R+L=J v 81

[Suzanna Stormborn]

You keep saying that Jon, who has no idea about it at all, is far more reliable in his knowledge of his parentage? I don't get it.

As for his looks,

"Jon was never out of sight, and as he grew, he looked more like Ned than any of the trueborn sons she bore him."

Catelyn II, AGOT

Oh, do we? Pray tell.

Yet, a Targ/Martell union resulted in Aerys I, of the long face, while it was not a renowned trait of either family.

And a Targ/Martell union resulted in Rhaenys, with dark eyes and brown hair, while previously Targ kids "mostly" had Targ coloring.

Neither were inbred. Genetics is cool like that.

Also, you haven't provided another feature that makes the Targs distinct from others of Valyrian blood.

And by feature I mean simply LOOKS, not dragon blood lore.

Robb, Sansa, Bran and Rickon = blue eyed, auburn hair = Not Starks

Sandor Clegane = grey eyes, brown hair = Stark

Really, this whole "but Jon looks like a Stark! Proof of R+L=J!" thing needs to be taken off the table

And actually, I think that the fact that Jon "looks like a Stark" is incredibly important to the story... but it is not proof R+L=J.

My personal opinion on it is that the Starks are stronger in their female line. Lyanna passed on all the Starks traits to Jon, the Stark traits are stronger than the Targaryen traits (hence all the inbreeding, the Targ's must have seen centuries ago that their 'looks' are hard to keep up with, so that would be one of the reasons they marry their sisters). The male Stark line has been broken at least once, and passed on through the females, there is something vitally important about the Stark females, several theories have been written on it. So the other children all have more of Catelyn in their looks than they do of Ned, but Jon looks way more Stark-y because he does not have any Tully in him. He has only Stark and Targaryen, Targaryen traits are not strong, so he looks more like Ned than any of his true born children. It makes perfect sense :)

[Ser Leftwich]

I'm getting lost.

Just because Jon has the Stark look, does not make him a Stark, is that what the current argument is? Taking his statements that he doesn't call himself a Stark because he wasn't trueborn (or legitimised) to mean that he does not have Stark blood?

If that's the case, then he can't be Lyanna's son then, because Lyanna was undoubtedly a Stark. So, instead of the equation being R+L=J, should it be R+x=J?

Does anyone else find that to be slightly ridiculous?

Also, if Robb, Sansa, Bran, and Rickon having Tully looks means their not Starks, then Catelyn has some explaining to do....

Regardless of who Jon's Stark parent turns out to be, he is just as much Stark as Ned's trueborn children.

I believe the argument was that just because someone has the "Stark look" doesn't mean they are a Stark (or a Snow, from a Stark).

[Mithras]

Is there a special reason why only the Targaryen and the Stark family trees are given in TWOIAF?

[Chebyshov]

Is there a special reason why only the Targaryen and the Stark family trees are given in TWOIAF?

Mayhaps they're really taking the "ice and fire" part seriously?

[Ser Leftwich]

My pet theory about this goes as follows:

I believe that, in order to prevent this, Rhaegar made his own Rhaenys the elder daughter. She would have children with Aegon VI, and continue the line. Any children Aegon VI would have with his Visenya, would be born after the union between Aegon and Rhaenys resulted in a child (to be certain his plans aren't messed up).

That's my view on the whole thing :)

So Rhaegar could determine the sex of his own children !?!?!

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Is there a special reason why only the Targaryen and the Stark family trees are given in TWOIAF?

Cuz they are the most important families, duh. :cool4:

[Ser Leftwich]

Is there a special reason why only the Targaryen and the Stark family trees are given in TWOIAF?

There may be more family trees in the final book. (I thought I heard/read that there would be a Lannister one.)

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

So Rhaegar could determine the sex of his own children !?!?!

It began when his first born child was a girl. Rhaegar would need a son, so he'd keep trying until a son was born.

If Rhaegar was truly trying to recreate the original trio, he would have been expecting a daughter to be born by Lyanna. That Rhaegar did not live long enoug to see that this was not the case, is a different story.

[Ser Leftwich]

It began when his first born child was a girl. Rhaegar would need a son, so he'd keep trying until a son was born.

If Rhaegar was truly trying to recreate the original trio, he would have been expecting a daughter to be born by Lyanna. That Rhaegar did not live long enoug to see that this was not the case, is a different story.

Gotcha. I understood the original bit wrong. (That is what I get for commenting before I drink coffee. :dunno: )

[Consigliere]

So, I haven't been around this thread since it was still v40, perhaps? But something just occurred to me, and it doesn't seem relevant enough to open a different thread just for it. The most accepted theory about Rhaegar and his understanding of the prophecy is that he wanted to name all his children after Aegon I and his sisters, and so he thought the child he would have with Lyanna would be a girl, his Visenya. But if he truly wanted to emulate them, saw his children as the conquerors reborn or whatever, why did he call his oldest daughter Rhaenys? I mean, the right order would be, following his ancestors, Visenya > Aegon > Rhaenys, so why wouldn't he follow it?

Good question.

We know that Aemon initially believed Rhaegar to be TPtwP and Rhaegar shared his belief. Only later did Rhaegar come to believe that Aegon was TPtwP due to the comet seen over KL on the night of his conception. Aemon also mentions that due to the error in translation, they only considered male Targs as candidates to fulfil the prophecy.

I speculate that at the time of Rhaenys' birth Rhaegar was not trying to recreate Aegon I and his sisters with his children since at that stage he believed himself to be TPtwP. Only when Aegon was born did he change his mind and declare his son TPtwP and conclude that there must be one more. This would explain why the order is not the same.

[FittleLinger]

Good question.

We know that Aemon initially believed Rhaegar to be TPtwP and Rhaegar shared his belief. Only later did Rhaegar come to believe that Aegon was TPtwP due to the comet seen over KL on the night of his conception. Aemon also mentions that due to the error in translation, they only considered male Targs as candidates to fulfil the prophecy.

I speculate that at the time of Rhaenys' birth Rhaegar was not trying to recreate Aegon I and his sisters with his children since at that stage he believed himself to be TPtwP. Only when Aegon was born did he change his mind and declare his son TPtwP and conclude that there must be one more. This would explain why the order is not the same.

I speculated elsewhere that Rhaegar stopped believing that he himself was TPtwP when Vyseris was born, as he thought he would have two sisters. It also fits the timeline.

[Alia of the knife]

On the topic of the "dead," and the really really dead, here is part of an interview in "Scottcampus" by Chris Hammond:

"Looking at the books there still seem to be a few characters such as Howland Reed who we’ve heard about but not yet met. Do you think readers are likely to see these characters and will you be revisiting say Ned Stark’s past?"

(Spoiler)

“Well there’ll be a few characters you’ve not seen who’ll show up in these final volumes yes, and certainly Ned despite being gone has a very large presence in this series. He still casts a long shadow as indeed do other dead people, some of whom have never appeared in the books like Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. The shadows of their past very much impinge on the present and the future in Westeros."- GRRM

If I Alia, had to speculate on Mance's origins, I might suspect he had a little Stark and a little bit of Bael........

[Suzanna Stormborn]

On the topic of the "dead," and the really really dead, here is part of an interview in "Scottcampus" by Chris Hammond:

"Looking at the books there still seem to be a few characters such as Howland Reed who we’ve heard about but not yet met. Do you think readers are likely to see these characters and will you be revisiting say Ned Stark’s past?"

(Spoiler)

“Well there’ll be a few characters you’ve not seen who’ll show up in these final volumes yes, and certainly Ned despite being gone has a very large presence in this series. He still casts a long shadow as indeed do other dead people, some of whom have never appeared in the books like Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. The shadows of their past very much impinge on the present and the future in Westeros.

If I had to speculate on Mance's origins, I might suspect he had a little Stark and a little bit of Bael........

HA I knew it!! I was saying Mance had Stark blood and that he was descended from KBTW royalty. So Jon's quote about 'Mance's blood is no more royal than mine' is exactly what I said. Mance and Jon are both royalty so R+L=J ...nailed it!

[ArabellaVidal]

My personal opinion on it is that the Starks are stronger in their female line. Lyanna passed on all the Starks traits to Jon, the Stark traits are stronger than the Targaryen traits (hence all the inbreeding, the Targ's must have seen centuries ago that their 'looks' are hard to keep up with, so that would be one of the reasons they marry their sisters). The male Stark line has been broken at least once, and passed on through the females, there is something vitally important about the Stark females, several theories have been written on it. So the other children all have more of Catelyn in their looks than they do of Ned, but Jon looks way more Stark-y because he does not have any Tully in him. He has only Stark and Targaryen, Targaryen traits are not strong, so he looks more like Ned than any of his true born children. It makes perfect sense :)

Its an interesting theory.

In any case, I think it's pretty obvious from the evidence from the novels, that Jon is a Stark by blood. The only question is the clues about his Targaryen heritage.

Almost all critics of the R+L=J theory that I have encountered so far have always said that they don't believe this theory has credence because "its too obvious". It isn't obvious. It is based on a huge pile of evidence gathered by many readers. Its just the most plausible theory regarding Jon's parentage out there.

This new argument about Jon not being a Stark by blood basically has the same premise."He can't be a Stark because its too obvious that he is."

[Alia of the knife]

HA I knew it!! I was saying Mance had Stark blood and that he was descended from KBTW royalty. So Jon's quote about 'Mance's blood is no more royal than mine' is exactly what I said. Mance and Jon are both royalty so R+L=J ...nailed it!

I think that is likely, and though Martin didn't say that, that is my personal speculation.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

HA I knew it!! I was saying Mance had Stark blood and that he was descended from KBTW royalty. So Jon's quote about 'Mance's blood is no more royal than mine' is exactly what I said. Mance and Jon are both royalty so R+L=J ...nailed it!

Though I don't see how that part of the interview indicates that Mance is a secret Stark. The line "Mance's blood is no more royal than mine" was always a hint towards Jon's parentage to me. Mance is a King-beyond-the-Wall, meaning he is a King, and thus, has royal blood. Jon descends from Kings and princes, making his blood royal as well.

I don't agree with the first part of your quote, but I totally 100% support the second part :D

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Though I don't see how that part of the interview indicates that Mance is a secret Stark. The line "Mance's blood is no more royal than mine" was always a hint towards Jon's parentage to me. Mance is a King-beyond-the-Wall, meaning he is a King, and thus, has royal blood. Jon descends from Kings and princes, making his blood royal as well.

I don't agree with the first part of your quote, but I totally 100% support the second part :D

Oh I mean not a 'secret' Stark, just has some Stark blood. That's what I gather from the quote;

If I had to speculate on Mance's origins, I might suspect he had a little Stark and a little bit of Bael........

[Lady Octarina]

Lady Octarina! Welcome back to the boards, mate :)

In regards to names and naming, I think Rhaegar named his first child Rhaenys to honour first his direct ancestor. So, if he was trying to re-create the original three heads, it was on a non-strictly chronological order lol And yes, I think your guess about Jon's Targ name is not off the mark. Aemon in particular is narratively powerful, both for the presence of Maester Aemon at the Wall and for the bittersweet resonance with Jon's childhood heroes and games ;)

Good question.

We know that Aemon initially believed Rhaegar to be TPtwP and Rhaegar shared his belief. Only later did Rhaegar come to believe that Aegon was TPtwP due to the comet seen over KL on the night of his conception. Aemon also mentions that due to the error in translation, they only considered male Targs as candidates to fulfil the prophecy.

I speculate that at the time of Rhaenys' birth Rhaegar was not trying to recreate Aegon I and his sisters with his children since at that stage he believed himself to be TPtwP. Only when Aegon was born did he change his mind and declare his son TPtwP and conclude that there must be one more. This would explain why the order is not the same.

You both make a lot of sense. But I'll continue to pretend Jon was originally named Aemon, for the feels. :cool4:

Hey, FrozenFire3! :cheers:

On the topic of the "dead," and the really really dead, here is part of an interview in "Scottcampus" by Chris Hammond:

"Looking at the books there still seem to be a few characters such as Howland Reed who we’ve heard about but not yet met. Do you think readers are likely to see these characters and will you be revisiting say Ned Stark’s past?"

(Spoiler)

“Well there’ll be a few characters you’ve not seen who’ll show up in these final volumes yes, and certainly Ned despite being gone has a very large presence in this series. He still casts a long shadow as indeed do other dead people, some of whom have never appeared in the books like Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. The shadows of their past very much impinge on the present and the future in Westeros."- GRRM

If I Alia, had to speculate on Mance's origins, I might suspect he had a little Stark and a little bit of Bael........

Which, of course, doesn't mean Rhaegar is really really dead. Believed dead is enough to cast that shadow. So, Mance could still just be Rhaegar under some serious disguise - though I do prefer the idea that he is Arthur Dayne :devil:

[Disputatious]

An alternative name with a hint in the text for Jon would be "Daeron", given his fondness for the book about the Dornish campaign by King Daeron I "the young dragon".

[Disputatious]

Rhaegar isn't dead for he lives on in his son (or possibly, sons). :) :)

Isn't that a standard metaphor? Oh wait, that makes it a cliche :devil: