Marriage of Rhaegar and Lyanna Revisited

[UnmaskedLurker]

The FMD isn't even an option. She's a character from ADwD. GRRM's editor figured out Jon's parentage from the AGoT manuscript, and D&D were able to figure out Jon's parentage prior to the publication of Dance for sure, and maybe Feast.

A number of posters have reference that D&D figured out Jon's mother, but I don't think that everyone who is mentioning that D&D figured this out are making the significance as clear as it could be made. GRRM asked D&D whether they knew who Jon's mother is (I think he only asked about the mother because he did not want to suggest outright that Ned is not the father) because it is important to the story (why bother with a question that relates to something that will not end up being significant to the story). He also asked because he believed that only a careful reader would figure it out BUT more important a careful reader WOULD figure it out. He acknowledged that D&D passed the test and correctly identified Jon's mother. We know therefore that the mother cannot be the fisherman's daughter because the conversation with D&D happened before any mention of the fisherman's daughter. I think we can eliminate Wylla pretty easily because what is the point of making the question a big deal if the answer is that Robert got it right and stated it explicitly. So that leaves us with only two real possibilities, Ashara and Lyanna. People have demonstrated in many other threads why Ashara is not really a good candidate. More to the point, again, such a reveal would not be such a big deal that it would serve as a test for D&D, and there are not really "hidden" clues about Ashara as mother of Jon, just speculation by some people in the story. So by process of elimination, D&D MUST have guessed Lyanna, and GRRM stated that they were correct. I acknowledge that the clues that R & L were married are not completely definitive, but R+L=J is virtually certain--not just based on what is in the books, but based on what we have been told outside of the books (most particularly, the information about this exchange between GRRM and D&D). I really am shocked that anyone who has read the various analyses regarding R+L=J could still doubt it.

[J. Stargaryen]

That must be it. At least I'm not so insecure in my own beliefs that I have to dig up 14 month old posts that are off topic to the post at hand though.

I'm glad you have such a keen understanding on what symbolism is though. Maybe you should start taking some lessons on how it's used though. It's not a bucket of paint that you splatter all over a text.

Based on the evidence I've provided, I don't think you're the right guy to be giving out advice on the application of symbolism.

[MooseHB]

I prefer to start at 9:50 where he talks about ridiculous fan theories being completely wrong, and other theories which are very well thought out also being wrong. Yes he leaves clues, but he doesn't deliberately lie or misdirect, at least, not in the parts I listened to.

He also talks about people figuring out after book two the big reveal he has planned for book 6, from the clues he's laid out. As you yourself state, "he doesn't deliberately lie or misdirect," so it seems this is as good an example of fans solving the puzzle as can be found.

I am reminded of the legendary words set out by that paragon of truth, Ace of Base:

I saw the sign and it opened up my eyes, I saw the sign

No one's gonna drag you up to get into the light where you belong

I saw the sign, I saw the sign

I saw the sign

I saw the sign, I saw the sign

I saw the sign, I saw the sign

I saw the sign

That is all I have to say on this topic. The arguments have been laid out.

[Blazfemur]

yet another R+L thread?? seriously?!

[J. Stargaryen]

A number of posters have reference that D&D figured out Jon's mother, but I don't think that everyone who is mentioning that D&D figured this out are making the significance as clear as it could be made. GRRM asked D&D whether they knew who Jon's mother is (I think he only asked about the mother because he did not want to suggest outright that Ned is not the father) because it is important to the story (why bother with a question that relates to something that will not end up being significant to the story). He also asked because he believed that only a careful reader would figure it out BUT more important a careful reader WOULD figure it out. He acknowledged that D&D passed the test and correctly identified Jon's mother. We know therefore that the mother cannot be the fisherman's daughter because the conversation with D&D happened before any mention of the fisherman's daughter. I think we can eliminate Wylla pretty easily because what is the point of making the question a big deal if the answer is that Robert got it right and stated it explicitly. So that leaves us with only two real possibilities, Ashara and Lyanna. People have demonstrated in many other threads why Ashara is not really a good candidate. More to the point, again, such a reveal would not be such a big deal that it would serve as a test for D&D, and there are not really "hidden" clues about Ashara as mother of Jon, just speculation by some people in the story. So by process of elimination, D&D MUST have guessed Lyanna, and GRRM stated that they were correct. I acknowledge that the clues that R & L were married are not completely definitive, but R+L=J is virtually certain--not just based on what is in the books, but based on what we have been told outside of the books (most particularly, the information about this exchange between GRRM and D&D). I really am shocked that anyone who has read the various analyses regarding R+L=J could still doubt it.

