R + L = J v 71

[The Merry Other]

@Apple Martini. I read the FAQs and the Tower of the Hand essay. Excellent write-up. Still, my own theory still fits all the hints/clues in that essay. In other words, there are alternative theories and R+L=J is by no means certain. I wouldn't be surprised when it's proved wrong in the next book

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

@Apple Martini. I read the FAQs and the Tower of the Hand essay. Excellent write-up. Still, my own theory still fits all the hints/clues in that essay. In other words, there are alternative theories and R+L=J is by no means certain. I wouldn't be surprised when it's proved wrong in the next book

Yeah, somehow I'm not holding my breath on the baby-goes-to-the-wildlings thing. You're not the first contrarian with a pet theory, nor will you be the last. One thing you're almost certainly not is correct. But more power to you.

[Ygrain]

Yeah, somehow I'm not holding my breath on the baby-goes-to-the-wildlings thing. You're not the first contrarian with a pet theory, nor will you be the last. One thing you're almost certainly not is correct. But more power to you.

Don't you grasp the ingenious connection between all those heavy mentions of Rhaegar and Lyanna, and making their offspring a barely mentioned nobody beyond the Wall, without even a PoV?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Don't you grasp the ingenious connection between all those heavy mentions of Rhaegar and Lyanna, and making their offspring a barely mentioned nobody beyond the Wall, without even a PoV?

Well now that you mention it, the Others-raised demon spawn idea does make sense.

... Wait, no.

But the idea that the blue rose symbolizes said Others-raised demon spawn instead of the guy of mysterious Stark parentage who's already at the Wall does make sense.

... Actually, no.

But the idea that Sigorn is Lyanna and Rhaegar's child despite looking like a "younger, shorter version" of Styr does make sense.

... LOL no, it does not. At all.

(The obvious solution is that Styr is a secret Targaryen himself and that Sigorn looking like him even though he's Lyanna and Rhaegar's baby is not a deal-breaker.)

[Ygrain]

Well now that you mention it, the Others-raised demon spawn idea does make sense.

... Wait, no.

But the idea that the blue rose symbolizes said Others-raised demon spawn instead of the guy of mysterious Stark parentage who's already at the Wall does make sense.

... Actually, no.

But the idea that Sigorn is Lyanna and Rhaegar's child despite looking like a "younger, shorter version" of Styr does make sense.

... LOL no, it does not. At all.

(The obvious solution is that Styr is a secret Targaryen himself and that Sigorn looking like him even though he's Lyanna and Rhaegar's baby is not a deal-breaker.)

Yeah, I know - looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it can absolutely be a donkey.

[The Merry Other]

The words clues/hints do not mean what you think, I'm afraid. Can you explain how Ned has been living lies if Lyanna's child is somewhere beyond the Wall and he hasn't seen him/her in all those years? Why not tell Jon who his mother is if it's just Ashara/Wylla/FMD? Why take him away from his mother at such a tender age at all? Etc. Etc. Etc. Once again, I suggest that youdo your reading, e.g. the essay that Apple Martini linked. You might also recall what I have told you already: this is not RL, with unlimited number of candidates for Jon's mother, but a piece of literature. There are exactly three candidates for Jon's mother, none of which fits the timeline and none of which ever enters Ned's thoughts. That as well is a clue.

Ned has been living lies because he's been lying to everyone about the existence of Lyanna's baby. Also, his conscience may be troubled because he never hears from his close friend Howland Reed again and doesn't know what happens to him and the baby. I am guessing Benjen is supposed to be the go between here. The Others may have killed HR and kidnapped the baby. Hence the silence in all those years

To tell the truth, I don't quite know who Jon's mother is besides what has been presented in the books. The household servants in Winterfell think Ashara is Jon's mother. I suppose Jon thinks the same. Why take him away from his mother at such a tender age? Well, maybe it's because his mother is dead (Ashara) or too poor to give him a proper upbringing (Wylla) or maybe Ned just wants to be close to Jon

About the number of candidates for Jon's mothers. This is where we differ. If we limit ourselves to Wylla, Ashara and Lyanna then I agree Lyanna makes the most sense. However, I am open to other possibilites while you are not

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Ned has been living lies because he's been lying to everyone about the existence of Lyanna's baby. Also, his conscience may be troubled because he never hears from his close friend Howland Reed again and doesn't know what happens to him and the baby. I am guessing Benjen is supposed to be the go between here. The Others may have killed HR and kidnapped the baby. Hence the silence in all those years

