R+L=J v.116

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I think you might be taking the statements from me and what I was trying to say about Ran out of their context. The person to whom I was responding wants to believe Ran that Jon wasn't at the TOJ; but he won't go so far as to believe Ran when Ran says he believes RLJ because "Ran talks to George." But you can't have one and ignore the other.

Also, I know Ran and George talk but that doesn't mean George has actually spilled the beans on ALL THE THINGS.

As for legitimacy....sorry, you're not going to change my mind. Ran is not going to change my mind. The only person who will change my mind is George RR Martin and I can wait for Winds

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that Ran does think Jon is legitimate, even though he doesn't think Jon was in the Tower. Not a case of "Jon wasn't at the Tower ergo he's not legitimate." I disagree with him there but from what I recall his reasoning made sense.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

If a Great Council makes a decision, is that automatically a precedent set in stone? Even if it is never described as such?

What I don't get is why this guy thinks the Great Council that picked Aegon V set some unarguable precedent about brothers coming before their nephews. That a council was called at all was pretty extraordinary. It was because the candidates were a girl (who'd be dead last anyway) and the infant son of a nutcase that the council had to pick Aegon. They weren't trying to rewrite succession law; they picked Aegon because there were no other suitable candidates. If Aerion's son had been older and/or someone else's son, or Daeron's daughter had been a son, they would have been the one that was chosen.

But using the council as evidence of some intended permanent change in the succession rules is just nonsense and undermines why the council had to be called in the first place.

[The North]

I haven't read the fifth book yet, and I'm sure this has been covered in one of the many other threads, but how does the situation with Jon on the wall fit into this scenario? He sent away Maester Aemon and Mance's child to avoid them being sacrificed to the Lord of Light, yet if R+L=J is true (which I believe it is), either the angle hasn't come up yet, or Melisandre's ability to "read the flames" isn't all she claims.

[sj4iy]

I haven't read the fifth book yet, and I'm sure this has been covered in one of the many other threads, but how does the situation with Jon on the wall fit into this scenario? He sent away Maester Aemon and Mance's child to avoid them being sacrificed to the Lord of Light, yet if R+L=J is true (which I believe it is), either the angle hasn't come up yet, or Melisandre's ability to "read the flames" isn't all she claims.

It hasn't been revealed as of book 5.

The implication of Jon being on the Wall means that he may very well be TPTWP, as he is in the perfect position to fight the Others.

Melisandre's ability to read the flames is clouded by her own bias towards Stannis. Yet she keeps seeing Jon in her flames.

[The Twinslayer]

<snip>

Okay, you clearly don't know what I mean by "corroboration".

Show me somewhere in the main series where it is said "Viserys was named Aerys' heir" or "Aegon was passed over" or "Aerys didn't want Aegon as his heir".

Until you can show proof of that, there's no reason to take this as valid information with an impact on the main series.

Sure, it is right after the part in the main series that says "Jon Snow is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark."

Seriously, this is like the situation with Robb's will and the app. The main series gives us sufficient information to figure out that Robb wrote a will that legitimized Jon Snow and named him heir to Robb's kingdom [just like the main series gives us sufficient information to determine that Viserys was Aerys heir after Rhaegar died]. The app [the worldbook] simply confirms something we already knew, or, with careful reading, should have known.

Perhaps you will answer this: if you think the information in the world book is false, why would GRRM and his co-authors include it? If it is just an error by the maester, it adds nothing to the story. If it is true, however, it has important ramifications for Dany and Young Griff, and it may lead to the second dance of the dragons -- with Dany's claim coming through Viserys and Aegon claiming that a male comes before a female.

And, as an interesting aside, this would put the precedents from the two Great Councils into conflict. According to the Rogue Prince, the first Great Council created a precedent that males come before females. King Viserys precipitated the first Dance of the Dragons when he tried to reverse that precedent. The second Great Council set a precedent for sons of kings coming before grandsons. Aerys followed that precedent when he recognized Viserys rather than Aegon as his "new heir."

But, as GRRM has said: "There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. A case might set a precedent for later cases . . . but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims."

All of this makes sense if Viserys was recognized as Aerys' heir, since he named Dany his own heir (styling her "Princess of Dragonstone"). It sets things up nicely for the new Dance.

But along the way, it confirms what Ran has said all along -- the 3KG at that TOJ were not there to guard an infant "king." They were there for some other reason. Which makes sense, because if they were supporting Jon's claim over Viserys' claim, then they were playing the Game of Thrones -- which is something I don't think Hightower would do.

[Kingmonkey]

Aerys seems to have mistrusted Rhaegar more before the Rebellion, than after.. he gave Rhaegar his army (which could have backfired on him big time, had Rhaegar won on the Trident), and Rhaegar died. Unless dying is seen as treason, it would seem that Aerys trusted Rhaegar slightly more towards he end, than he had in he years before..

And during those tears before, he did not disinherit Rhaegar, so why would he now disinherit Rhaegars son? The babe he could mold on his own? Who wouldn't be influenced by Rhaegar and his "plots and treasons"...

Immediately before heading to the Trident, Rhaegar spoke to Jaime about a council, which I guess most of us think means a Great Council. Previous Great Councils were called to determine succession. In the case of the first Great Council, the King was still alive and the council held to determine the succession over the King's head. Rather suggestively, the first Great Council was held at Harrenhal. Rhaegar had been meaning to do something about the situation for a while, but other things seem to have got in his way. Was he planning to call a Great Council during the Tourney at Harrenhal?

So why would Aerys have trusted Rhaegar more towards the end, enough even to give him an army? I doubt Aerys did actually trust him. Aerys had leverage over Rhaegar -- Elia, Aegon and Rhaenys as hostages. It might have occurred to Aerys that further leverage could be applied by disinheriting Rhaegar (or at the least Rhaegar's children) in favour of Viserys. That would help ensure that no little accidents happen to Aerys.

It's possible that if Viserys was indeed named heir, it was intended to be a temporary thing, a guarantee of Rhaegar's good behaviour. "Start doing what I tell you and I'll re-inherit you". I don't entirely like that idea because of the council thing.

It's also, I suppose, possible that Aerys did not disinherit Rhaegar, but rather declared Aegon and Rhaenys out of the succession. Perhaps a stretch, but an interesting one in the context of Rhaegar having another son about to be born that Aerys doesn't know about (keep in mind here that Elia was said to be unlikely to be able to have any more children).

In that case, you'd have everyone thinking the line went Aerys>Rhaegar>Viserys ( TWOIAF calls Viserys Aerys' "new heir" immediately after reporting on Rhaegar's death) apart from the few privy to what was going on at the ToJ who'd know that it was actually Aerys>Rhaegar>Jon. Neat enough answer to why Viserys might have been said to be the heir yet the 3KG weren't heading to Dragonstone, I suppose.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

I do agree with Alia that it's not an either/or case, and I would say that there's a very simple reason for that. A personal symbol can, by extension, indicate the people who are connected to that person. If we were to see a dream in which someone is pecked to death by a mockingbird, it would not necessarily indicate that Littlefinger is going to kill them. It might foreshadow an assassin hired by Littlefinger, for example.

Similarly, I see the BWR as being a symbol for Lyanna rather than a symbol for Jon or Rhaegar. Because of their connection to Lyanna, it can also be used to indicate them by extension, when the circumstances suit. Thus I'd say the BWR in the wall of ice indicates Jon not because BWRs symbolise Jon himself, but because they are a symbol of his mother. If the BWR represents Lyanna, and Jon is the scion of Lyanna at the Wall, then when we see a BWR associated with a wall of ice it's a fair bet it represents Jon.

In terms of where we get to in the story, this isn't an important distinction -- it's just a matter of breaking down the semiotics of the storytelling. If you're not interested in semiotic precision, you can give this distinction a pass. It's a symbol of Lyanna, but in this case it is used to represent Jon...

I agree with much of your reasoning, Kingmonkey, and appreciate the careful way you've worked through questions related to the symbolism. Circling back to my initial comment in disagreement with J. Star - while a secondary association of the symbol with Jon might make sense, it is still quite a stretch in my view to argue that the blue winter rose represents Rhaegar. Or that a particular set of relationships is required as part of the meaning of the rose. At a basic level, the symbol of the blue winter rose is merely one instance of Martin's general use of flower metaphors to represent women in his story. If there is a particular meaning associated with this type of flower, I argue that you have to go back to the Song of the Winter Rose to find it. That tale clearly identifies the blue winter rose as the Stark daughter - and makes that identification prior to her involvement in any sexual or maternal relationships.

