R + L = J v 68

[SkaggCannibal]

What is the general stance on the ToJ concerning Jon's birthdate, was it close to when Ned arrived (bed of blood), was it before Rhaegar died, or was it in between? Didn't the KG make a huge gamble when they stayed with Lyanna while not knowing whether it would be a boy or a girl? If it had been a girl, they would have not been guarding the next King and have left the true King (Viserys) on his own. When they heard Rhaegar died, shouldn't they at least have send one of them to Viserys on Dragonstone, to protect the heir? It seems the logical step when one takes their vows very literal as having to protect the current King. Because at this point it was Viserys, since Jon was not yet born. Anyone a good explanation?

I'm sorry if I intrude in the current discussion, but I don't know a better place to get some answers.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

What is the general stance on the ToJ concerning Jon's birthdate, was it close to when Ned arrived (bed of blood), was it before Rhaegar died, or was it in between? Didn't the KG make a huge gamble when they stayed with Lyanna while not knowing whether it would be a boy or a girl? If it had been a girl, they would have not been guarding the next King and have left the true King (Viserys) on his own. When they heard Rhaegar died, shouldn't they at least have send one of them to Viserys on Dragonstone, to protect the heir? It seems the logical step when one takes their vows very literal as having to protect the current King. Because at this point it was Viserys, since Jon was not yet born. Anyone a good explanation?

I'm sorry if I intrude in the current discussion, but I don't know a better place to get some answers.

The timeline given for Jon's birth is from the time of the Sack up to a month after, based on him being born 8-9 months before Dany and Dany being born 9 months after her mother fled King's Landing. There's a little wiggle room here; she seems to have been conceived at about the time of the Trident (Rhaella left right after that and still had marks from the rape, so it couldn't have occurred too long before then). However I think for most people that time frame, from the Sack to a month after, is the accepted window and the simplest.

If Lyanna died of puerperal fever, which I think is probably the most logical cause of death, then Jon was probably born no earlier than 10 days before she died. I think 7-10 days is generally the window for that kind of fever. I say "probably" because GRRM could always toss in "she held on for an extra day or two," and it's also possible that Jon's delivery in and of itself lasted a full day or longer, which also tacks on some time.

As for the Viserys question, I think the most reasonable explanation is that by the time the Kingsguard knew that Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon were dead, Jon had already been born and was born healthy and male and was thus the king. That doesn't mean that Jon was born before they all died, only before the men received the news. Note the distinction, it's important. And before they had heard the news, there was no reason to go to Viserys, because 1. the other four Kingsguard were still alive, 2. they wouldn't have known where Viserys was; for all they knew he was still in King's Landing, and 3. they would think that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were still alive, so why bother with Viserys? Given the isolation of the Tower and how soon the Sack followed the Trident, I think it's very plausible that rather than getting the news about Rhaegar in one take and the news about Aerys and Aegon in a second take, the news came bundled together in one lump sum. That very easily explains why no one made a break for Viserys before Jon was born; they wouldn't have known it was even necessary, and by the time they did know it was necessary, it didn't matter because Jon had already been born and been born male.

[Arya kiddin']

Great minds think alike :P I posted the very observation in the previous thread, before the, uh, carnal pleasures took over, or perhaps before the merging; either way, it was washed down into sewers of history.

In other words, yes, in Ned's own very first PoV, GRRM tells us black on white that Ned is not the type to have extramarital sex and father a bastard.

I see the positive point of my post was also noted. :P

[J. Stargaryen]

I recognize the word play, and I do not think that GRRM made such a play in error; in fact, I feel that it was very purposeful.

However, I am not sold on the idea that Jon Snow will ever rise the thrown in the way that many seem to believe. I think that he is a prime example of what happens when a prophecy goes wrong… Sure, Jon will most likely supply the story with some sort of resolution, though probably not intentionally...

So I believe that GRRM's word play was no mistake, but was he handing out clues or red-herrings?

If he was handing out clues, then well, there is not really anything special about this story when compared to the next.

On the other hand, if he was dishing out red herrings in the hopes of ensnaring a majority of his readership in a giant snare, then that would be a feat worth discussing & it would set ASOIAF apart from other fantasy series.

I think you're making a somewhat common mistake here; that is, conflating Jon being born a king with Jon ending up a king. The latter doesn't necessarily follow from the former. And even if Jon does end up a king, there are people like me who think it will be as a Stark, based on Robb's will.

---

Speaking of that, if Jon were to become the king as a Stark, I think there is a chance he would adopt the name Aegon VII. That is, assuming (f)Aegon at least briefly sits the throne as Aegon VI. It would kind of have a Henry Tudor vibe, since he was the seventh Henry, yet the first Tudor to sit the throne.

"Six have been found. We are all waiting for the seventh."

[Lyse Stark]

I think you're making a somewhat common mistake here; that is, conflating Jon being born a king with Jon ending up a king. The latter doesn't necessarily follow from the former. And even if Jon does end up a king, there are people like me who think it will be as a Stark, based on Robb's will.

---

Speaking of that, if Jon were to become the king as a Stark, I think there is a chance he would adopt the name Aegon VII. That is, assuming (f)Aegon at least briefly sits the throne as Aegon VI. It would kind of have a Henry Tudor vibe, since he was the seventh Henry, yet the first Tudor to sit the throne.

"Six have been found. We are all waiting for the seventh."

Actually, I believe that Jon will keep his name. Why? Because it ties with his Stark roots and to the land of Westeros, and I believe that a Targaryen name will feel alien to him, so he'll keep to plain old Jon because it is like a comfortable old broken-in glove to him. And being a follower of the Old Gods, Jon may eschew the old Targaryen names for Stark names, as he know it's time for a change, and the change of dynasty may also mean a change in name traditions. Where names like Aegon, Rhaenys, Jaeharys and Aerys, once were prominent, there will be Brandons, Lyannas, Robbs, and Eddards.

[J. Stargaryen]

Actually, I believe that Jon will keep his name. Why? Because it ties with his Stark roots and to the land of Westeros, and I believe that a Targaryen name will feel alien to him, so he'll keep to plain old Jon because it is like a comfortable old broken-in glove to him. And being a follower of the Old Gods, Jon may eschew the old Targaryen names for Stark names, as he know it's time for a change, and the change of dynasty may also mean a change in name traditions. Where names like Aegon, Rhaenys, Jaeharys and Aerys, once were prominent, there will be Brandons, Lyannas, Robbs, and Eddards.

You could be right, but I've never been of the belief that Jon will completely disregard his Targaryen heritage. This would provide a way for him to acknowledge the fire half of his existence. Also, taking the name Aegon VII would show continuity, that he was claiming to rule the same kingdom, more or less, that the first Aegon did.

I don't think it's a crazy idea either. There are a bunch of threads that wonder what Jon's Targaryen name is, was, or will be.

[finger]

I would like to answer a question from the previous thread, where it was asked how long Lyanna was missing, and whether or not it was possible she had been missing for 2 years, since apparently, there are people on threads suggesting this.

Before I begin my story with lots and lots of numbers :) I'd like to cite my source: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/84563-most-precise-asoiaf-timeline-in-existence/

The most precise ASOIAF time line in existence (according to the OP at least). The document provided there is huge and wonderful, truly. But, more importantly, I ignored the time line part, and looked at the distances and travel speed parts. I have actually taken my maps from the Lands of Ice and Fire to try and calculate whether or not the distances are representative to one another. And the answer is "Yes, they are."

So here I begin:

First, we sum up some facts:

(1) Lyanna was 16 when she died in 283 AC, so she was born in 267 AC. When she died the Rebellion had just ended.

(2) Robert's Rebellion had lasted close to a year.

(3) Brandon died in 282 AC, one of the events which sparked the beginning of Roberts Rebellion.

Concluding from (1), (2) and (3), there was about a year in between Lyanna's death and Brandon/Rickards deaths.

(4) Brandon was on his way from Winterfell to Riverrun when he heard about Lyanna's disappearance.

(5) Brandon died several days before he was to wed Catelyn (as said so by Ned).

(6) Brandon was 20 when he died.

(7) Brandon was also 20 when he fought a duel against Petyr Baelish, who was 15 at the time, when his marriage to Catelyn was made public. After this duel, Brandon left, and vowed to Catelyn they would marry upon his return.

(8) When Aegon was born, Rhaegar was present in KL, as the maesters spoke to him, and he met with Elia and baby Aegon to name the child and play on his harp.

(9) Rhaenys was 3 when she died in 283 AC, so she was born in 280 AC.

(10) Aegon was born in 282 AC, since he was about 1 year old when he died in 283 AC.

(11) Harrenhall happened in 281 AC.

(12) Elia was at Harrenhal with Rhaegar, Aerys etc. No pregnancy on her part has been mentioned.

(13) A pregnancy takes 9 months. Since the Martells are fond of mentioning the pregnancies in their families which took less than 9 months (like how Elia was born after only 8 months of pregnancy), and nothing such has been mentioned about Elia, we can assume Elia's pregnancy of Aegon lasted the full 9 months.

Since we don't know where Lyanna was when she disappeared (though it cannot have been Winterfell, since Rickard was there and he would have noticed before Brandon did if she was missing, and thus he would have acted before Brandon), I've put her location at the middle of Westeros, and the most central structure I could find was Harrenhal.

Taken from the time line document: Distances:

From King's Landing to Harrenhal (Rhaegar, Dayne and Whent): 380 miles

From Harrenhal to ToJ (Rhaegar, Dayne, Whent, Lyanna): 1030 miles

From Riverrun to King's Landing: 750 miles

From Brandon's location to King's Landing: 860 miles

A raven's distance from King's Landing to Winterfell: 1685 miles

From Winterfell to King's Landing: 2010 miles

A raven's distance from King's Landing to the Eyrie: 670 miles

For my calculations, I have assumed the following: the smaller parties would have travelled at a fast pace. The fastest pace in the document for small parties is 50 miles per day. This includes a rest day per 3 days of travel. The ravens, at fast pace, travel about 334 miles per day when they travel longer than 4 days, and 364 miles per day when they travel 2 to 4 days.

Here we go, try to keep up.

From King's Landing to Harrenhal (Rhaegar, Dayne and Whent): 380 miles -> 10 days

From Harrenhal to ToJ (Rhaegar, Dayne, Whent, Lyanna): 1030 miles -> 27,5 days

From Riverrun to King's Landing: 750 miles

From Brandon's location to King's Landing: 860 miles -> 23 days

A raven's distance from King's Landing to Winterfell: 1685 miles -> 5 days

From Winterfell to King's Landing: 2010 miles -> 53 days

A raven's distance from King's Landing to the Eyrie: 670 miles -> 2-3 days

Also, I assume that about 7 days after Lyanna disappeared, Brandon learned of it (the news had to travel to Riverrun, a rider would have had to find Brandon). And that is assuming Brandon learned from Riverrun, and not Winterfell, since he would have been closer to Riverrun than Winterfell.

So Aegon get's born. Rhaegar is still around for a little while. Let's give him a fortnight. Then he disappears.

10 days later, he arrives at Lyanna's position. They leave for ToJ. 7 days later (=17), Brandon learns of Lyanna's disappearance. He rides for KL in 23 days (=40). There, he is imprisoned. A raven is send to KL to summon Rickard, which takes 5 days (=45). Rickard summons his bannermen and starts south, which we shall give a fortnight (=59). Rickard arrives in KL 53 days later, assuming he went by horse. If he went by ship, his voyage would be 29 days. But, assuming he went by horse, so he could meet his bannermen on the road (=102). Rickard and Brandon die and a raven flies from KL to the Eyrie to Jon Arryn, which takes 2 to 3 days. Let's say it arrived on the third day (=105).

So from the moment Rhaegar had left until Jon Arryn calls his banners, 104 days have passed (roughly 3,5 months).

Robert's Rebellion begins. It lasts, to quote GRRM, close to a year. I gave Rhaegar a fortnight after Aegon's birth to disappear. Together with the 3.5 months we know now have passed between Rhaegar's disappearance the the beginning of RR, that's a 4 month old baby Aegon.

The quote, close to a year, made me feel the rebellion did not last a full year, but a little less. So, about 10 months, my guts tell me. That would make Aegon 14 months old, so, about 1 year old, as Tywin had put it.

Now on to Lyanna. She disappeared about a month after Aegon's birth (fortnight + ten days = 24 days, so a little over 3 weeks). Which would set her having been gone until the moment of the Sack 13,25 months.

From KL to Storm's End is 480 miles, which comes down to 12.5 days of travel. From Storm's End to ToJ is 645 miles, which comes down to 17 days of travel. 13,25 months + 12,5 days + 17 days = 14,25 months. That would put Ned finding her at roughly 14 months after her disappearance. That is excluding the few days Ned would have taken to actually lift the siege at Storm's End.

So, to answer the questions: Yes, Lyanna's disappearance could have been around 15 months, though it will most likely be closer to 14 months. No, two full pregnancies would not be possible, even if both pregnancies ended premature (at, for example 8 months, which would be dangerous for both children). Also, a woman's body needs time to recover from a pregnancy and a birth, so there would have to be a few weeks/two months between birth #1 and conception #2. So no, no two pregnancies.

A miscarriage would add nothing to the story.

No, Lyanna cannot have been gone for 2 years. That would mean Rhaegar missed the conception and birth of his son, and we know he was present at both :P

I hope you all enjoyed my calculations. I truly hope I didn't make a counting mistake :)

Edit: as to why I would write all this, in addition to answer the questions: I totally love details, and this makes everything more complete in my eyes :)

Great job!

Still, I have a doubt. I've been trying to recall where it's said that Aegon was born at KL. Rahaegar was Prince of Dragonstone, and I wonder if Elia could have gone to Dragonstone bo give him birth. I can't recall any textual evidence for any.

Eta. Otoh, I don't think what happend at HH went so far as to another child. I'd take Harwin's words about things that happen in tourneys.

[J. Stargaryen]

Last thread a few of us were involved in a discussion regarding dragon dreams. Specifically the literal vs. figurative nature of the dragons in the dreams. That is, are we talking about fire breathing, winged lizards or silver haired, purple eyed sibling diddlers?

Well, I'm rereading The Hedge Knight, and I came across this passage which shows that in story, Daeron the Drunken recognizes that the dragons are, or can be, figurative:

“Did I? Well, it’s so. My dreams are not like yours, Ser Duncan. Mine are true. They frighten me. You frighten me. I dreamed of you and a dead dragon, you see. A great beast, huge, with wings so large they could cover this meadow. It had fallen on top of you, but you were alive and the dragon was dead.”
“Did I kill it?”
“That I could not say, but you were there, and so was the dragon. We were the masters of dragons once, we Targaryens. Now they are all gone, but we remain. I don’t care to die today. The gods alone know why, but I don’t. So do me a kindness if you would, and make certain it is my brother Aerion you slay.”

Not that this is going to settle matters wrt to last thread's discussion, but I wanted to post this as an FYI/PSA. Because I think most of us are under the impression that the dragons in prophecies or dreams were always thought to be literal dragons – in story. As you can see above, at least one of the Targaryen dreamers realized that is not necessarily the case.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

You could be right, but I've never been of the belief that Jon will completely disregard his Targaryen heritage. This would provide a way for him to acknowledge the fire half of his existence. Also, taking the name Aegon VII would show continuity, that he was claiming to rule the same kingdom, more or less, that the first Aegon did.

I don't think it's a crazy idea either. There are a bunch of threads that wonder what Jon's Targaryen name is, was, or will be.

It's not impossible, but I don't think Jon would want to abandon the name Eddard gave him and he grew up with. Targaryens don't always have to have Valyrian names anyway. If Duncan hadn't given up his claim to the throne, he would have eventually become King Duncan I Targaryen. Of course, if Jon was born a few days before Lyanna died, as speculated above, he may already have another name.

[J. Stargaryen]

It's not impossible, but I don't think Jon would want to abandon the name Eddard gave him and he grew up with. Targaryens don't always have to have Valyrian names anyway. If Duncan hadn't given up his claim to the throne, he would have eventually become King Duncan I Targaryen. Of course, if Jon was born a few days before Lyanna died, as speculated above, he may already have another name.

Just to clarify, what I'm saying is that his name would be Aegon VII of House Stark. The purpose being twofold: 1) it would be a nod to his dual Targ-Stark heritage, and; 2) it would add a sense of continuity to his reign. Being the seventh King Aegon to rule over Westeros.

I suppose I could further clarify for those who aren't familiar with my take on the endgame. Though I think there are a number of possible scenarios, the one I favor the most is Jon ruling Westeros as a Stark via Robb's will. I'm not sure that his true parentage will ever become known. In other words, I think he might well rule as the legitimized bastard son of Ned Stark.

Lord Eddard Stark is my father. I will not forget him, no matter how many swords they give me.

- AGoT, Jon VIII

The Iron Throne was full of traps for the unwary. The songs said it had taken a thousand blades to make it, heated white-hot in the furnace breath of Balerion the Black Dread.

- AGoT, Eddard XI

[Ser Creighton]

I would like to answer a question from the previous thread, where it was asked how long Lyanna was missing, and whether or not it was possible she had been missing for 2 years, since apparently, there are people on threads suggesting this.

Before I begin my story with lots and lots of numbers :) I'd like to cite my source: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/84563-most-precise-asoiaf-timeline-in-existence/

The most precise ASOIAF time line in existence (according to the OP at least). The document provided there is huge and wonderful, truly. But, more importantly, I ignored the time line part, and looked at the distances and travel speed parts. I have actually taken my maps from the Lands of Ice and Fire to try and calculate whether or not the distances are representative to one another. And the answer is "Yes, they are."

So here I begin:

First, we sum up some facts:

(1) Lyanna was 16 when she died in 283 AC, so she was born in 267 AC. When she died the Rebellion had just ended.

(2) Robert's Rebellion had lasted close to a year.

(3) Brandon died in 282 AC, one of the events which sparked the beginning of Roberts Rebellion.

Concluding from (1), (2) and (3), there was about a year in between Lyanna's death and Brandon/Rickards deaths.

(4) Brandon was on his way from Winterfell to Riverrun when he heard about Lyanna's disappearance.

(5) Brandon died several days before he was to wed Catelyn (as said so by Ned).

(6) Brandon was 20 when he died.

(7) Brandon was also 20 when he fought a duel against Petyr Baelish, who was 15 at the time, when his marriage to Catelyn was made public. After this duel, Brandon left, and vowed to Catelyn they would marry upon his return.

(8) When Aegon was born, Rhaegar was present in KL, as the maesters spoke to him, and he met with Elia and baby Aegon to name the child and play on his harp.

(9) Rhaenys was 3 when she died in 283 AC, so she was born in 280 AC.

(10) Aegon was born in 282 AC, since he was about 1 year old when he died in 283 AC.

(11) Harrenhall happened in 281 AC.

(12) Elia was at Harrenhal with Rhaegar, Aerys etc. No pregnancy on her part has been mentioned.

(13) A pregnancy takes 9 months. Since the Martells are fond of mentioning the pregnancies in their families which took less than 9 months (like how Elia was born after only 8 months of pregnancy), and nothing such has been mentioned about Elia, we can assume Elia's pregnancy of Aegon lasted the full 9 months.

Since we don't know where Lyanna was when she disappeared (though it cannot have been Winterfell, since Rickard was there and he would have noticed before Brandon did if she was missing, and thus he would have acted before Brandon), I've put her location at the middle of Westeros, and the most central structure I could find was Harrenhal.

Taken from the time line document: Distances:

From King's Landing to Harrenhal (Rhaegar, Dayne and Whent): 380 miles

From Harrenhal to ToJ (Rhaegar, Dayne, Whent, Lyanna): 1030 miles

From Riverrun to King's Landing: 750 miles

From Brandon's location to King's Landing: 860 miles

A raven's distance from King's Landing to Winterfell: 1685 miles

From Winterfell to King's Landing: 2010 miles

A raven's distance from King's Landing to the Eyrie: 670 miles

For my calculations, I have assumed the following: the smaller parties would have travelled at a fast pace. The fastest pace in the document for small parties is 50 miles per day. This includes a rest day per 3 days of travel. The ravens, at fast pace, travel about 334 miles per day when they travel longer than 4 days, and 364 miles per day when they travel 2 to 4 days.

Here we go, try to keep up.

From King's Landing to Harrenhal (Rhaegar, Dayne and Whent): 380 miles -> 10 days

From Harrenhal to ToJ (Rhaegar, Dayne, Whent, Lyanna): 1030 miles -> 27,5 days

From Riverrun to King's Landing: 750 miles

From Brandon's location to King's Landing: 860 miles -> 23 days

A raven's distance from King's Landing to Winterfell: 1685 miles -> 5 days

From Winterfell to King's Landing: 2010 miles -> 53 days

A raven's distance from King's Landing to the Eyrie: 670 miles -> 2-3 days

Also, I assume that about 7 days after Lyanna disappeared, Brandon learned of it (the news had to travel to Riverrun, a rider would have had to find Brandon). And that is assuming Brandon learned from Riverrun, and not Winterfell, since he would have been closer to Riverrun than Winterfell.

So Aegon get's born. Rhaegar is still around for a little while. Let's give him a fortnight. Then he disappears.

10 days later, he arrives at Lyanna's position. They leave for ToJ. 7 days later (=17), Brandon learns of Lyanna's disappearance. He rides for KL in 23 days (=40). There, he is imprisoned. A raven is send to KL to summon Rickard, which takes 5 days (=45). Rickard summons his bannermen and starts south, which we shall give a fortnight (=59). Rickard arrives in KL 53 days later, assuming he went by horse. If he went by ship, his voyage would be 29 days. But, assuming he went by horse, so he could meet his bannermen on the road (=102). Rickard and Brandon die and a raven flies from KL to the Eyrie to Jon Arryn, which takes 2 to 3 days. Let's say it arrived on the third day (=105).

So from the moment Rhaegar had left until Jon Arryn calls his banners, 104 days have passed (roughly 3,5 months).

Robert's Rebellion begins. It lasts, to quote GRRM, close to a year. I gave Rhaegar a fortnight after Aegon's birth to disappear. Together with the 3.5 months we know now have passed between Rhaegar's disappearance the the beginning of RR, that's a 4 month old baby Aegon.

The quote, close to a year, made me feel the rebellion did not last a full year, but a little less. So, about 10 months, my guts tell me. That would make Aegon 14 months old, so, about 1 year old, as Tywin had put it.

Now on to Lyanna. She disappeared about a month after Aegon's birth (fortnight + ten days = 24 days, so a little over 3 weeks). Which would set her having been gone until the moment of the Sack 13,25 months.

From KL to Storm's End is 480 miles, which comes down to 12.5 days of travel. From Storm's End to ToJ is 645 miles, which comes down to 17 days of travel. 13,25 months + 12,5 days + 17 days = 14,25 months. That would put Ned finding her at roughly 14 months after her disappearance. That is excluding the few days Ned would have taken to actually lift the siege at Storm's End.

So, to answer the questions: Yes, Lyanna's disappearance could have been around 15 months, though it will most likely be closer to 14 months. No, two full pregnancies would not be possible, even if both pregnancies ended premature (at, for example 8 months, which would be dangerous for both children). Also, a woman's body needs time to recover from a pregnancy and a birth, so there would have to be a few weeks/two months between birth #1 and conception #2. So no, no two pregnancies.

A miscarriage would add nothing to the story.

No, Lyanna cannot have been gone for 2 years. That would mean Rhaegar missed the conception and birth of his son, and we know he was present at both :P

I hope you all enjoyed my calculations. I truly hope I didn't make a counting mistake :)

Edit: as to why I would write all this, in addition to answer the questions: I totally love details, and this makes everything more complete in my eyes :)

You forgot a couple of things that shorten the actual time of possible conception for 2 pregnancies.

[Ser Creighton]

I don't know who 'Blu' is… & for a variety of reasons, I do not think your post is very well thought out…

Excellent reply.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

Just to clarify, what I'm saying is that his name would be Aegon VII of House Stark. The purpose being twofold: 1) it would be a nod to his dual Targ-Stark heritage, and; 2) it would add a sense of continuity to his reign. Being the seventh King Aegon to rule over Westeros.

I suppose I could further clarify for those who aren't familiar with my take on the endgame. Though I think there are a number of possible scenarios, the one I favor the most is Jon ruling Westeros as a Stark via Robb's will. I'm not sure that his true parentage will ever become known. In other words, I think he might well rule as the legitimized bastard son of Ned Stark.

His true heritage not being publically known would mean he had no reason to change his name for purpose 1. He wouldn't want to do it for a reason that only he and a few others knew about and that would mystify the general population and make them think he was being pretentious. It would work with purpose 2, but I don't see Jon feeling the need to change his name to add a sense of continuity like that, especially if he is reigning as a Stark and given that most of the past kings haven't been Aegons anyway. The quote about Ned being his father only reinforces that he would keep the name Jon. Ned gave him the name Jon, and never gave him the name Stark. This makes "Jon Targaryen" a better way of honoring Ned than "Aegon Stark". Not that he'll necessarily change his name or become a king at all. And we still don't know if he had a different birth name from Lyanna.

[MtnLion]

Regarding Lyanna's remarks about Robert, I feel her cynicism makes more sense if it comes after she has actually observed him. I agree that Ned was functioning as a go between, but at the tourney. I also think it is much more likely that she would have picked up the gossip about Robert and his bastard in the Vale at the tourney rather than such news reaching Winterfell so quickly.

And it would have had to be quick, since we can be reasonably confident that Mya Stone was born in 281 (late 280 at latest) based upon her age as observed by Catelyn (17-18 in 298) and as relayed in the final Alayne chapter (19), which takes place almost halfway through the year 300.

I won't repost the quotes Ser Leftwich already provided, but the first clearly indicates that the "long ago night in Winterfell" occurred after Mya's birth (barring some other bastard from the Vale turning up) in order for Ned to experience holding the infant Mya he had to have been present at the Eyrie during late 280 or early 281. At some point prior to the False Spring there was presumably a winter, which may have made travel to the north difficult if not impossible. We know from the second quote Ser Leftwich provided that Ned came to the tourney from the Eyrie with Robert and Jon. In order for him to have been at WF before the tourney and after Mya's birth, it seems we would have to consign him to long weeks of arduous and improbable winter travel, and a round trip at that to put him back at the Eyrie in time to descend to the Riverlands for the tourney which we are fairly confident occurred in 281.

I happen to find it more logical and elegant to think that the young people all attended the tourney together, which gave Lyanna and Robert a chance to meet and observe each other (though Lyanna seems to have been the more observant of the pair ;)), and then the Stark children returned to their home together so that their father could make the announcements and arrangements for the two upcoming marriages. Back to where this started at the end of the last thread, Brandon and Ned then departed for Riverrun and the Eyrie respectively. Speculation arises with Lyanna's movements at this time, but I think interpreted in the way I've laid out, we actually have textual support for her being in the north and then traveling south in between the tourney and the "abduction." Obvs, I withhold judgement on her actual movements immediately prior to the "abduction" until further information is available, though I have my strong suspicion that The Inn at the Crossroad (site of another high profile abduction) will be involved.

Precisely as I see it. We also have a clue that (after winter had lifted) Littlefinger challenged Brandon when his betrothal is announced. Brandon responded immediately, and left Riverrun for a short time on an errand afterwards. That Brandon was gone for at least a fortnight is noted as Littlefinger's recovery period, and him being born off in a litter.

It seems that many want Lyanna to have been at a specific location when abducted, but we have no idea where she was from the text. We know that she was an unusual female, tilting and sword fighting, that she must have travelled alone at times. But, I believe the northerners would all shelter for the winter and Winterfell is logical for the Starks. Travel was probably only done on an urgent basis as far south as King's Landing during winter.

[J. Stargaryen]

His true heritage not being publically known would mean he had no reason to change his name for purpose 1.

When I wrote that post, point 1 was mostly for the benefit of the readers, while point 2 was meant to work in universe. However, there are other possibilities besides the one I mentioned. For example, it's possible that his true heritage does become widely known, but he chooses* to be a Stark, albeit with a nod to his Targaryen heritage.

You're probably already aware of this, but this is a fairly common practice. The term is called regnal name. United Kingdom examples.

He wouldn't want to do it for a reason that only he and a few others knew about and that would mystify the general population and make them think he was being pretentious.

Pretending to know the motivations of fictional characters is a complete non-argument. I mean, how do you know the general population would be mystified? They might even like the idea of an Aegon Stark. It would connect the old and new dynasties.

It would work with purpose 2, but I don't see Jon feeling the need to change his name to add a sense of continuity like that, especially if he is reigning as a Stark and given that most of the past kings haven't been Aegons anyway.

Same as above. Honestly, you don't see Jon "feeling" some way? Really?

But also, there's a lot of 'seven' symbolism in the series. When you combine that with the possibility of a King Aegon VI sitting the throne for a short period of time in the near future, plus Jon's possible eventual destiny to do the same, plus all of the speculation surrounding his 'real' name... Well, I think it's a sensible idea.

The quote about Ned being his father only reinforces that he would keep the name Jon. Ned gave him the name Jon, and never gave him the name Stark. This makes "Jon Targaryen" a better way of honoring Ned than "Aegon Stark".

I completely disagree. The name Jon itself is one of the lies that Ned had lived for fourteen years. He might be happy to see it cast aside. Not that Jon necessarily has a different name, but he was never supposed to be Jon Snow, but rather ____ Targaryen. Jon Snow is a cover name, one which rhymes with Jon Doe, btw.

Not to mention, but I think it brings more honor to Ned, and all Starks, for Jon to make that the royal House and name.

Not that he'll necessarily change his name or become a king at all. And we still don't know if he had a different birth name from Lyanna.

Right, we don't know. It's a bit of speculation based on what I know about the series. It's nothing any of us can prove at the moment. That said, I haven't seen any argument here that has discouraged me from considering this a real possibility, even if quite a few stars do have to align in order for it to come true.

*

“Look at the arms on his surcoat,” Jon suggested.

Arya looked. An ornate shield had been embroidered on the prince’s padded surcoat. No doubt the needlework was exquisite. The arms were divided down the middle; on one side was the crowned stag of the royal House, on the other the lion of Lannister.

“The Lannisters are proud,” Jon observed. “You’d think the royal sigil would be sufficient, but no. He makes his mother’s House equal in honor to the king’s.”

“The woman is important too!” Arya protested.

- AGoT, Arya I

[Noneofyourbusiness]

Pretending to know the motivations of fictional characters is a complete non-argument. I mean, how do you know the general population would be mystified? They might even like the idea of an Aegon Stark. It would connect the old and new dynasties.

Same as above. Honestly, you don't see Jon "feeling" some way? Really?

I completely disagree. The name Jon itself is one of the lies that Ned had lived for fourteen years. He might be happy to see it cast aside. Not that Jon necessarily has a different name, but he was never supposed to be Jon Snow, but rather ____ Targaryen. Jon Snow is a cover name, one which rhymes with Jon Doe, btw.

I can only speak from my feel for the character and his motivations and emotions based on what I've read so far, just as you do in the third paragraph quoted above. This leads to me to think that certain things are more or less likely, but ultimately whatever happens in the books will happen.

[J. Stargaryen]

I can only speak from my feel for the character and his motivations and emotions based on what I've read so far, just as you do in the third paragraph quoted above. This leads to me to think that certain things are more or less likely, but ultimately whatever happens in the books will happen.

The difference being that I'm basing my speculation on clues, foreshadowing, themes, etc. Those things are not synonymous with my feelings.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

I was referring to where you said "he might be happy to see it cast aside". From what I've read of Jon, I see it as more likely that he would feel that the name Jon is a cherished link to Eddard. But it's also a possibility that he would feel the way you describe. A lot depends on the context in which he finds out. I'm not really invested in an outcome and I'm not trying to have an argument. Your speculations have provided food for thought, regardless of how likely I think it is that the book actually goes in that direction.

[J. Stargaryen]

I was referring to where you said "he might be happy to see it cast aside". From what I've read of Jon, I see it as more likely that he would feel that the name Jon is a cherished link to Eddard. But it's also a possibility that he would feel the way you describe. A lot depends on the context in which he finds out. I'm not really invested in an outcome and I'm not trying to have an argument. Your speculations have provided food for thought, regardless of how likely I think it is that the book actually goes in that direction.

Okay, that's fair. The "cherished link" point makes sense, too.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

Thanks!

---

Part of the fun of this series that is that how, where, why, when, by whom, and with whom something happens or is revealed could radically affect the nature and impact of the event. There are just so many possibilties of how the series and each of its many subplots could turn out, it's exciting. It's largely a blank canvas in my mind, though we know that certain things are important and will have to be resolved. Whatever happens, I'm sure it'll be good.