R+L=J v.96

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Reference guide

The Tower of the Hand has an excellent analysis of this theory:
Jon Snow's Parents

And Westeros' Citadel also provides a summary:
Jon Snow's Parents

A Wiki of Ice and Fire:
Jon Snow Theories

Frequently Asked Questions:

How can Jon be a Targaryen if he has a burned hand?
Targaryens are not immune to fire. Aerion Brightflame died drinking wildfire. Aegon V and his son Duncan are thought to have died in a fire-related event at Summerhall. Rhaenyra was eaten by Aegon II's dragon, presumably roasted by fire before the dragon took a bite. Viserys died when he was crowned with molten gold. Dany suffered burns from the fire pit incident at the end of A Dance with Dragons. Finally, the author has stated outright that Targaryens are not immune to fire. Jon's burned hand does not mean he is ineligible to be part Targaryen. For more information about the myth of Targaryen fire immunity, see this thread.

How can Jon be a Targ if he doesn't have silver hair and purple eyes?
Not all Targaryens had the typical Valyrian look. Alysanne had blue eyes. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) had the Dornish look. Some of the Great Bastards did not have typical Valyrian features. Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had her mother's Dornish look.

If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him?
Much is made over the fact that Arya looks like Lyanna, and Jon looks like Arya. Ned and Lyanna shared similar looks.

How can Jon be half-Targ if he has a direwolf?
Ned's trueborn children are half Stark and half Tully. Being half Tully didn't prevent them from having a direwolf so there is no reason to think being half Targaryen would prevent Jon from having a direwolf. If Lyanna is his mother, then he's still half Stark. Furthermore, there is already a character who is half Targaryen and half blood of the First Men and was a skinchanger: Bloodraven.

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?
The evidence that Jon is legitimate is that Targaryens have a history of polygamous marriages which makes it a possibility that Rhaegar had two wives. Three Kingsguards were present at the Tower of Joy when Ned arrived. Even after Ned said that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead and Viserys had fled to Dragonstone, the Kingsguard opted to stay at the Tower of Joy stating they were obeying their Kingsguard vow. The heart of a Kingsguard's vow is to protect the king. With Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon dead, the new king would have been Viserys, unless Lyanna's child was legitimate making him the new king of the Targaryen dynasty. For a comprehensive analysis of Jon's legitimacy, see the detailed explanations in the two linked articles.

But polygamy hadn't been practiced in centuries, is it still even legal?
The practice was never made illegal and there may have been some less prominent examples after Maegor, as stated in this SSM. Furthermore, Jorah suggests it to Dany as a viable option.

Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage?
Aerys was sane enough to realize how taking someone hostage works even at the end of the Rebellion, and he would hardly miss the opportunity to bring Ned and Robert in line any time after the situation started to look really serious. Furthermore, regardless of on whose order the Kingsguard might have stayed at Tower of Joy, they would still be in dereliction of their duty to guard the new king.

This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true?
The theory is not obvious to the majority of readers. Some will get it on first read, most will not. Keep in mind that readers who go to online fan forums, such as this one, represent a very small minority of the A Song of Ice and Fire readership. Also, A Game of Thrones has been out since 1996. That's more than 17 years of readers being able to piece together this mystery.

Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother?
Ned doesn't think about anyone as being his mother. He says the name 'Wylla' to Robert, but does not actively think that Wylla is the mother. He also doesn't think of Jon as his son. There are numerous mysteries in the series, and Jon's parentage is one of those. If Ned thought about Jon being Lyanna's son, it would not be a mystery.

Why should we care who Jon's parents are? Will Jon care? Who cares if he's legitimate?
Once one accepts that the evidence is conclusive and that Jon's parents are Rhaegar and Lyanna and that he is most probably legitimate, these become the important questions.

Since this theory has been refined so well, will Martin change the outcome of the story to surprise his fans?
No, he said he won't change the outcome of the story only because some people have put together all the clues and solved the puzzle.

Previous editions:

Please click on the spoiler below to reveal links to all previous editions of this thread.

“Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread” (thread one)

“Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread” (thread two)

“The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon thread (Part III)” (thread three)

“The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon thread (Part IV)” (thread four)

“The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part V)” (thread five)

“The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part VI)” (thread six)

“The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon Thread Part VII” (thread seven)

“The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part VIII” (thread eight)

“The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part IX” (thread nine)

“The Rhaegar + Lyanna =Jon Thread, Part X”(thread ten)

“The R+L=J thread, part XI” (thread eleven)

“The R+L=J thread, part XII” (thread twelve)

“R+L=J Part XXIII” (thread thirteen)

“R+L=J Part XXIV” (thread fourteen)

“R+L=J XXV” (thread fifteen)

“R+L=J v.16” (thread sixteen)

“R+L=J v.17” (thread seventeen)

“R+L=J v.18” (thread eighteen)

“R+L=J v.19” (thread nineteen)

“R+L=J v.20” (thread twenty)

“R+L=J v.21” (thread twenty-one)

“R+L=J v.22” (thread twenty-two)

“R+L=J v.22a” (thread twenty-two (a))

“R+L=J v.23” (thread twenty-three)

“R+L=J v.24” (thread twenty-four)

“R+L=J v.25” (thread twenty-five)

“R+L=J v.26” (thread twenty-six)

“R+L=J v.27” (thread twenty-seven)

“R+L=J v.28” (thread twenty-eight)

“R+L=J v.29” (thread twenty-nine)

“R+L=J v.30” (thread thirty)

“R+L=J v.31” (thread thirty-one)

“R+L=J v.32” (thread thirty-two)

“R+L=J v.33” (thread thirty-three)

“R+L=J v.34” (thread thirty-four)

“R+L=J v.35” (thread thirty-five)

“R+L=J v.36” (thread thirty-six)

“R+L=J v.37” (thread thirty-seven)

“R+L=J v.38” (thread thirty-eight)

“R+L=J v.39” (thread thirty-nine)

"R+L=J v.40" (thread forty)

"R+L=J v.41" (thread forty-one)

"R+L=J v.42" (thread forty-two)

"R+L=J v.43" (thread forty-three)

"R+L=J v.44" (thread forty-four)

"R+L=J v.45" (thread forty-five)

"R+L=J v.46" (thread forty-six)

"R+L=J v.47" (thread forty-seven)

"R+L=J v.48" (thread forty-eight)

"R+L=J v.49" (thread forty-nine)

"R+L=J v.50" (thread fifty)

"R+L=J v.51" (thread fifty-one)

"R+L=J v.52" (thread fifty-two)

"R+L=J v.53" (thread fifty-three)

"R+L=J v.54" (thread fifty-four)

"R+L=J v.55" (thread fifty-five)

"R+L=J v.56" (thread fifty-six)

"R+L=J v.57" (thread fifty-seven)

"R+L=J v.58" (thread fifty-eight)

"R+L=J v.59" (thread fifty-nine)

"R+L=J v.60" (thread sixty)

"R+L=J v.61" (thread sixty-one)

"R+L=J v.62" (thread sixty-two)

"R+L=J v.63" (thread sixty-three)

"R+L=J v.64" (thread sixty-four)

"R+L=J v.65" (thread sixty-five)

"R+L=J v.66" (thread sixty-six)

"R+L=J v.67" (thread sixty-seven)

"R+L=J v.68" (thread sixty-eight)

"R+L=J v.69" (thread sixty-nine)

"R+L=J v.70" (thread seventy)

"R+L=J v.71" (thread seventy-one)

"R+L=J v.72" (thread seventy-two)

"R+L=J v.73" (thread seventy-three)

"R+L=J v.74" (thread seventy-four)

"R+L=J v.75" (thread seventy-five)

"R+L=J v.76" (thread seventy-six)

"R+L=J v.77" (thread seventy-seven)

"R+L=J v.78" (thread seventy-eight)

"R+L=J v.79" (thread seventy-nine)

"R+L=J v.80" (thread eighty)

"R+L=J v.81" (thread eighty-one)

"R+L=J v.82" (thread eighty-two)

"R+L=J v.83" (thread eighty-three)

"R+L=J v.84" (thread eighty-four)

"R+L=J v.85" (thread eighty-five)

"R+L=J v.86" (thread eighty-six)

"R+L=J v.87" (thread eighty-seven)

"R+L=J v.88" (thread eighty-eight)

"R+L=J v.89" (thread eighty-nine)

"R+L=J v.90" (thread ninety)

"R+L=J v.91" (thread ninety-one)

"R+L=J v.92" (thread ninety-two)

"R+L=J v.93" (thread ninety-three)

"R+L=J v.94" (thread ninety-four)

"R+L=J v.95" (thread ninety-five)

--------snip--------

eta: by 20140813 there's been the suggestion to add the "Martin is not gonna change the story only because some fans have figured it out" interview to the reference guide.

[Game Of Thrones]

There seems to be, very sadly, an increase in anti-R+L=J threads recently.

Crackpots gather, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I am the sword in the crackpotland. I am the watcher on the forums. I am the fire that burns against B+A=J, the light that brings the R+L=J, the horn that wakes the mods, the shield that guards the forums. I pledge my life and honor to the Crackpot's Watch, for B+A=J and all the R+L=/=Js to come.

[A Bastard Snow]

There seems to be, very sadly, an increase in anti-R+L=J threads recently.

Crackpots gather, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I am the sword in the crackpotland. I am the watcher on the forums. I am the fire that burns against B+A=J, the light that brings the R+L=J, the horn that wakes the mods, the shield that guards the forums. I pledge my life and honor to the Crackpot's Watch, for B+A=J and all the R+L=/=Js to come.

"The Night Is Dark And Full Of Crackpots"

[Ygrain]

There seems to be, very sadly, an increase in anti-R+L=J threads recently.

Crackpots gather, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I am the sword in the crackpotland. I am the watcher on the forums. I am the fire that burns against B+A=J, the light that brings the R+L=J, the horn that wakes the mods, the shield that guards the forums. I pledge my life and honor to the Crackpot's Watch, for B+A=J and all the R+L=/=Js to come.

Beware, for once you say the words, you are in, before gods old and new...

[keira_targaryen]

RLJ haters be like:

"it's too obvious" or "it's a cliché"

:bang:

[FrozenFire3]

Crackpots are wind ;)

As per GRRM's words yesterday in Edinburgh:

He has not and will not let fans’ (correct) theorizing of plot points affect the eventual outcome of the story. If the clues are already in place, he owes it to the reader to deliver upon them as originally intended.

Source

And now their crackpot is ended LOL

[Ygrain]

Crackpots are wind ;)

As per GRRM's words yesterday in Edinburgh:

Source

And now their crackpot is ended LOL

Unless it arises through dark sorcery, for the internet is dark and full of terrors :D

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

Crackpots are wind ;)

As per GRRM's words yesterday in Edinburgh:

Source

And now their crackpot is ended LOL

"I'm looking at you, RLJ deniers" ;)

Unless it arises through dark sorcery, for the internet is dark and full of terrors :D

To paraphrase Melisandre of Asshai-- The brightest theory casts the darkest crackpots :D

[FrozenFire3]

"I'm looking at you RLJ deniers" ;)

To paraphrase Melisandre of Asshai-- The brightest theory casts the darkest crackpots :D

:lmao:

A few pending replies from v.95...

Alia:

A quick question, and out of curiosity, did the Valaryons of Driftmark ever practice incest?

We don't have direct textual evidence, but considering their close ties (and frequent marriages) to the Targs and the persistence of Valyrian features within the family, I'd say yes.

Kingmonkey:

If they fight, then even in the most optimistic scenario, they're not going to get Jon on the throne. Firstly, he's a baby. Secondly, there's 3KG against the combined armies of the Stormlands, Westerlands, Riverlands, North and Vale. Everyone else has capitulated. What they want is Jon's survival, at least for now. So the question remains: what is so different about what the 3KG want (Jon's survival) and what Ned wants (Jon's survival -- remember, Ned hates the idea of killing Targ kids and has chosen to go to the ToJ with only a small number of his most trusted men) that they have to fight about it?

Yet. Always in motion the future is ;) Considering Robert's 'distracted' rule, the multiplayer game of thrones, the Martells thirst for revenge (and love of plots), the Tyrrells ambiguous politics and all the scattered Targaryen loyalists more than happy to rally behing Rhaegar's heir and three shining examples vouching for him... I wouldn't be so categorical.

The difference is that while Ned wanted the survival of Jon (not that they could be sure of that, not even Lyanna was sure of that), they wanted the survival of a dynasty they were sworn to. Ned would never (and did never) turn against against his king and best friend to put his nephew on the throne. Therefore the inevitable clash. The KG fight to secure the survival of a dynasty (key at that stage being secrecy aka the obliteration of every possible leak/witness). Or die trying.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

We don't have direct textual evidence, but considering their close ties (and frequent marriages) to the Targs and the persistence of Valyrian features within the family, I'd say yes.

Velaryons used to marry Targaryens a lot. And with he knowledge that there were plenty of Velaryons with a Targaryen mother, and the fact that Velayons already had the Velaryon featurea, I'd say that cousin to cousin marriages must have been (and might still be) pretty normal.

Incest overall seems to have been practised by Targaryens only. We don't know of any Velaryon example.

[Lord Varys]

The fact that Laenor and Laena (both were dragonriders) were not married to each other would suggest that the Velaryons did not practice incest. At least not as long as they were not chosen as consorts for Targaryen kings, princes, and princesses to whom they were already closely related. What we know about the parents of Aegon I (Valaena Velaryon) and Alyssa Velaryon seems to suggest that the Targaryens and the Velaryons were already pretty close at this time, and this seems to have continued at least until the Dance.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I wanted to reply to Kingmonkey from v. 95, who stated the following:

Recurring does not mean true. "I might mention, though, that Ned's account, which you refer to, was in the context of a dream... and a fever dream at that. Our dreams are not always literal." -SSM

I'm inclined to believe GRRM's hint on this one. Trying to pick apart exactly what happens in this scene assuming that it's what actually took place rather than being a version filtered through Ned's unconscious strikes me as making some risky assumptions.

I have made this point before, but I think it bears repeating. The dream needs to be interpreted as Ned's recollection of what happened, rather than a word-for-word translation. In some sense, it is better than a literal recollection as it encapsulates what Ned thought was most important from that day. And certainly one can surmise that certain aspects did not actually happen, for example, Ned saying "Now it ends" is more likely him inserting that thought based on his after-the-fact knowledge of how things turned out--or his sister calling to him from the window being inserted based on his name being called to him by the person trying to wake him up.

But the "dream" must be consistent with Ned's understanding of what happened that day. Otherwise, it would not haunt him. The dream--the recurring dream--haunts him because it summarizes his understanding of the important aspects of what happened. So the dialogue may be somewhat "invented" by Ned, but in some sense it is better than the actual dialogue because Ned has the benefit of hindsight and additional information he learned later in time to inform the details of the reconstructed conversation with the KG.

So while the dream may not be relied on to be a word-for-word recreation of the actual events, it is even more useful, perhaps, than a literal recreation would be and gives the reader essential information that is not "incorrect" information. For example, Ned would not dream about the KG talking about keeping their vows unless Ned actually believed that the KG believed they were keeping their vows at that time (regardless whether those precise words were actually spoken at that time). So GRRM is being a little cagey when he says the dream is not literal because the dream actually may provide better information than if it were literal.

[BearQueen87]

"I'm looking at you, RLJ deniers" ;)

To paraphrase Melisandre of Asshai-- The brightest theory casts the darkest crackpots :D

Just replying to this to say that I really loved the latest Radio Westeros!!

ETA: from the last thread, but Jon is a secret Targ AND a unicorn?? Excellent.

[stateofdissipation]

:lmao:

A few pending replies from v.95...

Alia:

We don't have direct textual evidence, but considering their close ties (and frequent marriages) to the Targs and the persistence of Valyrian features within the family, I'd say yes.

Kingmonkey:

Yet. Always in motion the future is ;) Considering Robert's 'distracted' rule, the multiplayer game of thrones, the Martells thirst for revenge (and love of plots), the Tyrrells ambiguous politics and all the scattered Targaryen loyalists more than happy to rally behing Rhaegar's heir and three shining examples vouching for him... I wouldn't be so categorical.

The difference is that while Ned wanted the survival of Jon (not that they could be sure of that, not even Lyanna was sure of that), they wanted the survival of a dynasty they were sworn to. Ned would never (and did never) turn against against his king and best friend to put his nephew on the throne. Therefore the inevitable clash. The KG fight to secure the survival of a dynasty (key at that stage being secrecy aka the obliteration of every possible leak/witness). Or die trying.

Rhaegar's heir

He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks. and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood.---aGoT page 409

As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming. .---aGoT page 410

"I know every secret of the bloody bed, silver lady, nor have I ever lost a babe." Mirri Maz Duur replied.--aGoT page 650

All of which is a long winded way of saying, no, Jon was not born "more than 1 year" before Dany... probably closer to eight or nine months or thereabouts.GRRM http://www.westeros....SSM/Entry/1040/

three shining examples vouching for him...

Something his father had told him once when he was little came back to him suddenly. He had asked if the kingsguard were truly the finest knights in the Seven Kingdoms. "No longer," he answered,"but once they were a marvel, a shining lesson to the world."

"Was there one who was best of all?"

"The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star, They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed." Father had gotten sad then , and he would say no more,---aCoK page 332

The KG fight to secure the survival of a dynasty

The first duty of the kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or threat. The white knights were sworn to obey the king's commands as well, to keep his secrets, counsel him when counsel was requested and to keep silent when it was not, serve at his pleasure and defend his name and honor. Strictly speaking; it was purely the king's choice whether or not to extend Kingsguard protection to others even those of royal blood. Some kings thought it right and proper to dispatch Kingsguard serve and defend their wives and children, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins of a greater or lesser degree,and occasionally their lovers, mistresses and bastards. But others preferred to use household knights for those purposes, whilst keeping their seven as their own personal guard never far from their sides.

If the queen had commanded me to protect Hizdahr, i would have no choice but to obey.--aDwD 857-858 paperback

He remembered Jamie Lannister, a golden youth in scaled white armor, kneeling in the grass in front of the king's pavilion making his vows to protect and defend king Aerys.--aGoT page 607

(key at that stage being secrecy aka the obliteration of every possible leak/witness). Or die trying.

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that.

http://web.archive.o...s3/00103009.htm

[stateofdissipation]

I wanted to reply to Kingmonkey from v. 95, who stated the following:

I have made this point before, but I think it bears repeating. The dream needs to be interpreted as Ned's recollection of what happened, rather than a word-for-word translation. In some sense, it is better than a literal recollection as it encapsulates what Ned thought was most important from that day. And certainly one can surmise that certain aspects did not actually happen, for example, Ned saying "Now it ends" is more likely him inserting that thought based on his after-the-fact knowledge of how things turned out--or his sister calling to him from the window being inserted based on his name being called to him by the person trying to wake him up.

But the "dream" must be consistent with Ned's understanding of what happened that day. Otherwise, it would not haunt him. The dream--the recurring dream--haunts him because it summarizes his understanding of the important aspects of what happened. So the dialogue may be somewhat "invented" by Ned, but in some sense it is better than the actual dialogue because Ned has the benefit of hindsight and additional information he learned later in time to inform the details of the reconstructed conversation with the KG.

So while the dream may not be relied on to be a word-for-word recreation of the actual events, it is even more useful, perhaps, than a literal recreation would be and gives the reader essential information that is not "incorrect" information. For example, Ned would not dream about the KG talking about keeping their vows unless Ned actually believed that the KG believed they were keeping their vows at that time (regardless whether those precise words were actually spoken at that time). So GRRM is being a little cagey when he says the dream is not literal because the dream actually may provide better information than if it were literal.

I have made this point before, but I think it bears repeating. The dream needs to be interpreted as Ned's recollection of what happened, rather than a word-for-word translation.

I might mention, though, that Ned's account, which you refer to, was in the context of a dream... and a fever dream at that. Our dreams are not always literal. --GRRM

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Concerning_the_Tower_of_Joy

The dream--the recurring dream--haunts him because it summarizes his understanding of the important aspects of what happened.

He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks. and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood.---aGoT page 409

"A small cup," Ned said. "my head is still heavy with milk of the poppy."---aGoT page 412.

For example, Ned would not dream about the KG talking about keeping their vows unless Ned actually believed that the KG believed they were keeping their vows at that time

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.--aGoT page 410

[honeyed chicken]

from last thread:

Ser Leftwich

How can Lyarra be an iceberg?

I'm going to give my answer to this one question, then I promise I'll shut up for a while. The reason to answer this is that whenever an R+L=J doubter, or a nitpicker like myself casts aspersions on R+L=J, he/she is asked what do you have that's better?

In my case, the answer is that I have nothing better. That's not the same as saying I have nothing.

IF you are willing to take advantage of the fact that the Lyanna timeline (both when and where) is wide open, you can easily imagine where a pregnant Lyanna returns to WF and is confronted by her mother. "Who is the father?" And she then tells her daughter to abort the pregnancy. Lyanna refuses and leaves again. A few months later, the war ends and Ned returns with the child. The horrified Lyarra leaves WF rather than countenance this child (whose grandfather murdered her husband and son OR if the child is the product of incest between Lyanna and Ned).

If this was the general shape of what happened, Lyarra has taken the secret with her to wherever she is. The confrontation would have taken place before Catelyn arrived in WF so she didn't know and Ned is too guarded to have let us know. It would be buried in his torment over the promise to Lyanna.

Maybe she just died and none of her family thinks of her, ever . . .

But that seems unlikely, and that's why I think there are some dark secrets she's keeping.

It's also why I think a Jon who is free to roam the north as Ghost could reveal some interesting insights. As in warg Jon meets his grandmother (double grandmother?).

[BearQueen87]

from last thread:

Ser Leftwich

How can Lyarra be an iceberg?

I'm going to give my answer to this one question, then I promise I'll shut up for a while. The reason to answer this is that whenever an R+L=J doubter, or a nitpicker like myself casts aspersions on R+L=J, he/she is asked what do you have that's better?

In my case, the answer is that I have nothing better. That's not the same as saying I have nothing.

IF you are willing to take advantage of the fact that the Lyanna timeline (both when and where) is wide open, you can easily imagine where a pregnant Lyanna returns to WF and is confronted by her mother. "Who is the father?" And she then tells her daughter to abort the pregnancy. Lyanna refuses and leaves again. A few months later, the war ends and Ned returns with the child. The horrified Lyarra leaves WF rather than countenance this child (whose grandfather murdered her husband and son OR if the child is the product of incest between Lyanna and Ned).

If this was the general shape of what happened, Lyarra has taken the secret with her to wherever she is. The confrontation would have taken place before Catelyn arrived in WF so she didn't know and Ned is too guarded to have let us know. It would be buried in his torment over the promise to Lyanna.

The timeline is not that wide open, though. After Harrenhal there is at least 7-9 months before Rhaegar's son Aegon is born (depending on if Elia was pregnant at Harrenhal or not), and then even a little bit more time before Lyanna is taken, most likely from the Riverlands. So Lyanna cannot have returned to Winterfell from Harrenhal already pregnant because she would have given birth long before she was "taken." Also, the entire rebellion was almost a year long.

[UnmaskedLurker]

from last thread:

Ser Leftwich

How can Lyarra be an iceberg?

I'm going to give my answer to this one question, then I promise I'll shut up for a while. The reason to answer this is that whenever an R+L=J doubter, or a nitpicker like myself casts aspersions on R+L=J, he/she is asked what do you have that's better?

In my case, the answer is that I have nothing better. That's not the same as saying I have nothing.

IF you are willing to take advantage of the fact that the Lyanna timeline (both when and where) is wide open, you can easily imagine where a pregnant Lyanna returns to WF and is confronted by her mother. "Who is the father?" And she then tells her daughter to abort the pregnancy. Lyanna refuses and leaves again. A few months later, the war ends and Ned returns with the child. The horrified Lyarra leaves WF rather than countenance this child (whose grandfather murdered her husband and son OR if the child is the product of incest between Lyanna and Ned).

If this was the general shape of what happened, Lyarra has taken the secret with her to wherever she is. The confrontation would have taken place before Catelyn arrived in WF so she didn't know and Ned is too guarded to have let us know. It would be buried in his torment over the promise to Lyanna.

Maybe she just died and none of her family thinks of her, ever . . .

But that seems unlikely, and that's why I think there are some dark secrets she's keeping.

It's also why I think a Jon who is free to roam the north as Ghost could reveal some interesting insights. As in warg Jon meets his grandmother (double grandmother?).

This "fan fic" does not an iceberg make (and yes, I know you said you would shut up after this post, but it really needs to be responded to). There is absolutely no suggestion in the text that Lyanna went back to WF after becoming pregnant. There is every suggestion that she stayed hidden with Rhaegar the entire time. Just because there is a period of time for which actions are not accounted for does not mean that wild speculation about what a character might have done during that time creates a serious doubt about another character.

You seem to be obsessed with the idea that GRRM has told us almost nothing about Lyarra for some secret reason. While that might be true, we have no real reason to believe it is true. Without some hint in the text, it is basically "fan fic" to invent such a scenario. As noted above by a different poster, Lyarra is at best an ice cube that you insist on turning into an imagined iceberg.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

The timeline is not that wide open, though. After Harrenhal there is at least 7-9 months before Rhaegar's son Aegon is born (depending on if Elia was pregnant at Harrenhal or not), and then even a little bit more time before Lyanna is taken, most likely from the Riverlands. So Lyanna cannot have returned to Winterfell from Harrenhal already pregnant because she would have given birth long before she was "taken." Also, the entire rebellion was almost a year long.

Actually, ditch the "9" months. Either it is 7-8 or even more likely 10 months. Reason being the comet was seen over King's Landing heralding the conception of Aegon, Prince that was anticipated... It would have been seen over Harrenhal, but it says King's Landing. So allow some time to travel either to or fro Harrenhal/King's Landing to make it happen, and "9" is out of it.

It should be 10 indeed, because the comet is not mentioned anywhere in conjunction with the Tourney at Harrenhal, which, the longer you think of it, would be too odd not to have been made as a connection if it had happened before. I rest my case. ;)

[UnmaskedLurker]

Actually, ditch the "9" months. Either it is 7-8 or even more likely 10 months. Reason being the comet was seen over King's Landing heralding the conception of Aegon, Prince that was anticipated... It would have been seen over Harrenhal, but it says King's Landing. So allow some time to travel either to or fro Harrenhal/King's Landing to make it happen, and "9" is out of it.

It should be 10 indeed, because the comet is not mentioned anywhere in conjunction with the Tourney at Harrenhal, which, the longer you think of it, would be too odd not to have been made as a connection if it had happened before. I rest my case. ;)

I thought the suggestion was not that Lyanna went back to WF pregnant after Harrenhal, but after she was "taken" by Rhaegar and got pregnant. In other words, I thought the suggestion of HC was that Rhaegar takes Lyanna and she get pregnant. But because she was not really "taken" she was able to sneak back to WF, and only after the confrontation with Lyarra did she leave again and go with Rhaegar to ToJ. So the uncertain timeline I thought was being referenced was the timeline between Lyanna being "taken" but Rhaegar and Ned showing up at ToJ. We have very little information about what exactly happened during that time. In any event, the idea that Lyanna went back to WF preganant, IMHO, is pure "fan fic" and makes no sense.