Where on earth are you getting this? We have no reason to believe that Howland is anywhere but Greywater Watch/the Neck, seeing as how Meera explicitly says he sent them to Winterfell in Clash of Kings to renew fealty. She also tells Bran that Howland taught her how to fight with a net and spear, which is impossible if he is in fact missing. Luwin tells Theon that Howland won't attack the ironborn in Moat Cailin while he knows the kids are hostages, suggesting that Luwin believes him to be there too. And of course, Robb sends Maege and Galbart to Greywater Watch on the basis that Howland is there. Jojen is also only like 13 years old, so how is Howland supposed to have fathered him if he was hauling a baby beyond the Wall? So what evidence do you have that Howland is beyond the Wall or dead? And do you really think that Ned wouldn't, you know, go investigate something like that, if he was worried for his nephew's safety?

To tell the truth, I don't quite know who Jon's mother is besides what has been presented in the books. The household servants in Winterfell think Ashara is Jon's mother. I suppose Jon thinks the same. Why take him away from his mother at such a tender age? Well, maybe it's because his mother is dead (Ashara) or too poor to give him a proper upbringing (Wylla) or maybe Ned just wants to be close to Jon

Actually, I don't think Jon has a clue who his mother is. The Ashara rumor hasn't been discussed in Winterfell for years, and it's hard to believe that Jon thinks of Ashara as his mother when he thinks of her precisely never.

About the number of candidates for Jon's mothers. This is where we differ. If we limit ourselves to Wylla, Ashara and Lyanna then I agree Lyanna makes the most sense. However, I am open to other possibilites while you are not

Like Ygrain said, this is fiction, not the real world. In the real world, any woman could feasibly be this person's mother. In this fictional construct, there are a finite number of suggested and/or implied candidates, and that's the pool we have to work with.

[The Merry Other]

Don't you grasp the ingenious connection between all those heavy mentions of Rhaegar and Lyanna, and making their offspring a barely mentioned nobody beyond the Wall, without even a PoV?

We don't have an Others POV either, and we know very little about them, yet they have been steadily built up to be one of the key, if not THE key, plots in the story, right?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

We don't have an Others POV either, and we know very little about them, yet they have been steadily built up to be one of the key, if not THE key, plots in the story, right?

And nothing suggests that they're in possession of Lyanna and Rhaegar's offspring.

[Ygrain]

Ned has been living lies because he's been lying to everyone about the existence of Lyanna's baby. Also, his conscience may be troubled because he never hears from his close friend Howland Reed again and doesn't know what happens to him and the baby. I am guessing Benjen is supposed to be the go between here. The Others may have killed HR and kidnapped the baby. Hence the silence in all those years

To tell the truth, I don't quite know who Jon's mother is besides what has been presented in the books. The household servants in Winterfell think Ashara is Jon's mother. I suppose Jon thinks the same. Why take him away from his mother at such a tender age? Well, maybe it's because his mother is dead (Ashara) or too poor to give him a proper upbringing (Wylla) or maybe Ned just wants to be close to Jon

About the number of candidates for Jon's mothers. This is where we differ. If we limit ourselves to Wylla, Ashara and Lyanna then I agree Lyanna makes the most sense. However, I am open to other possibilites while you are not

Are you seriously kidding me? He sends the child whose existence is generally unknown beyond the Wall - how is he lying about it for fourteen years? (Unlike, actually, having the said child under his own roof pretending that he is his own son). And, did you miss the part how Howland Reed is the one who sent Meera and Jojen to Winterfell, from their home?

The Winterfell staff don't actually think it's necessarily Ashara. Harwin doesn't believe it (and pins the supposed romance at Harrenhal tourney, two years prior Jon's birth), and Sansa hears the gossip that Jon's mother was commonborn. As for Ashara's suicide, do you mean that she committed it before Ned took the child with him? And does Ned strike you as the type of guy who would put his own selfish wants above the needs of a mother and her child? Or unwilling to give Wylla the coin to take care of his son? - And you call this fitting with the clues? Come on.

Please, no more "open to possibilities" bullshit. One last time: this is not RL. It's a book, and writing has its rules. The number of candidates is limited, and there have to be clues leading to who Jon's mother is, it cannot be just some never-mentioned nobody. The clues must be there, and we know that they are, because the authors of the show figured out Jon's mother right after book 1, just like many readers did, including myself. And, just FYI, the construction "it's neither Wylla nor Ashara, so it must be Lyanna", is an artificial construct, not really entering the reasoning. For me, the biggest clue was the characterisation of Ned as the guy who never lies, except to protect those he loves, and his silence about Jon's mother which made absolutely no sense unless he was covering up for someone, couldn't tell the truth but didn't want to lie.

[The Merry Other]

@Ygrain. If you limit the number of candidates for Jon's mother, then we don't have anything to discuss. We just agree to disagree then. You keep your belief and I keep mine. It will be revealed when the books come out

[FrozenFire3]

Are there any specific aspects of Rhaegar's temperament you see in Jon?

A past version of this thread was dedicated to the search&analysis of these possible 'aspects'. I'll dig up an old parallel of mine, for time saving's sake lol

All the points must be considered as a whole, since the context is an 'unicum'. Also, let's keep in mind the author's intentions and purpose. As Ygrain often stresses out, this is not RL. Certain passages/lines/figure of speech are there for a reason: narrative contruction as envisioned by GRRM.

- Jon is a skilled warrior ("I will require a sword and armor. It seems I must be a warrior." [...] He did it well, for he did everything well).

- He is smart, stubborn ("Able, above all. Determined, deliberate, dutiful, single-minded").

- He knows about tactics and politics and also how to form plans and execute them... not always with the desired effects though ('King Aerys became convinced that his son was conspiring to depose him, that Whent's tourney was but a ploy to give Rhaegar a pretext for meeting with as many great lords as could be brought together').

- Jon, like Rhaegar, was born in grief and melancholic at times ('There was a melancholy to Rhaegar, a sense... of doom.').

- He is inclined to follow his heart even at the cost of breaking oaths.

- He is irremediably incapable to give up mercy and compassion for duty (the KotLT's suspicious 'disappearence' docet. Rhaegar's blade didn't fall then nor did Jon's now with Ygritte).

- He was his father's son. Wasn't he? Wasn't he?

- She looked at him the way she used to look at him at Winterfell, whenever he had bested Robb at sword or sums or most anything.

The passage subtly hints at Jon's prowess not only with swords and other manly men's activities but also with more intellectual activities. Catelyn's resentment is tenfold increased by Jon's apparent ability at... doing everything well.

No wonder Jon's existential self-deprecating leit motiv is reiterated soon after that passage:

- Who are you? that look had always seemed to say. This is not your place. Why are you here?

Very interesting logical sequitur imho.

As for Jon's berserk moments, they are quite different from Aria's. He literally 'zones out' while beating Iron Emmett to a bloody pulp, while Aria never loses awareness of her actions and surroundings. While stabbing the Tickler, she even echoes the questions he asked of his victims, showing her vengeance is savage but in some way 'calculated'. Jon's fiery moment is much more similar to a schizofrenic spacing-out... draw your conclusions ;)

[Alia of the knife]

"Why kill a man you are not threatened by unless you just hate him? "

Robert was heading a rebellion that included four of the seven most powerful Families in Westeros. An Alliance that had several military victories. Rhaegar may not have thought much of Robert personally (he stole his intended after all) but he was not stupid. Unlike his father he was quite capable of counting heads. The rebels presented a forbidable foe that had to be taken care of. That Rhaegar was condifendt he could defeat them does not mean he did not see them as a threat. Further, the punishment for leading a rebellion is death so wishing to destroy the rebellion and kill Robert would have been seen as important by Rhaegar not to mention having the jilted intended of your second wife around and kicking would be a bad idea in and of itself.

Actually, based upon the times in which they lived, and given the Rhaegars accountability in the actions that took place, a good portion of that society would have believed Robert to have been wronged, despite what people may have thought of his personal behaviors and hypocrisy.

Its clear from his conversation with Jaimie that he fully intended to survive and come back, so rather than killing him, and again, given the perceived part that he himself played in "abducting" Lyanna, it would have been much more politic to have sent Robert, Stannis, and Ned to the Wall, leaving Stormsend with young Renly, and Winterfell with young Benjen with well-placed spies in both camps from then on.

His actions would be much more in balance to the events that occurred and would have shown him to be quite merciful and benevolent while at the same time victorious and strong.

Killing Robert in my view was either from absolutely needing to defend his life, or driven emotionally, but I don't believe that Rhaegar shied away from deliberately seeking Robert out himself on the battlefield, or feared for his life, so I think he wanted Robert fully gone.

[XSarellaX]

- He is inclined to follow his heart even at the cost of breaking oaths.

- He is irremediably incapable to give up mercy and compassion for duty (the KotLT's suspicious 'disappearence' docet. Rhaegar's blade didn't fall then nor did Jon's now with Ygritte).

- She looked at him the way she used to look at him at Winterfell, whenever he had bested Robb at sword or sums or most anything.

The passage subtly hints at Jon's prowess not only with swords and other manly men's activities but also with more intellectual activities. Catelyn's resentment is tenfold increased by Jon's apparent ability at... doing everything well.

Hm... I really like your post, if you have a link to more threads about it, it would be really nice.

I link Jon's sense of justice and desire to save people more to Lyanna than to Rhaegar, to be honest, because of the KotLT story. But the way Jorah compared Dany to Rhaegar when she wants to help the women that are being raped suggests he may have been quite righteous too.

About the "whenever he had bested Robb at sword or sums or most anything." quote... I took it to mean that Jon and Robb were at the same level of inteligence, and sometimes one bested the other, but not all the time.That doesn't mean Jon was good at everything, though I agree he is quite smart.

[Ygrain]

@Ygrain. If you limit the number of candidates for Jon's mother, then we don't have anything to discuss. We just agree to disagree then. You keep your belief and I keep mine. It will be revealed when the books come out

Ah. So, no actual counterarguments to the points I raised (few out of many that are part of the R+L issue), merely insisting that "it could have been anyone". Out of curiosity, when you are reading a detective story, do you also insist that the number of "whoddunit" candidates shouldn't be limited?

[Ser Creighton]

A past version of this thread was dedicated to the search&analysis of these possible 'aspects'. I'll dig up an old parallel of mine, for time saving's sake lol

All the points must be considered as a whole, since the context is an 'unicum'. Also, let's keep in mind the author's intentions and purpose. As Ygrain often stresses out, this is not RL. Certain passages/lines/figure of speech are there for a reason: narrative contruction as envisioned by GRRM.

- Jon is a skilled warrior ("I will require a sword and armor. It seems I must be a warrior." [...] He did it well, for he did everything well).

- He is smart, stubborn ("Able, above all. Determined, deliberate, dutiful, single-minded").

- He knows about tactics and politics and also how to form plans and execute them... not always with the desired effects though ('King Aerys became convinced that his son was conspiring to depose him, that Whent's tourney was but a ploy to give Rhaegar a pretext for meeting with as many great lords as could be brought together').

- Jon, like Rhaegar, was born in grief and melancholic at times ('There was a melancholy to Rhaegar, a sense... of doom.').

- He is inclined to follow his heart even at the cost of breaking oaths.

- He is irremediably incapable to give up mercy and compassion for duty (the KotLT's suspicious 'disappearence' docet. Rhaegar's blade didn't fall then nor did Jon's now with Ygritte).

- He was his father's son. Wasn't he? Wasn't he?

- She looked at him the way she used to look at him at Winterfell, whenever he had bested Robb at sword or sums or most anything.

The passage subtly hints at Jon's prowess not only with swords and other manly men's activities but also with more intellectual activities. Catelyn's resentment is tenfold increased by Jon's apparent ability at... doing everything well.

No wonder Jon's existential self-deprecating leit motiv is reiterated soon after that passage:

- Who are you? that look had always seemed to say. This is not your place. Why are you here?

Very interesting logical sequitur imho.

As for Jon's berserk moments, they are quite different from Aria's. He literally 'zones out' while beating Iron Emmett to a bloody pulp, while Aria never loses awareness of her actions and surroundings. While stabbing the Tickler, she even echoes the questions he asked of his victims, showing her vengeance is savage but in some way 'calculated'. Jon's fiery moment is much more similar to a schizofrenic spacing-out... draw your conclusions ;)

Come on, Rhaegar and Jon are as different as night and day. Conditioning and learned behavior is not a genetically passed on trait. Rhaegar was skilled but never a great Warrior as Selmy has implied. He felt the need to be a warrior not the desire, he was bookish. Jon is not bookish, is a good but not great athlete, and has some skill, Mance however destroyed him in sparing without breaking a sweat, literally. Jon is smart, tends to have a good grasp on the northern culture he was raised in, is a good tactician. Most of that is learned, being intelligent is a passed on trait. Learning tactics is conditioning applied to intelligence. Can't say Rhaegar was a good tactician as he lost the only battle he led. Ned was an excellent tactician and is credited for winning the war for Robert. Jon was better at the Sword than Robb, but Robb was a better lance. Robb was also an excellent tactician, this would appear to have nothing to do with Rhaegar but education.

Jon is not single minded in fact he has proven to be very good at multi tasking.

Politics, again this was taught to Jon, and is not a trait that is passed on. There is no political gene. Nor is it ever mentioned that Rhaegar was a great politician.

Most of what is described in this post, has nothing to do with traits and is more about learned behavior, education, upbringing, culture, and conditioning.

Yiggy and the KotLT is pure speculation. The Knight never showed up to the lists the next day and then Rhaegar went searching at his fathers request. There is no known encounter between the two. Plus mercy is not a trait it's something you are taught.

Depression can be a trait if it stems from a genetic disorder, which does not appear to be the case with Jon.

Jon is not schizophrenic, or effective he has shown zero behavior to indicate this. Jon experienced a simple adrenalin dump. Not uncommon at all in fighting, the adrenalin overwhelms the higher brain function and short term memory stops working. It's why most fighters or combatants are trained to reflex and muscle memory.

Ned got taken out by a Steward he sort of trusted, and Jon got taken out by Steward he sort of trusted. He must be Neds son. Is there an indication that getting betrayed is a genetically passed on trait?

Jon more than likely takes after the Starks, his behavior is mostly learned like most people which would indicate Jon heavily imprinting on Ned. Which makes perfect sense as he had no mother figure. He also shares characteristics with all of his siblings, most notably Bran. Arya tended to imprint on Jon which is why she embraced a complex leaning towards being an outsider.

[The Merry Other]

Ah. So, no actual counterarguments to the points I raised (few out of many that are part of the R+L issue), merely insisting that "it could have been anyone". Out of curiosity, when you are reading a detective story, do you also insist that the number of "whoddunit" candidates shouldn't be limited?

My theory is that Lyanna's baby may be smuggled out of the 7 Kingdoms into wildling territory, perhaps with Benjen's and Howland Reed's help. The baby is raised among the wildlings and later kidnapped by the Others or adopted by the Magnar of Thenn. I may be wrong about the actual whereabouts of Howland Reed (will look into it later when I have the time) but you get the idea. Why is it so impossible technically?

A whoddunit story is like a math problem. The whole purpose of the story is to find out just that, whoddunit. You're given a set of data and you have to work based on those data only. So no, you can't go beyond the number of choices you are presented with and say it's just some random person who did it. That would defeat the entire purpose of the story

Asoiaf is not a whoddunit story. It's NOT about finding out who Jon's parents are. The reader is not supposed to "solve" any problem. Heck, this is a fantasy series and the author can twist it any way he wants, unlike in a whoddunit story where you must have certain real world logic. There's no point in exercising your problem solving skills in the first place. So yes, you can go beyond the number of candidates you currently have (that is not to say Wylla or Ashara cannot be Jon's mother), or you can choose to ignore the whole thing altogether. You can also come up with all sorts of ideas. For example, I can say that Lyanna gives birth to a half dragon half man monster a la Rhaego. She begs Ned not to kill it. Ned complies with her request, knowing full well the monster may become the scourge of the realm later, etc. Stuff like that is entirely plausible in Asoiaf

See the difference?

[Ygrain]

My theory is that Lyanna's baby may be smuggled out of the 7 Kingdoms into wildling territory, perhaps with Benjen's and Howland Reed's help. The baby is raised among the wildlings and later kidnapped by the Others or adopted by the Magnar of Thenn. I may be wrong about the actual whereabouts of Howland Reed (will look into it later when I have the time) but you get the idea. Why is it so impossible technically?

You are. I have given you the quote already.

Why is your theory technically impossible? Long story short: the book is not written in that way. There is way too much emphasis on Lyanna in Ned's thoughts and on Rhaegar throughout the whole story, and too little on the Others, to allow for a connection between the two (not even going into the Magnar thing because, as Apple Martini has quoted, the young Magnar looks exactly like his father, ergo is not the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna).

