Issue with King Jon I Targaryen theory

[El Guapo]

Uh, where is it mentioned HR lied about anything or established that he is a liar? When talking of him, no one spoke of him as having lied about anything, all the was mentioned was the he was one of Ned's companions in RR, and the Northmen likely have some good opinion of him for that. Even Robb said Ned knew HR's worth. He also never ventured out of the Neck after RR, so it is unlikely for there to be any interactions where he could have lied. He also has little reason to lie about anything, except R+L=J which no one knows about obviously.

Seriously? The reason nobody mentions that HR might be a liar (or not a liar) is because other than someone named Stark or Reed nobody ever talks about him period.

[Fire Eater]

Seriously? The reason nobody mentions that HR might be a liar (or not a liar) is because other than someone named Stark or Reed nobody ever talks about him period.

Nobody talks about him that means no one talks about him being a liar.

[El Guapo]

Nobody talks about him that means no one talks about him being a liar.

That is some pretty convoluted logic.

[Fire Eater]

That is some pretty convoluted logic.

No, if nobody talks about him then how can anyone talk about him being a liar if they aren't talking about him?

Point, being there is nothing pointing to HR as a liar, and he doesn't sound like the kind of guy who would gain a reputation by lying.

[IceFire125]

There is no concrete proof he's Rhaegar's son, beside the claim of a reclusive "bog devil".

Where is this established in the books?

That is some pretty convoluted logic.

Does Howland know who Jon Snow's mother is?

The Shadow knows.

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

Ned’s wraiths moved up beside him, with shadow swords in hand. They were seven against three.

wraith = shadow

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/wraith?s=t

--

We will meet Howland Reed, but not in the next book... he(Howland) knows just to much about the central mystery of the book...

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1261

'central mystery of the book' is R+L= legitimate J

--

evidence 1: video of GRRM interview, begin @ 10:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFAGknnoRio

evidence 2: Video of GRRM at the Edinburgh Book Festival, August 2014.

During the Q&A session, start @ 52:33

Pay attention to the question more than GRRM's answer, it was missed by many major media outlet, where they report that fans have guess the ending. I don't think the question was about the ending, but a particular theory of a certain parentage of someone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0250p31

Lady in the audience: There's a lot of fan theories out there about various things that's gonna be happening in your books, one particular is about someone's parentage--I'm not gonna go into *audience giggles*--but do you have a desire to surprise your audience where you hear a particular prevailing fan theory that you might change your mind about things?... in general?

MC refer to LOST, the show.

GRRM: I've wrestled with this issue, because I do wanna surprise my readers. I hate predictable fiction as a reader, I don't wanna write predictable fiction. I want to supply and delight my readers and take the story, the direction they didn't see coming... BUT you can't change the plans... I used to read some of these fanboards back in the 90s... I stopped doing that.. because so many readers were reading the books with so much attention and they were throwing some theories, while a lot of the theories were amusing bullshit, but very creative, but some of theories were right... at least one or two readers have correctly put together the extremely subtle and obscure clues that I planted in the books and... came to the right solution. So what do I do then? Do I change it? and I wrestle with that issue.. and I think changing it would've been a disaster (insert the butler/chamber maid analogy)...

Note: remember that GRRM stopped going into forums since the late 90s, 1998 specifically, ACOK was just released... fans could not have guessed the ending, but fans did theorized R+L=J! the clues were there and they were planted for a reason.

[BrianBoru]

I don't mean to bump an old(ish) thread but it is a very good thread - thank you all for the quality posts. It's taken me a few days to get some things straight in the head... Not sure I'm quite there, but hopefully something articulate and logical....

More recent threads, related to Jon's heritage:

If Lyanna and Rhaegar didn't get married he's a Blackfyre as well? and;

Reasons against R+L=J that no one mentioned before.

Maybe it's only because I believe R+L=J, but I think it's widely acknowledged that Jon's heritage is significant to the story, i.e. the Song of Ice and Fire (if it's not R+L=J, it's N+A=J, or H+L=J, or H+A=J, or D+Q=J, or X+Y=J or 3x² + 7y + 8z = J.....). So speculating on Jon's heritage is, to a large degree, speculating on what the Song is all about. Since the opening scene (AGOT Prologue), with Waymar Royce and fellow rangers north of the Wall, I've always considered that the *true* story lies in the battle with the Others; i.e. the politicking in King's Landing and the fussing over the Iron Throne are just sideshow distractions from the main event. I'm recently coming around to the idea that Others aren't all evil, if only because the Others as evil-incarnate would be too JRRT and not enough GRRM; I see the posts arguing that the Others will be allies of the Starks (Jon Snow, in particular), which suggests that the Others might be just another force to be reckoned with in the game of thrones; i.e that the Iron Throne is the main event, after all... I'm not sure; the Others penchant for raising the dead as remote control zombies is just too unnatural to be anything other than "evil"! But I have yet to be convinced either way.

The Others as the Main Event:

Assuming the Others are the main event, what's the significance of Jon's heritage? There's definitely magic in Planetos. And blood magic at that - see this video. Zip to 16:50, if you must. GRRM speaks of blood magic practised in Valyria. Then you have some notion of "king's blood"; could be Melisandre's bullsh, but she has produced magic (shadow babies) and while we know there were other actors in the Red Wedding, Purple Wedding and Balon's Fall, it's hard not to be impressed by the apparent "reaction" to her sacrifice of king's blood - the blood of the illegitimate Edric Storm was sufficient... There's also the connection between Valyrian blood and bonding with dragons.

So whether Jon is illegitimate or a true-born son, I don't think matters. The significance of R+L=J is that he has king's blood and dragon blood, illegitimate or not.

Assuming the IT is the Main Event:

It took me ages to realise that R+L=J means that Aegon (Young Griff) is Jon's BROTHER!! Okay, half-brother. But he has always believed that Robb was his half-brother. And that's where I think it will matter. We saw Jon's reaction to the news that Robb was marching to war; he chose to desert the Night's Watch to go support his brother (and was only brought back to the Wall by Sam et al). If Jon learns that Rhaegar is his father, what will be his reaction to hearing that his brother Aegon is at war (let's say besieged in Storm's End)? Stand by and watch a brother die... again? Sam is far, far away and Jon has just been stabbed by his "brothers" at the Wall. I think he'll choose again to desert the Night's Watch to go support his brother (and this time, nobody will bring him back). [Assuming the IT is the Main Event!!] Remember that Jon wanted to support Robb while he considered himself "Jon Snow". He'll support Aegon whether he considers himself "Jon Targaryen" or "Jon Sand".

Jon's legitimacy only matters if Aegon turns out to be fAegon or dead. If Jon is legitimate, then he is the primary Targaryen claimant. If Jon is illegitimate, then Daenerys become the primary Targaryen claimant. But Daenerys is only Jon's aunt, so I wonder if the blood bond would be enough to tie Jon to Daenerys.

The North:

I'm a believer that R+L=J. But Westorosis don't have access to teh internetz and so can't read the millions of posts on the theory. So far, Jon is recognised as Ned Stark's illegitimate son. But we know that Robb Stark, KitN, wrote a will, which we think speaks of Jon. What we don't know is what it says about Jon. There seems to me to be two possibilities:

1. King Robb names Jon as his heir (and presumably legitimises him)

2. King Robb legitimises Jon

I know there's some disagreement about where legitimised children come in the line of succession. It's because of this ambiguity that I think that they slot in as if they were true-born. Otherwise, as far as the North goes, it wouldn't matter whether Jon is Ned's or Lyanna's. It's also why I believe King Robb only legitimises Jon in his will; otherwise, it wouldn't matter:

1. King Robb names Jon as his heir (and presumably legitimises him). End of. Yawn.

2. King Robb legitimises Jon.

2.1 Jon Stark, son of Ned is first in line to succeed Robb

2.2 Oh wait, Jon Stark, legitimised son of Lyanna and (only) cousin of Robb is fourth in line to the throne

2.3 No worries, all the other Stark kids are missing, presumed dead...

Cue myriad of possibilities and shifting political ground as the other Stark kids are rediscovered but abdicate (greenseer Bran...?) or are killed (Sansa?)

[OldGimletEye]

If you don't know or aren't interested in the "magic stuff" then I see no reason for you to argue that the watch is no longer going to pay a key role in the story. GRRM has stated in SSMs that we should pay attention to Old Nan's story, and considering she stated that as long as the NW stays true then the realms of men will be protected then they are of heavy importance. ANd since the realm isn't being protected and wights are rising within the wall then that means there is something "not true" of the NW, coming back to old Nan's other quote "all crows are liars" which means the NW isn't true. The NW may have problems and in need of reform, however under no circumstances should we dismiss it as useless to the story.

I didn't say there will be a third, my point was that even if westeros wins the war they aren't going to abandon the NW and assume the others are gone forever, they would think it's possible there could be another in the future. Im speaking from the POV of an ordinary westerosi.

I have never been under any delusion that the NW will not play a significant part in the war for dawn. It most certainly will. In fact, I imagine that it will by the key force, among many, that will fight the Others.

What exactly does it mean for the NW to be "true"? Is the NW being false if it makes reforms?

The bottom line is that I think NW will be a very different organization, if it survives the war for dawn. I would argue that Jon as LC has been acting or will act beyond the scope of what traditional LC's have done. He has been skirting with Northern politics for quite a while.

Also, there may be a third war for dawn. But, that will probably not be for thousands of years, if history is to repeat itself. I would submit Jon, Westeros, and the NW are going to have more immediate pressing problems once the war for dawn concludes. If Jon proves himself to be a capable leader, the Westerosi might conclude that Jon's leadership abilities are needed elsewhere besides preparing for a war that might happen a few thousands years in the future.

After the war for dawn concludes, Westeros is likely to be in ruins. It will have to rebuild, most likely. In that sort of situation, you don't ship off capable proven leaders to some remote corner of the world, to freeze their ass off, waiting for a war that might happen a few thousand years in the future. Only a nit wit would do that.

[Trickrs]

and while we know there were other actors in the Red Wedding, Purple Wedding and Balon's Fall, it's hard not to be impressed by the apparent "reaction" to her sacrifice of king's blood - the blood of the illegitimate Edric Storm was sufficient... There's also the connection between Valyrian blood and bonding with dragons.

The leeches did nothing though.