R + L = J v 71

[Cubarey]

"Then, you think: “I have to change the ending! The maiden would be the criminal!” To my mind that way is a disaster because if you are doing well you work, the books are full of clues that point to the butler doing it and help you to figure up the butler did it, but if you change the ending to point the maiden, the clues make no sense anymore; they are wrong or are lies, and I am not a liar."

Which means he would not change the ending just because the fans got wise to some of the plot twists because he has imbeded the truth into the novels all along and changing the story to confound the readers would make him a liar.

"The truth is that the vast majority of the people here did not figure out R+L=J on the their own"

I would say that some if not many readers got that the R+L theory was possible from reading the novels but also thought there were other plausible explanations. The forums made the us aware of all the little details that make the R+L theory more then just plausible and in pointing out the weaknesses in the other possible thoeries of Jon's origins.

[Lady Flandrensis]

"Then, you think: “I have to change the ending! The maiden would be the criminal!” To my mind that way is a disaster because if you are doing well you work, the books are full of clues that point to the butler doing it and help you to figure up the butler did it, but if you change the ending to point the maiden, the clues make no sense anymore; they are wrong or are lies, and I am not a liar."

Which means he would not change the ending just because the fans got wise to some of the plot twists because he has imbeded the truth into the novels all along and changing the story to confound the readers would make him a liar.

:cheers: GRRM wouldn't pull an Agatha Christie on us. We didn't come this far to be screwed in the end. Of that I'm sure.

[The God of Death]

All I can speak for is the way I read the novels.

I saw the first 2 seasons of Game of Thrones on HBO. I had never read the books before.

Then before I ever saw the first episode of Season 3, I had read all 5 books. It took me about 10 months to read all 5 of them.

I did not rush through the books. I am a careful reader. I like to digest my favorite stories. I don't skim through small details just because they seem unimportant.

Prior to having finished A Dance with Dragons, I never looked up anything about the series, and never spoke with someone who had read the series.

And I'll admit, I never thought of Jon not being Ned's son until I finally allowed myself to read stuff on the Internet about Ice and Fire (when I finally didn't have to worry about spoilers).

As I said, it's certainly possible to figure this stuff out on your own. If I had re-read the books before coming across the R+L=J theory, I might well have figured it out on my own.

But the point is that a lot of people seem intent on refuting R+L=J for the reason that it seems too obvious to them. This is terrible reasoning.

[Lyse Stark]

"Then, you think: I have to change the ending! The maiden would be the criminal! To my mind that way is a disaster because if you are doing well you work, the books are full of clues that point to the butler doing it and help you to figure up the butler did it, but if you change the ending to point the maiden, the clues make no sense anymore; they are wrong or are lies, and I am not a liar."

Which means he would not change the ending just because the fans got wise to some of the plot twists because he has imbeded the truth into the novels all along and changing the story to confound the readers would make him a liar.

"The truth is that the vast majority of the people here did not figure out R+L=J on the their own"

I would say that some if not many readers got that the R+L theory was possible from reading the novels but also thought there were other plausible explanations. The forums made the us aware of all the little details that make the R+L theory more then just plausible and in pointing out the weaknesses in the other possible thoeries of Jon's origins.

Agreed; the fact is that if the clues leads one way then it cheapens the story if you change the clues to point to the maid. As a fact if I want to set up a murder mystery with many twists and turns I would set up a series of clues to point to the butler as a red herring, but put in a twist that implies that the maid set up the butler to take the fall, with another series of clues detailing her behaviour in a suspicious light.

GRRM put the other stories of Jon's origins in the story as a red herring, and tantalize us with the trail of blue roses. It is a way to let us know in a subtle way that Jon's not really Ned's.

[Cubarey]

"And I'll admit, I never thought of Jon not being Ned's son until I finally allowed myself to read stuff on the Internet about Ice and Fire (when I finally didn't have to worry about spoilers). "

I bought the Frist Two Seasons of the TV series and basiscly devoteda long weekend to watching it.Was intrigued and so bought and read the 5 books of the series. I then saw the Third season.

I basicly found Ned's evasive reply to Robert and his 'He's of my Blood" reply to his wife as enough for me to start doubting Jon was his son. The thought that R was not the man Robert portrayed him was to me obvious and quite rationale, the thought that the abduction was no such thing comes from the various retellings of the Joust in which R+L met and presumably fell in love. Now I never thought about the the significance of the Blue Roses. For me the Fact that Ned remembered the smell of roses in a sick room was not a clue. Simply I am too well acquainted with the use of flowers to hide the smell of sickness and impending death to consider that they were also a clue to a larger mystery.

And I had purposely stayed away from the boards for as long as possible they are addictive as hell and I was already too involved in the Wheel of Time boards.

[Rhaegar I Targaryen]

I gotta say, this whole thread would benefit from a more holistic approach. Kind of like the Heresy threads.

:drool:

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I gotta say, this whole thread would benefit from a more holistic approach. Kind of like the Heresy threads.

Meaning what, exactly? Because if it means giving consideration to obvious nonsense, no thanks.

[Rhaegar I Targaryen]

Meaning what, exactly? Because if it means giving consideration to obvious nonsense, no thanks.

Sorry, I forgot to use the correct font.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Sorry, I forgot to use the correct font.

Carry on.

[Alia of the knife]

All I know is that the next time "the worst theories ever imagined" thread comes up I'm going to nominate this -- "Lyanna's son was adopted by the Magnar of Thenn". This may even trump Euron = Dusky Woman theories.

I honestly just threw up in my mouth a little.

[Lyse Stark]

I honestly just threw up in my mouth a little.

Agreed. These troll may keep trolling, but they will eventually be proved painfully wrong when R+L=J is proven.

[FittleLinger]

I honestly just threw up in my mouth a little.

I remembered that when I first heard this "theory" I laughed histerically. For some reason. I probably just need help, or maybe I have an automatic system of coping with "disgusting".

[Bea_Stark]

I honestly understand that people think there may be other possibilities to who Jon's parents are. What I don't get is why they have to insist sometimes on completely crazy ''theories'' like flying pink elephants or whatever (though I know it was a joke, but still).

I mean, you want to offer a more reasonable explanation than R+L=J? Go ahead and do it. IF it's more plausible than R+L (meaning it points to as much clues or at least ones that are as strong) than it will be discussed because it will be valid.

Now, I could come and tell you all that Arya is actually Lyanna who came from an alternative reality and is therefore Jon's mother. That doesnt mean its not ridiculous, even if it's possible by some people's standards.

One thing is to say that other theories are possible. Another is to insist on ideas which have almost no foreshadowing considering the text.

[Ygrain]

"We even know of an example of a honourable man putting the girl's honour above his (Robb)"

Think it is hard to call Robb honorable by the standards of his society. He marries a girl to protect her name after taking her virtue. In so doing he betrays his vow to marry a Frey which he should have known would have dire consequences to his rebellion.As King of the North his primary duty was to his Kingdom and his people by acting "honorably" (after taking advantage of a virgin) to a young woman he abandoned his duty to his Kingdom and people which is the reverse of acting "honorably".

When I'm calling Robb honourable, I'm referring to his previously established behaviour and reputation. Breaking the betrothal was not honourable, nor was abandoning his duty, but that single exception doesn't make him a dishonourable man. That part which I paraphrased ("he chose the girl's honour over his own") clearly suggests that he was honourable twards Jeyne at the cost of dishonouring himself in other respects. - The same goes for Rhaegar - up till the affair with Lyanna, his reputation was spotless, and my argument was that similarly as Robb, he might have been compelled to maintain Lyanna's honour even at the cost of dishonouring/causing trouble to himself.

There is a quote which I believe supports the notion that Rhaegar behaved honourably towards Lyanna:

“What did any Targaryen ever know of honor? Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon’s honor!”

“You avenged Lyanna at the Trident,” Ned said, halting beside the king. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered.

The addition of an afterthought which cannot be voiced aloud is generally used for complementary or contradictory statements. Tying in with all the other clues towards the consensual relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna, I interpret this part as Ned knowing that Rhaegar did treat his sister honourably.

"Aegon and his sisters-wives are mentioned a couple of times, with zero reference to polygamy being illegal"

But we pretty well know it is not practiced in Westeros. Further it's one thing for the King's to have a tradition of incest to keep the blood pure (whether that was for purposes of controlling dragons or ethnic purity) another for R to resurrect a practice not seen in Westeros for 300 years. Whether R believed he could do so is quite different from others accepting it, Dorne for one would not (they would have seen it as a slight to their daughter and against their laws). Further, we have reason to believe that R+L were lovers, none that a marriage ceremony was ever performed (much less whether it would have been sanctioned by the Sepotons of the 7 or seen as legal by adherents of the Old Gods).

Indeed, practicing incest is very different - first and foremost, because it is a thing absolutely shunned by both religions, as an abominable sin. Yet, the Targaryens were getting away with it. And then you have polygamy, which is not done by the Westerosi population, either, but is never labelled as abominable. We even see it practiced by the old god followers beyond the Wall (sure, this is not the cultural norm for the majority of Westeros but it does show that trees do not care for the numbers of wives), again without negative comments from non-practicers. And, when asked, the author doesn't provide a clearly cut answer that polygamy should be impossible. More complicated to push, but not impossible.

[FrozenFire3]

There is a quote which I believe supports the notion that Rhaegar behaved honourably towards Lyanna:

“What did any Targaryen ever know of honor? Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon’s honor!”

“You avenged Lyanna at the Trident,” Ned said, halting beside the king. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered.

The addition of an afterthought which cannot be voiced aloud is generally used for complementary or contradictory statements. Tying in with all the other clues towards the consensual relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna, I interpret this part as Ned knowing that Rhaegar did treat his sister honourably.

Great catch! The juxtaposition is blatant.

[Cubarey]

There is a quote which I believe supports the notion that Rhaegar behaved honourably towards Lyanna:

“What did any Targaryen ever know of honor? Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon’s honor!”

“You avenged Lyanna at the Trident,” Ned said, halting beside the king. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered.

The addition of an afterthought which cannot be voiced aloud is generally used for complementary or contradictory statements. Tying in with all the other clues towards the consensual relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna, I interpret this part as Ned knowing that Rhaegar did treat his sister honourably.

Not saying that it happened this way, but the cited lines would be satisfied if Jon was a result of R raping L. Theory would be that L may have been infatuated with R but knew her duty to Robert and her family and would not of freely betrayed them. So R abducts her and has his way with her. We know that madness runs in the Targs, we know that it comes on in the victims slowly. We know that R was at times melancoly, that he may have believed he had visions requiring a third child, he knew his wife was made barren in consequence of a prior pregnancy. We know he was infatuated with L. We know the Targs for 3 hundred years tended to do what they wanted without a lot of thought about consequences (and if thought out either running away with L or abducting her might clearly lead to both the barratheons and Starks in rebellion). This would also explain Ned's very conflicted attitude towards Jon, the need for L to require an oath from Ned to protect Ned (you would think that L would have otherwise trusted Ned to do the right thing with Jon no matter his friendship with Robert).Another thing is that Ned always did his duty no matter the consequences, he will disclose the incest not because he owed it to Robert or because it was the best thing for Westeros but because Joffrey was not the rightful heir Stannis was (that's why he also refused to acknowledge the third Baratheon's claim to the throne although he was in position to protect Ned and the Starks in KL). Now if Jon is the legitimate offspring of R+L and Ned knew it then he betrayed his own honor by doing nothing to uphold or declare J's claim. Indeed, he did the one thing which made the claim almost impossible to be succesful, he allowed Jon to go to the wall. For a man like Ned, who never failed to do his duty no matter the cos,t allowing Jon to join the brotherhood must be judged the deepest of betrayals.

[Ygrain]

There is a quote which I believe supports the notion that Rhaegar behaved honourably towards Lyanna:

“What did any Targaryen ever know of honor? Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon’s honor!”

“You avenged Lyanna at the Trident,” Ned said, halting beside the king. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered.

The addition of an afterthought which cannot be voiced aloud is generally used for complementary or contradictory statements. Tying in with all the other clues towards the consensual relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna, I interpret this part as Ned knowing that Rhaegar did treat his sister honourably.

Not saying that it happened this way, but the cited lines would be satisfied if Jon was a result of R raping L. Theory would be that L may have been infatuated with R but knew her duty to Robert and her family and would not of freely betrayed them. So R abducts her and has his way with her. We know that madness runs in the Targs, we know that it comes on in the victims slowly. We know that R was at times melancoly, that he may have believed he had visions requiring a third child, he knew his wife was made barren in consequence of a prior pregnancy. We know he was infatuated with L. We know the Targs for 3 hundred years tended to do what they wanted without a lot of thought about consequences (and if thought out either running away with L or abducting her might clearly lead to both the barratheons and Starks in rebellion). This would also explain Ned's very conflicted attitude towards Jon, the need for L to require an oath from Ned to protect Ned (you would think that L would have otherwise trusted Ned to do the right thing with Jon no matter his friendship with Robert).Another thing is that Ned always did his duty no matter the consequences, he will disclose the incest not because he owed it to Robert or because it was the best thing for Westeros but because Joffrey was not the rightful heir Stannis was (that's why he also refused to acknowledge the third Baratheon's claim to the throne although he was in position to protect Ned and the Starks in KL). Now if Jon is the legitimate offspring of R+L and Ned knew it then he betrayed his own honor by doing nothing to uphold or declare J's claim. Indeed, he did the one thing which made the claim almost impossible to be succesful, he allowed Jon to go to the wall. For a man like Ned, who never failed to do his duty no matter the cos,t allowing Jon to join the brotherhood must be judged the deepest of betrayals.

As I said above, those lines do not exist in a vacuum, the instance where Ned draws a comparison between Robert and Rhaegar in favour of the latter shows clearly that no rape was involved.

Concerning the bolded, no, I wouldn't. It was not a matter of Ned betraying his friendship with Robert but of treason to his king, and that was in no way a given. And I must say I fail to perceive the logic behind your last statement - why should Ned support Jon's claim when he was one of the guys who had overthrown the whole Targ dynasty in the first place?

[Wolfking007]

Now if Jon is the legitimate offspring of R+L and Ned knew it then he betrayed his own honor by doing nothing to uphold or declare J's claim. Indeed, he did the one thing which made the claim almost impossible to be succesful, he allowed Jon to go to the wall. For a man like Ned, who never failed to do his duty no matter the cos,t allowing Jon to join the brotherhood must be judged the deepest of betrayals.

But, at the time Jon was heading towards the Wall, Robert was still alive and there was no indication that he will die any time soon. So your statement that Ned betrayed Jon by allowing him to join the NW doesn't stick.

[Jory Cassel]

(...) For a man like Ned, who never failed to do his duty no matter the cos,t allowing Jon to join the brotherhood must be judged the deepest of betrayals.

Yeah, no. Ned did not do his duty as hand when he resigned and defied his King in the matter of Daenerys' assassination, he did not do his duty when he did not immediately notify Robert of the twincest, and when he rode off in a fury after the Rebellion because his King, whom he was duty-bound to obey, condoned the murder of Rhaenys and Aegon.

..and now guess what these incidents have in common and how that relates to Jon.

[Whatever]

But, at the time Jon was heading towards the Wall, Robert was still alive and there was no indication that he will die any time soon. So your statement that Ned betrayed Jon by allowing him to join the NW doesn't stick.

I won't as far as to call it betrayal, but Ned letting Jon join the NW at such a young age, without telling him about his birth first was an incredibly dicky move. Forget R+L and claims to the IT, he had a right to know in any case, period.