R+L=J v100

[Jon Weirgaryen]

I just wonder if that's being fair to Martin, who didn't have to include the Young Griff storyline at all - but did so anyway, and much later in the story than might have been expected if it were simply a distraction.

I understand the very same in a possibly different way - Aegon came into the story too late to be any real thing. He must be a distraction of sorts. And he is.

In TWoW he is

reported to have taken Storm's End. If that's not shaking Westeros big time, I don't know. So that seems to deem me a liar if I keep persistantly saying he is

fake.

There should have been word or traces of him in the books before, other than sure dead.

"You know nothing, Jon Weirgaryen".

[mambru]

Advice to new people who come to these threads: start reading at 20 threads back, you questions most likely have been addressed.

That's actually a lot to ask, especially given the repetitive nature of this discussion. I would say just ask the question, there a plenty of people here to answer.

I completely agree.

So why do you think they were married? The bastard who turns out to be true prince and becomes the king is a cliche for Martin. Ok, you may believe in R+L=J, but why does Jon need to be legitimate?

In the light of this and similar inquiries, may I make a modest proposal? May I ask that the reference guide at the head of every thread be modified to include a "con" section as well as a "pro" section for the theory of R+L=J? Especially for the notion that IF Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna (as I do believe), Lyanna and Rhaegar MUST have been married, and that therefore Jon is not only the probable Prince That Was Promised, he is also the True King of Westeros (which, Debra Morgan, I also don't believe is likely)...and as Ygrain comments, those are two completely separate questions.

[Greenfyre]

Unfortunately, I think eisegesis is almost inevitable when it comes to explanations for the kingsguard presence - which is why I used the word. Even accepting Martin's word that they were given "orders," he really has provided no information at all regarding what those orders were or how they were justified. And that comment about "orders" was given in an interview, not in the text itself - so, strictly speaking, that too may fall under the heading of eisegetical interpretation.

Though in Martin's case, I think the personal bias used to interpret facts is by definition not really very biased...

[Greenfyre]

I completely agree.

In the light of this and similar inquiries, may I make a modest proposal? May I ask that the reference guide at the head of every thread be modified to include a "con" section as well as a "pro" section for the theory of R+L=J?

Awfully good idea.

But I doubt there will be much agreement about what the cons are, or whether R+L=J actually has any.

I can't count how many times I've read that "only R+L=J explains everything," as if that had been mathematically proven somewhere... when the truth is that you can't even list all the various theories, let alone evaluate them consistently and objectively.

[BearQueen87]

I completely agree.

In the light of this and similar inquiries, may I make a modest proposal? May I ask that the reference guide at the head of every thread be modified to include a "con" section as well as a "pro" section for the theory of R+L=J? Especially for the notion that IF Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna (as I do believe), Lyanna and Rhaegar MUST have been married, and that therefore Jon is not only the probable Prince That Was Promised, he is also the True King of Westeros (which, Debra Morgan, I also don't believe is likely)...and as Ygrain comments, those are two completely separate questions.

That might be a good idea, yes. Maybe you want to write it?

Nitpick: I don't think Jon is the "true king of westeros" because I don't think there is such a thing. The King is whoever manages to take the throne--Stannis, Robert, Dany, fAegon, Jon, Moon Boy for all I know. I don't think that just because Jon is legit (go with me for a second) and TPTWP that it must follow that he's also the rightful King.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

May I ask that the reference guide at the head of every thread be modified to include a "con" section as well as a "pro" section for the theory of R+L=J? Especially for the notion that IF Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna (as I do believe), Lyanna and Rhaegar MUST have been married, and that therefore Jon is not only the probable Prince That Was Promised, he is also the True King of Westeros (which, Debra Morgan, I also don't believe is likely)...and as Ygrain comments, those are two completely separate questions.

I am not getting what you want to ask for.

What is it that you would have in the "Contra" section?

It may be true that the longer people keep reading the R+L threads and re-reading Eddard, the more they develop a bias toward R+L married, but even though they seem to do, it is not most essential to the R+L=J theory. It goes with it, but is neither a foundation nor of importance to show Jon is the child of R+L.

It helps with the rest of what Jon says and hears in the books, that's a thing. And it helps understanding he might have been Targaryen King when he was a "suckling babe", And may account for three kingsguards at the cradle. It helps, but if that was wrong, the rest of R+L would all still be valid and still quite important as a key to the overall story.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

I completely agree.

In the light of this and similar inquiries, may I make a modest proposal? May I ask that the reference guide at the head of every thread be modified to include a "con" section as well as a "pro" section for the theory of R+L=J? Especially for the notion that IF Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna (as I do believe), Lyanna and Rhaegar MUST have been married, and that therefore Jon is not only the probable Prince That Was Promised, he is also the True King of Westeros (which, Debra Morgan, I also don't believe is likely)...and as Ygrain comments, those are two completely separate questions.

Hmmm, are you sure that's what you want? ;)

Seriously, not a terrible idea to at least illustrate the plurality of views on Jon's destiny, the meaning of RLJ etc. Many noobs arrive here assuming that there is a single idea governing this thread when in reality there are many nuanced opinions on the matter. I think rather than list them all, it might be easier to include a disclaimer that such variety exists and encourage the asking of nuanced questions so that people can make up their own minds.

Though in Martin's case, I think the personal bias used to interpret facts is by definition not really very biased...

Greenfyre! Since we're walking down memory lane in this thread, let me say that your theory about Lyanna and Jon was one of the better researched alternatives to RLJ I've yet seen here. You made some quite interesting connections, and while I don't buy your conclusion I do think those connections exist for a reason :)

[Ygrain]

I'm not necessarily trying to exonerate the 3KG, but they were not attacking Ned and the gang out of cruelty or lack of concern for Lyanna's mental well being. They have to protect the King. That is the first, primary, most important duty they have. And, yeah, I know you don't think Jon is legit so we're sorta at cross purposes here, once again. Do I think that the 3KG felt bad that they were going to have to kill Lyanna's brother? Yes. Do I think they stopped and thought really long and hard about the moral implications of doing that? Nope. Why? Because King Jon needs protecting, and We! Are! Kingsguard!

At least Dayne did, or else he wouldn't be sad.

Unfortunately, I think eisegesis is almost inevitable when it comes to explanations for the kingsguard presence - which is why I used the word. Even accepting Martin's word that they were given "orders," he really has provided no information at all regarding what those orders were or how they were justified. And that comment about "orders" was given in an interview, not in the text itself - so, strictly speaking, that too may fall under the heading of eisegetical interpretation.

Re: Earlier discussions - If there were particular comments made in the threads you mention that you think would be helpful, let me know. I may take a look.

Are you referring to the SSM where he says that if Rhaegar gave them an order, they would obey? That one is unnecessary for explaining the actions of the KG, as they state it themselves, in-text: "we are Kingsguard, we swore a vow".

I've been around since thread 18 or so, and while I can remember which issues have been discussed, I am totally unable to refer to a particular thread or post. Generally, the issues with Aegon's presence are:

- logistics and timeframe of smuggling Aegon from KL to ToJ (why travel across the whole continent when a ship to Essos is right at hand just to put both your eggs in the same basket, the involvement of Elia and servants)

- Ned thinking Aegon dead but still considering the KG explanation of their presence satisfactory and not detracting from them being shining examples of KG

- convoluted presence of two plot-important mysteries in the same location (because if Jon is not legit, he is still R+L)

- zero text hints (nothing to be tied to the story of the Pisswater Prince or anything else Aegon-related)

- "dragons true and false" and "cloth dragon on poles" aka the mummer's dragon hint at a pretender some time in the story, and if it's not fAegon, then whom?

[BearQueen87]

I am not getting what you want to ask for.

What is it that you would have in the "Contra" section?

It may be true that the longer people keep reading the R+L threads and re-reading Eddard, the more they develop a bias toward R+L married, but even though they seem to do, it is not most essential to the R+L=J theory. It goes with it, but is neither a foundation nor of importance to show Jon is the child of R+L.

It helps with the rest of what Jon says and hears in the books, that's a thing. And it helps understanding he might have been Targaryen King when he was a "suckling babe", And may account for three kingsguards at the cradle. It helps, but if that was wrong, the rest of R+L would all still be valid and still quite important as a key to the overall story.

Maybe it needs to be two sections then: IS JON LEGIT? section

One section about R+L = LEGIT J (pros) and one section R+L =/= LEGIT J (the cons)

95% of the people who post regularly in this thread believe RLJ and RL = LEGIT J and talk about it with the same certainty, which is why Mambru and Lord Varys have been camped out here recently, putting us through our paces. It might help some of the repetitive nature if there was a section devoted to LEGIT J at the start?

[stateofdissipation]

Awfully good idea.

But I doubt there will be much agreement about what the cons are, or whether R+L=J actually has any.

I can't count how many times I've read that "only R+L=J explains everything," as if that had been mathematically proven somewhere... when the truth is that you can't even list all the various theories, let alone evaluate them consistently and objectively.

Dream Con

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

You'll need to wait for future books to find out more about the Tower of Joy and what happened there, I fear.

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.

ToJ Con

The question has been asked and answered

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

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. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

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

Time of birth is not established

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

"That was the way of this cold world, where men fished the sea and dug in the ground and died, whilst women brought forth short-lived children from beds of blood and pain."- AFfC p. 21

Lyanna ran off Con

And then there are some things that are just don’t square with history. In some sense I’m trying to respond to that. [For example] the arranged marriage, which you see constantly in the historical fiction and television show, almost always when there’s an arranged marriage, the girl doesn’t want it and rejects it and she runs off with the stable boy instead. This never fucking happened. It just didn’t. There were thousands, tens of thousand, perhaps hundreds of thousands of arranged marriages in the nobility through the thousand years of Middle Ages and people went through with them. That’s how you did it. It wasn’t questioned. Yeah, occasionally you would want someone else, but you wouldn’t run off with the stable boy.--GRRM

http://entertainment...sy-and-history/

Polygamy Con

Maegor the Cruel has multiple wives, from lines outside his own, so there was and is precedent. However, the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object. http://www.westeros....SSM/Entry/2997/

Rhaegar was not a king and did not have dragons.

Direwolf Con

One man in a thousand is born a skinchanger, and one skinchanger in a thousand could be a greenseer.--aSoS chapter 9

Ned's children are wargs. It is not a Stark trait. All Starks exhibiting the trait come from Ned at least reportedly.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Direwolf Con

One man in a thousand is born a skinchanger, and one skinchanger in a thousand could be a greenseer.--aSoS chapter 9

Ned's children are wargs. It is not a Stark trait. All Starks exhibiting the trait come from Ned at least reportedly.

The current Starks have a Blackwood ancestor. Brynden Rivers had a Blackwood mother, and he was also a skinchanger. Coincidence? Perhaps.. But I find it highly suspicious..

[Ghost's Shadow]

There's a reason why the Stark sigil is a direwolf, and why there's direwolves sitting in the crypts.

If for the Starks the way to bring out the warging is a direwolf, and they've not been seen on this side of the Wall for 200 years, then it could be the powers have been forgotten, the true meaning of the sigil.

Even North of the Wall, if I'm not mistaken, people don't have direwolves as 'pets', so it's something uniquely tied to Starks, or so it seems (iirc).

It seems to come from having the Old Blood, the CotF talents were shared with the First Men, were they not?

Or whatever it is you were trying to say by quoting that. :blushing:

[Julia Martell]

There's a reason why the Stark sigil is a direwolf, and why there's direwolves sitting in the crypts.

If for the Starks the way to bring out the warging is a direwolf, and they've not been seen on this side of the Wall for 200 years, then it could be the powers have been forgotten, the true meaning of the sigil.

Even North of the Wall, if I'm not mistaken, people don't have direwolves as 'pets', so it's something uniquely tied to Starks, or so it seems (iirc).

It seems to come from having the Old Blood, the CotF talents were shared with the First Men, were they not?

Or whatever it is you were trying to say by quoting that. :blushing:

Yeah, I'd be very surprised if SOME Starks haven't always had this ability, just like some Targaryans have always had Prophetic Dreams.

What's super special is that six of them have it at once.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

The older kings and lords in the crypts are carved with a direwolf, aren't they? So if the Stark-direwolf bond has diminished before Ned & Lyannas kids, it may have been a big thing in olden days.

[Ghost's Shadow]

Can I just say that I hope the World Book will not only tell us which brides Stark males get, but also where the Stark females go to? (I didn't think that latter was in there yet, from what I've seen and remember?)

Who's to say that Brynden's grandmother isn't a Stark, if apparently someone wants to say the warging comes from the Blackwoods?

Just because someone ends up being a greenseer doesn't mean their blood has it exclusively. There's been more of them. Do we really need a list of past greenseers and then a family tree of those people to see if there's Blackwood, or Stark blood in them? o_0

The ability comes from CotF/FM blood and worship. Deal with it. :P

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Are you referring to the SSM where he says that if Rhaegar gave them an order, they would obey? That one is unnecessary for explaining the actions of the KG, as they state it themselves, in-text: "we are Kingsguard, we swore a vow".

Yes, I was referring to that SSM. But only because I was trying to be inclusive. :)

Generally, the issues with Aegon's presence are:

- logistics and timeframe of smuggling Aegon from KL to ToJ (why travel across the whole continent when a ship to Essos is right at hand just to put both your eggs in the same basket, the involvement of Elia and servants)

- Ned thinking Aegon dead but still considering the KG explanation of their presence satisfactory and not detracting from them being shining examples of KG

- convoluted presence of two plot-important mysteries in the same location (because if Jon is not legit, he is still R+L)

- zero text hints (nothing to be tied to the story of the Pisswater Prince or anything else Aegon-related)

- "dragons true and false" and "cloth dragon on poles" aka the mummer's dragon hint at a pretender some time in the story, and if it's not fAegon, then whom?

These are all significant issues. I'd be interested in which of them you think are (or aren't) sufficiently addressed by the scenario I've posted here. If you're interested. If not, no worries.

[Ser Duncan the Small]

Agreed. However, George is consistently dropping hints to refer to Jon as a king and that build up should cause something.

I feel like Jon is very much suited for kingship. His ability to lead and his decision making is outstanding. However tough it may have been morally for him, the Gilly baby-switch I think says a lot about what he's willing to do for the greater good.

[Ser Duncan the Small]

Can I just say that I hope the World Book will not only tell us which brides Stark males get, but also where the Stark females go to? (I didn't think that latter was in there yet, from what I've seen and remember?)

Who's to say that Brynden's grandmother isn't a Stark, if apparently someone wants to say the warging comes from the Blackwoods?

Just because someone ends up being a greenseer doesn't mean their blood has it exclusively. There's been more of them. Do we really need a list of past greenseers and then a family tree of those people to see if there's Blackwood, or Stark blood in them? o_0

The ability comes from CotF/FM blood and worship. Deal with it. :P

Agreed, magic is old in this world, who's to say when magic came back that it didn't just fill up all vessels it could, who better suited than those of ancient blood i.e. First Men.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

There's a reason why the Stark sigil is a direwolf, and why there's direwolves sitting in the crypts.

If for the Starks the way to bring out the warging is a direwolf, and they've not been seen on this side of the Wall for 200 years, then it could be the powers have been forgotten, the true meaning of the sigil.

Even North of the Wall, if I'm not mistaken, people don't have direwolves as 'pets', so it's something uniquely tied to Starks, or so it seems (iirc).

It seems to come from having the Old Blood, the CotF talents were shared with the First Men, were they not?

Or whatever it is you were trying to say by quoting that. :blushing:

I was quoting a post from another posted, right above me, who was saying it wasn´t a Stark trait.

I just responded by stating something that had caught my mind, and which I found highly suspicious..

Can I just say that I hope the World Book will not only tell us which brides Stark males get, but also where the Stark females go to? (I didn't think that latter was in there yet, from what I've seen and remember?)

Who's to say that Brynden's grandmother isn't a Stark, if apparently someone wants to say the warging comes from the Blackwoods?

Just because someone ends up being a greenseer doesn't mean their blood has it exclusively. There's been more of them. Do we really need a list of past greenseers and then a family tree of those people to see if there's Blackwood, or Stark blood in them? o_0

The ability comes from CotF/FM blood and worship. Deal with it. :P

That could be it as well of course. Who knows who the Blackwoods married into? The connection between the two families would be there, and that was the thing that caught my eye immediately when I saw the preview for the Stark family tree..

[BearQueen87]

I feel like Jon is very much suited for kingship. His ability to lead and his decision making is outstanding. However tough it may have been morally for him, the Gilly baby-switch I think says a lot about what he's willing to do for the greater good.

I think his entire arc in ADWD is : JON WILL BE KING SOMEDAY AND HERE'S HOW IT WILL GO (minus the stabbing). DEAL WITH IT, PEASANTS. <--so spoke (wrote?)Martin