This is a good post, but I especially like the bold. It's similar to something I've argued before myself. GRRM wanted R+L=J to be solvable from AGoT. Maybe not for everybody, but for the attentive readers. Because once you understand R+L=J, and especially the legitimacy part, so many things in the text take on extra meaning and significance.

“Bastards are not allowed to damage young princes,” he said. “Any bruises they take in the practice yard must come from trueborn swords.” Jon to Arya in AGoT, Arya I. Once you know R+L=J and that Jon is legitimate, you see the irony here.

Getting back to the overall post, I agree that sometimes not enough significance is attached to D&D correctly answering GRRM's test question. And why this question? It must be important, and it must be definitively answerable. It's not like tPtwP, where you can guess it's Jon and list a few good reasons why it's him.

[Ygritte]

It's hard to forget such a memorably ridiculous post. I mean, I don't think I've ever seen anyone else attempt to argue that in-story characters are supposed to be aware of the symbolism the author is using. How could I be expected to forget that?

The RRT withers in the shadow of your disapproval, truly.

This is the same character who does the little dead/at rest dance about the Hound, correct? The Elder Brother likes wordplay.

[Dire Dragon]

I remember reading the first books and thinking I was so damn clever for coming up with the idea that Jon was not Ned's bastard. I was pissed when Caitlyn never got to find out that Ned had been faithful.

Then I arrive at this forum years and years later and realise that I wasn't so damn clever and I missed about half the clues. (Never realised the importance of the kingsguard or that Ned never thought of Jon as his son or even considered that Jon could be legitimate)

FWIW, I never thought the legitimacy mattered because, despite his bloodline, I never thought he would sit on the iron throne. As far as I was concerned, Robert won the throne by conquest and that extinguished the Targaryian right to the throne. (I know that Robert had the best claim via blood but that was out of Jon, Ned and him, not all of Westeros)

Like Daenarys's right being meaningless until she got dragons, Jon's right also seems meaningless until he does something. Being one of the dragon riders makes sense, but bloodright alone does not get you the iron throne. I think Stannis has something to say about that.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

A friend has just finished book 1.

Let's see... what has she realised... /cackle.

[Nic.]

\I really am shocked that anyone who has read the various analyses regarding R+L=J could still doubt it.

You shouldn't be. Having been on multiple forums over many different topics I've seen people still argue against things that were made canon when a book or chapter was released. It's clear to anyone with common sense that R + L = J is going to be proven true, what is interesting is how this is going to affect the plot.

[WhiteOwl18]

I remember reading the first books and thinking I was so damn clever for coming up with the idea that Jon was not Ned's bastard. I was pissed when Caitlyn never got to find out that Ned had been faithful.

Then I arrive at this forum years and years later and realise that I wasn't so damn clever and I missed about half the clues. (Never realised the importance of the kingsguard or that Ned never thought of Jon as his son or even considered that Jon could be legitimate)

Don't feel bad. It took me three reads to figure it out, and even then I didn't figure out everything! :)

[theseven]

The problem that I see in this theory is that there are not witness alive to the wedding.

Without witness for the wedding, for Jon's claim will be irrelevant.

Usually a witness must be a respected (and powerful) person. Meribald isn't one.

It could be that Jon (and we as readers) get the satisfaction to know who their parents are and or if they had married or not (through Weirwood tree Bran), but while the first thing is relevant to development of the story, the second one is not. Legitimate or illegitimate Jon will still fight the others, and as we see in the books people follow Jon for his strength and courage, although he is a bastard.

For me that just makes clear that Jon storyline is not into getting the Iron Throne, but into defeating the others.

Jon's character is a hero and heroes not necessary are kings, and most of the time died in battle in order to be remember.

[UnmaskedLurker]

It could be that Jon (and we as readers) get the satisfaction to know who their parents are and or if they had married or not (through Weirwood tree Bran), but while the first thing is relevant to development of the story, the second one is not. Legitimate or illegitimate Jon will still fight the others, and as we see in the books people follow Jon for his strength and courage, although he is a bastard.

It certainly seems inevitable that his bloodline (son of Rhaegar and Lyanna) becomes important to the story (perhaps related to being a dragonrider but perhaps something more fundamental to being the song of ice and fire--i.e, combining the elements). I agree that it is not entirely clear how being legitimate will become important to the story, but there are enough clues that he is legitimate, that it certainly might become important. If it does become important, I don't think any of us should doubt GRRM's ability to make it known somehow to the right people so that its relevance bears out.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

Based on the evidence I've provided, I don't think you're the right guy to be giving out advice on the application of symbolism.

Maybe you should reconsider that. I mean, this thread has nothing to do with symbolism, but you barrel in here talking about it anyway because you see it everywhere. It's funny though, how the only symbolism in the books seems to revolve around R+L=J. Huge swaths of themes in the book are bereft of symbolism all so GRRM can laboriously come up with hidden codes about Jon's parentage.

A number of posters have reference that D&D figured out Jon's mother, but I don't think that everyone who is mentioning that D&D figured this out are making the significance as clear as it could be made. GRRM asked D&D whether they knew who Jon's mother is (I think he only asked about the mother because he did not want to suggest outright that Ned is not the father) because it is important to the story (why bother with a question that relates to something that will not end up being significant to the story). He also asked because he believed that only a careful reader would figure it out BUT more important a careful reader WOULD figure it out. He acknowledged that D&D passed the test and correctly identified Jon's mother. We know therefore that the mother cannot be the fisherman's daughter because the conversation with D&D happened before any mention of the fisherman's daughter. I think we can eliminate Wylla pretty easily because what is the point of making the question a big deal if the answer is that Robert got it right and stated it explicitly. So that leaves us with only two real possibilities, Ashara and Lyanna. People have demonstrated in many other threads why Ashara is not really a good candidate. More to the point, again, such a reveal would not be such a big deal that it would serve as a test for D&D, and there are not really "hidden" clues about Ashara as mother of Jon, just speculation by some people in the story. So by process of elimination, D&D MUST have guessed Lyanna, and GRRM stated that they were correct. I acknowledge that the clues that R & L were married are not completely definitive, but R+L=J is virtually certain--not just based on what is in the books, but based on what we have been told outside of the books (most particularly, the information about this exchange between GRRM and D&D). I really am shocked that anyone who has read the various analyses regarding R+L=J could still doubt it.

I would argue that you're reading too much into it. The test is much simpler than that. Someone who only provided a cursory glance at the material would answer that it was Wylla. Someone who paid attention to the details would answer Ashara. The question was about seeing how closely they had read the written word on a text, not an existential test on symbolism and metaphor.

[Ygritte]

Don't feel bad. It took me three reads to figure it out, and even then I didn't figure out everything! :)

I figured it out pretty quickly (though I didn't guess they might have been married until much later) and like probably a thousand other people on this board, found this board for the express purpose of posting my Original!Genius!Theory! that I was sure nobody else had figured out!!!11!!!...and then upon glancing at the boards, realizing my Original!Genius!Theory already had a ton of overflow threads. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[UnmaskedLurker]

I would argue that you're reading too much into it. The test is much simpler than that. Someone who only provided a cursory glance at the material would answer that it was Wylla. Someone who paid attention to the details would answer Ashara. The question was about seeing how closely they had read the written word on a text, not an existential test on symbolism and metaphor.

Of course it was not a test in metaphor. It was a test in how well they understood the text and how closely and attentively they read the text (I am not relying on blue flowers here). Given that notion--it could not possibly be Wylla. While maybe it could be Ashara, I don't think the issue would be nearly as big a deal if it is Ashara--and it just does not really make sense for it to be Ashara. It was a test--we know that. It only works as a test if it is something that a close reader would figure out, but is not obvious. Most people who have read the text closely and come to a conclusion as to who Jon's mother is--in fact virtually everyone (other than you and a hand full of others) who has examined the text closely and come to a conclusion as to who Jon's mother is--has concluded that Lyanna is Jon's mother. But you want us to believe that D&D concluded someone else (Ashara--Wylla--fisherman's daughter who not even been mentioned at that point), and GRRM confirmed their accuracy. I'm sorry. Now we are not arguing about the logic of the actions of a character in a book (which can be manipulated by an author to get the desired result). We are arguing logic of the actions of real people in the real world. To me, the only logical possibility for the exchange between GRRM and D&D regarding Jon's mother is that they concluded that Lyanna is Jon's mother and GRRM confirmed it.

[J. Stargaryen]

Maybe you should reconsider that. I mean, this thread has nothing to do with symbolism, but you barrel in here talking about it anyway because you see it everywhere. It's funny though, how the only symbolism in the books seems to revolve around R+L=J. Huge swaths of themes in the book are bereft of symbolism all so GRRM can laboriously come up with hidden codes about Jon's parentage.

I should, what, reconsider taking advice on the application of symbolism from the guy who thinks everybody is reading too much into everything? Yeah, I'll get right on that.

You say I see symbolism everywhere, do you see it anywhere? Have you ever done any symbolic analysis here? Or, is there even any that you approve of? You know, where you didn't feel that the OP was reading too much into it.

And where do you get the idea that the symbolism only revolves around R+L=J? That's so bizarre, and certainly nothing that I've ever claimed.

I would argue that you're reading too much into it. The test is much simpler than that. Someone who only provided a cursory glance at the material would answer that it was Wylla. Someone who paid attention to the details would answer Ashara. The question was about seeing how closely they had read the written word on a text, not an existential test on symbolism and metaphor.

Shocking!

[The other prince]

I remember reading the first books and thinking I was so damn clever for coming up with the idea that Jon was not Ned's bastard. I was pissed when Caitlyn never got to find out that Ned had been faithful.

Then I arrive at this forum years and years later and realise that I wasn't so damn clever and I missed about half the clues. (Never realised the importance of the kingsguard or that Ned never thought of Jon as his son or even considered that Jon could be legitimate)

Same here, I remember getting people to start reading the books just to see if they got the same thing out of them. Much much later (I read the first book in the late 90s) I realized the same thing you did.

FWIW, I never thought the legitimacy mattered because, despite his bloodline, I never thought he would sit on the iron throne. As far as I was concerned, Robert won the throne by conquest and that extinguished the Targaryian right to the throne. (I know that Robert had the best claim via blood but that was out of Jon, Ned and him, not all of Westeros)

Like Daenarys's right being meaningless until she got dragons, Jon's right also seems meaningless until he does something. Being one of the dragon riders makes sense, but bloodright alone does not get you the iron throne. I think Stannis has something to say about that.

Robert would have actually had a decent claim by blood even if we look through all westeros. He was a direct decsendant of Egg who would be his Great Grandfather. There also the whole thing where many believe that Orys Baratheon was a bastard brother to Aegon I. Still you are right and conquest certainly has everything to do with who ended up king.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Robert would have actually had a decent claim by blood even if we look through all westeros. He was a direct decsendant of Egg who would be his Great Grandfather. There also the whole thing where many believe that Orys Baratheon was a bastard brother to Aegon I. Still you are right and conquest certainly has everything to do with who ended up king.

Bloodlines matter because right of conquest is not the only reason Robert became king. Right of conquest was necessary, but not sure it was sufficient. The fact that Robert was next in line the throne after the Targaryen house (through his Targaryen grandmother, the daughter of Egg) was also important to give legitimacy to Robert's coronation. So those who state that House Baratheon is entitled to the throne merely as a result of Right of Conquest are ignoring the part that bloodline also played in justifying making Robert king. Thus, if Stannis and Shereen die, it would not be crazy to argue that even with the Right of Conquest being respected, the throne reverts back to House Targaryen.

[The other prince]

yet another R+L thread?? seriously?!

There will always be another R+L=J thread while some people simply refuse to acknowledge what most of us have had figured out for years. I wonder, could it just be sour grapes because they were not able to figure out R+L+J for themselves when they read the books?

[Ygritte]

Bloodlines matter because right of conquest is not the only reason Robert became king. Right of conquest was necessary, but not sure it was sufficient. The fact that Robert was next in line the throne after the Targaryen house (through his Targaryen grandmother, the daughter of Egg) was also important to give legitimacy to Robert's coronation. So those who state that House Baratheon is entitled to the throne merely as a result of Right of Conquest are ignoring the part that bloodline also played in justifying making Robert king. Thus, if Stannis and Shereen die, it would not be crazy to argue that even with the Right of Conquest being respected, the throne reverts back to House Targaryen.

There's a real-world parallel to Henry VII, too (though Bob is more Edward IV in other respects). Henry won the throne by conquest, but he also papered over it with a thin layer of "Well, my mother is descended from a previous king's junior son and his third wife!"