.

Asoiaf is not a whoddunit story. It's NOT about finding out who Jon's parents are. The reader is not supposed to "solve" any problem. Heck, this is a fantasy series and the author can twist it any way he wants, unlike in a whoddunit story where you must have certain real world logic. So yes, you can go beyond the number of candidates you currently have (that is not to say Wylla or Ashara cannot be Jon's mother). You can also come up with all sorts of ideas. For example, I can say that Lyanna gives birth to a half dragon half man monster a la Rhaego. She begs Ned not to kill it. Ned complies with her request, knowing full well the monster may become the scourge of the realm later, etc. Stuff like that is entirely plausible in Asoiaf

See the difference?

This is an entirely wrong misconception. Fantasy genre means that the natural laws of the fictive world are not the same as ours; mostly this is represented by inclusion of magic or other super powers not existent/ not explainable by science in ours. It has absolutely nothing to do with the way the story is written, and if a fantasy story includes some mystery, then the author has to comply with the way these things are written, regardless if the main genre is love story, detective, horror, whatever: there must be foreshadowing and every detail must fit with everything else (plot details, characterisation etc.) But of course it is possible for women in the ASOIAF world to birth monsters - but nothing in the way the story is written points to Lyanna being the case.

See the difference?

[WiDMNDBAMMD]

There are basically three types of discussions in these threads now.

1. People who are unfamiliar with the theory and genuinely want to discuss it.

2. People who accept the theory as true and want to discuss what further implications it can have in the story.

3. People who don't believe it and/or don't want to believe it and as a result come up with increasingly grasping excuses to dismiss it.

3. Seems to be happening less and less. I see people making new threads instead of posting their theories in here in the hopes that they don't have to deal with the vast majority of people that have the details memorized.

My theory is that Lyanna's baby may be smuggled out of the 7 Kingdoms into wildling territory, perhaps with Benjen's and Howland Reed's help. The baby is raised among the wildlings and later kidnapped by the Others or adopted by the Magnar of Thenn. I may be wrong about the actual whereabouts of Howland Reed (will look into it later when I have the time) but you get the idea. Why is it so impossible technically?

A whoddunit story is like a math problem. The whole purpose of the story is to find out just that, whoddunit. You're given a set of data and you have to work based on those data only. So no, you can't go beyond the number of choices you are presented with and say it's just some random person who did it. That would defeat the entire purpose of the story

Asoiaf is not a whoddunit story. It's NOT about finding out who Jon's parents are. The reader is not supposed to "solve" any problem. Heck, this is a fantasy series and the author can twist it any way he wants, unlike in a whoddunit story where you must have certain real world logic. There's no point in exercising your problem solving skills in the first place. So yes, you can go beyond the number of candidates you currently have (that is not to say Wylla or Ashara cannot be Jon's mother), or you can choose to ignore the whole thing altogether. You can also come up with all sorts of ideas. For example, I can say that Lyanna gives birth to a half dragon half man monster a la Rhaego. She begs Ned not to kill it. Ned complies with her request, knowing full well the monster may become the scourge of the realm later, etc. Stuff like that is entirely plausible in Asoiaf

See the difference?

The author himself disagrees with you. He's been asked many times about the internet and theories that people have.

He's stated many times that if the clues point to the "butler doing it" then if the author changes the ending they have to not only invent a new set of clues but also explain, refute the old clues that they're now not using.

The clues are in the books for a number of topics so the fact that this is a fantasy novel series doesn't matter.

[Lyse Stark]

3. Seems to be happening less and less. I see people making new threads instead of posting their theories in here in the hopes that they don't have to deal with the vast majority of people that have the details memorized.

The author himself disagrees with you. He's been asked many times about the internet and theories that people have.

He's stated many times that if the clues point to the "butler doing it" then if the author changes the ending they have to not only invent a new set of clues but also explain, refute the old clues that they're now not using.

The clues are in the books for a number of topics so the fact that this is a fantasy novel series doesn't matter.

Exactly! Your theory doesn't make sense. GRRM wouldn't change the f**king story just because people figured thing out. And the details you proposed would require a very convulated twist that cheapens the story in my opinion. So R+L=J will be confirmed even if you don't like the direction the clues is pointing to.

:angry: