as Brandon's boy with Ashara Dayne and Lyana might still be alive with Rheagar's kid (maybe he is Aegon/Young Griff and she is Septa Lemore), who the f knows. What about the Kingsguard? Did all of them die or was there a solution offered that included them as faking their deaths and taking the pince into exile to save him? Or did it all go down as the peices of this story have suggested they did. Until Howland Reed reveals himself, drinks a large stein of ale and finds someone to talk to, we may never know.

[Knight of the Crying Bush]

She had a fever, and was lying in a bed of blood. Then she died.

Bed of Blood is used in several places as a synonym for giving birth.

Perpueral Fever, from childbirth, was a massive killer before modern sanitary and antiseptic practices historically.

For example, Henry VIII's mother died from perpeural fever contracted during his delivery a week after his birth.

So the general consensus is that Lyanna died as a result of post-birth complications, probably perpeural fever. A few crackpots try uo theorise that she was wounded in fighting or some other crazy theories, but they fit firmly into the crackpottery realm.

yes i remember the bed of blood. but only the reader is privy to that right? is this what the rest of the characters in the book believe? she died in childbirth? where does everyone think the child is?