It is interesting to me to consider that Rhaegar might well have known the Song of the Winter Rose, given that he himself was known to be both a singer and well-read. Assuming he did know the tale - a tale by no means beloved by Winterfell - it is difficult to believe he could have crowned Lyanna with blue roses without also knowing that his action would invoke Bael's story and all that it represented to House Stark. As you point out - it wasn't a single flower, but a crown that Rhaegar dumped in Lyanna's lap. And in light of the Song of the Winter Rose, the public presentation of a blue rose crown to the daughter of House Stark looks much less like a declaration of love than it does a political statement - and perhaps, if you're the Stark heir, an insult. Give the blue rose crown to anyone else, and all you've done is name the Queen of Love and Beauty. But give it to Lyanna, and the title "Queen of Love and Beauty" is suddenly, pointedly, superceded by identification of the Stark daughter as Queen of Wildlings - along with everything the wildling tale implies concerning the lineage and noble status of House Stark.

[Kingmonkey]

But along the way, it confirms what Ran has said all along -- the 3KG at that TOJ were not there to guard an infant "king." They were there for some other reason. Which makes sense, because if they were supporting Jon's claim over Viserys' claim, then they were playing the Game of Thrones -- which is something I don't think Hightower would do.

While I do tend slightly more to the "obey" rather than "protect" camp (despite my previous post) I don't think arguments in this form really work. I agree with you that Hightower would be unlikely to want to play the Game, but in the case of a rebellion, he has no choice. When there are rival claimants, you can't avoid making a decision on who should be on the throne if you support any of them.

If Hightower accepted Viserys as king, he wanted Robert dethroned. If he accepted Jon as king, he wanted Robert dethroned. The closest position he could take to not playing the game is the one Barristan took -- to fight the rebel, but accept the usurper.

[Ygrain]

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that Ran does think Jon is legitimate, even though he doesn't think Jon was in the Tower. Not a case of "Jon wasn't at the Tower ergo he's not legitimate." I disagree with him there but from what I recall his reasoning made sense.

If you recall, I have proposed a similar scenario, as well - that the KG would still be doing their job if they were protecting Jon by keeping his existence secret, it would not require for him to be personally present. All it took would be the KG not let anyone see Lyanna (to prevent them from finding out that she had given birth) and not draw attention by their presence to a place they were not supposed to be.

[The Twinslayer]

If a Great Council makes a decision, is that automatically a precedent set in stone? Even if it is never described as such?

GRRM has indicated (in The Rogue Prince and in an SSM) that precedents matter. But they are not set in stone. Sometimes the precedents conflict, and sometimes they are overturned by a king, by a Great Council or by force. The point here is that there is a good precedent for Viserys coming before Aegon. There is also general recognition that a king can name his own heir. Consider this: does anyone on this thread believe that Robb lacked the authority to pass over Sansa in favor of Jon Snow? Robb certainly thought he had that authority, and when he commanded his lords to bear witness to his will, they obeyed.

[Kingmonkey]

It is interesting to me to consider that Rhaegar might well have known the Song of the Winter Rose, given that he himself was known to be both a singer and well-read. Assuming he did know the tale - a tale by no means beloved by Winterfell - it is difficult to believe he could have crowned Lyanna with blue roses without also knowing that his action would invoke Bael's story and all that it represented to House Stark.

To be fair, we don't really know if the Bael story has any traction south of the wall. This may be a case of a story that was reasonably widespread but not reported in Winterfell (see KotLT), but we just don't know. Of course Rhaegar was a collector of songs, so he might have known of it anyway.

As you point out - it wasn't a single flower, but a crown that Rhaegar dumped in Lyanna's lap. And in light of Song of the Winter Rose, the public presentation of a blue rose crown to the daughter of House Stark looks much less like a declaration of love than does a political statement - and perhaps, if you're the Stark heir, an insult. Give the blue rose crown to anyone else, and all you've done is name the Queen of Love and Beauty. But give it to Lyanna, and the title "Queen of Love and Beauty" is suddenly, pointedly, superceded by identification of the Stark daughter as Queen of Wildlings - along with everything the wildling tale implies concerning the lineage and noble status of House Stark.

It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure where you go from there. Why would Rheager want to symbolically hint at Lyanna being queen of the wildlings, or insult the Starks? My take is that the blue roses ARE a pointed choice, in that by making the crown something specific to Winterfell, Rhaegar is making it personal. If he had crowned Lyanna with some random crown, it would be easier to dismiss as a gesture of the moment. In that context, and indeed the notion of "the moment that all smiles died", political statement seems very plausible, but what? Can you expand on your thoughts a bit? I'd be interested to hear where you can take this in terms of what Rhaegar was trying to achieve.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

I haven't read the fifth book yet, and I'm sure this has been covered in one of the many other threads, but how does the situation with Jon on the wall fit into this scenario? He sent away Maester Aemon and Mance's child to avoid them being sacrificed to the Lord of Light, yet if R+L=J is true (which I believe it is), either the angle hasn't come up yet, or Melisandre's ability to "read the flames" isn't all she claims.

What to do with your question? You'd best read the book! :-)

I hope I need not spoiler from you that Melisandre knew and Davos knew that Melisandre knew when he smuggled Robert's bastard Edric Storm out of Dragonstone. So while she may be close to being all-knowing she does not act being allmighty for her own reasons.

ADwD spoiler just for you then, better read the book first:

And when she asks the flames to show her the king, or Azor Ahai reborn, they either show her

snow or she sees Jon's face, where she would expect to see Stannis Baratheon.

[markg171]

You're not very aware then. He thinks about broken promises only after he is imprisoned in the Black Cells. Before that, e.g. when meeting Barra's mother, he thinks about promises he made to Lyanna as she lay dying and about the price he paid to keep them. Promises, plural, so not just burying her at Winterfell (for which there wouldn't be any haunting price, anyway). Also, see below.

If it means nothing significant, why does Ned dream of Lyanna crowned with the blue roses and weeping blood (while whispering Promise me). Even Theon in his dream at Winterfell sees Lyanna with the crown. There are blue roses at Ned's ToJ dream, Lyanna is holding dry roses in her hand on her deathbed, Ned thinks about winter roses (and feels like crying) when Cersei tells him that Robert said "Lyanna" on their wedding night. Indeed, blue roses (especially a crown of them) and Lyanna come up awfully often for something insignificant.

Re-read that scene with Cersei in godswood, it's right there. What would he do if it was Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran, Rickon versus an unknown child. What would Catelyn do if it was her children against Jon. See? Jon is not included with Ned's other children.

Come on, face it: you don't know the book well enough, therefore don't connect the clues you don't even know there are. That's not inherently bad, but acting entitled due to ignorance is.

So what's his broken promise then?

And I said Rhaegar giving her blue roses meant nothing special. I never said they didn't mean anything. Read what I said. The blue roses were the crown that Whent provided for the tournament. Anyone who won the tournament would have crowned their queen with blue roses. It's therefore nothing special that Rhaegar specifically gave her blue roses. It's only the fact that he choose her over Elia that's important. The blue roses are so prominent as they represent that choice. Rhaegar choosing Lyanna led to the war and everything.

And no, that doesn't prove anything. He thinks of Jon in the exact same paragraph. You guys coming to the conclusion that he specifically left him out of a certain sentence is simply your opinion and you guys have placed value there when there might have been none.

[markg171]

And so why does the right honorable Eddard Stark 1) take away poor Wylla's baby? and 2) why does he never tell anyone who Jon's mother is? If it's "just Wylla" then why all the secrecy?

You don't think it's honourable that the man, one of the greatest lords in the realm, chose to to raise his bastard and give him the option to become something in life instead of being a servants son? Sounds honourable to me.

And Ned does tell someone. He tells Robert. Again, Ned and Robert have seen each other just once in 14 years (when they fought Balon). Yet Robert knew that Ned had fathered a bastard on Wylla, and Ned reminds him of her name. So he's told Robert twice who the mother was.

[BearQueen87]

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that Ran does think Jon is legitimate, even though he doesn't think Jon was in the Tower. Not a case of "Jon wasn't at the Tower ergo he's not legitimate." I disagree with him there but from what I recall his reasoning made sense.

Doesn't Ran think he wasn't at the Tower because of health reasons? The 3KG got him to Starfall in order to protect him from the sick and dying Lyanna?

If you recall, I have proposed a similar scenario, as well - that the KG would still be doing their job if they were protecting Jon by keeping his existence secret, it would not require for him to be personally present. All it took would be the KG not let anyone see Lyanna (to prevent them from finding out that she had given birth) and not draw attention by their presence to a place they were not supposed to be.

That too.

Personally I think Jon is in that tower because it works better from a story stand point (Ned enters towers to find a dying Lyanna and a baby!).

You don't think it's honourable that the man, one of the greatest lords in the realm, chose to to raise his bastard and give him the option to become something in life instead of being a servants son? Sounds honourable to me.

And Ned does tell someone. He tells Robert. Again, Ned and Robert have seen each other just once in 14 years (when they fought Balon). Yet Robert knew that Ned had fathered a bastard on Wylla, and Ned reminds him of her name. So he's told Robert twice who the mother was.

Yes because Eddard Stark is going to tell Robert-I Hate All Targs-Baratheon that his "bastard" son was really the son of Robert's ex fiance and the Targ prince who "stole and raped her"

[markg171]

There is tons of corroboration. First there is GRRM's SSM stating that the succession laws are not set in stone, just like medieval succession laws. And the fact that the worst KG are those who play the game of thrones--so the 3KG would have been a disgrace if they took it upon themselves to declare Jon the new king.

There is the Great Council precedent (the first GC established that males come before females; in the second, the king's son came before the dead prince's son). So Viserys' claim is supported by precedent.

Then there is the Targ incest, plus Aerys' obsession with finding Rhaegar a Valyrian bride, which led to the death of Robert's parents, coupled with the debate in the Princess and the Queen over whether a female claimant with more Targ blood should come before a male claimant with less Targ blood -- and the fact that Viserys has more Targ blood than Aegon. Again, by that criteria, which was important to Aerys, Viserys has a better claim.

There is the fact that Aerys used Aegon, Rhaenys and Aegon as hostages against Dorne's good behaviour plus the revelation that Aerys blamed the loss on the Trident on a betrayal by Dorne (what do you do to a hostage when his family fails to do what you told them to do?). So Aerys had a motive to use Aegon to punish Dorne.

Then there is the fact that Aerys sent Viserys to safety on Dragonstone so he could continue the Targ line, and then tried to assassinate Aegon as part of the wildfire plot -- if that had worked, Robert, Jon Arryn, Ned, Jaime and Tywin would all be dead, and Viserys (supported by Mace Tyrell and all the power of the Reach; the Redwyne fleet; and the Targ fleet) would be the last man standing and, therefore, king.

The. We have the fact that many, many Targ Kings felt it necessary to name an heir, indicating that primogeniture does not happen automatically.

We have always had all the information necessary to figure out that Viserys -- not Aegon -- was the successor to Aerys. The world book just makes this explicit. The only reason this fact is not in the Reference Guide on the first page of this thread is that it undercuts the theory that Jon was born legitimate.

Jon could never be legitimate. That would require a marriage, and marriage requires Lyanna to either be given away by her father (who ran to KL to demand her back when she was kidnapped and subsequently died), her new lord and head of household Ned (never has the power to give her away until Rickard his dead and by that point he's fighting against the Targs), or her king Aerys (who would know that that would destroy the kingdom). So how would Jon ever be considered legitimate? He'd be a bastard no matter what.

[The Twinslayer]

To be fair, we don't really know if the Bael story has any traction south of the wall. This may be a case of a story that was reasonably widespread but not reported in Winterfell (see KotLT), but we just don't know. Of course Rhaegar was a collector of songs, so he might have known of it anyway.

It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure where you go from there. Why would Rheager want to symbolically hint at Lyanna being queen of the wildlings, or insult the Starks? My take is that the blue roses ARE a pointed choice, in that by making the crown something specific to Winterfell, Rhaegar is making it personal. If he had crowned Lyanna with some random crown, it would be easier to dismiss as a gesture of the moment. In that context, and indeed the notion of "the moment that all smiles died", political statement seems very plausible, but what? Can you expand on your thoughts a bit? I'd be interested to hear where you can take this in terms of what Rhaegar was trying to achieve.

I also find this interesting. I have always thought that to the extent there are parallels between Bael and Rhaegar, one of them is that the child is descended from two royal lines: the King of the North and the King Beyond the Wall. But he does not become king of the wildlings -- he becomes King in the North. Which suggests to me that Jon may be heir to the King in the North (in his case, through Robb's will) but he will not be heir to the Targaryen crown.

[Kingmonkey]

Yes because Eddard Stark is going to tell Robert-I Hate All Targs-Baratheon that his "bastard" son was really the son of Robert's ex fiance and the Targ prince who "stole and raped her"

Of course he would. In fact it would be the perfect way to mend fences between them after Ned had stormed off following their massive row about whether or not to kill Targ children. Something for them to bond over!

(Sorry, I don't do comic sans. I swore a vow.)

[BearQueen87]

Jon could never be legitimate. That would require a marriage, and marriage requires Lyanna to either be given away by her father (who ran to KL to demand her back when she was kidnapped and subsequently died), her new lord and head of household Ned (never has the power to give her away until Rickard his dead and by that point he's fighting against the Targs), or her king Aerys (who would know that that would destroy the kingdom). So how would Jon ever be considered legitimate? He'd be a bastard no matter what.

Um. No. Tell me, where was Tywin when Tyrion got married? Was Theon REALLY the head of household for Winterfell?

You need a cloak, a witness, and either a septon or a tree. That's it. And oh hey, what's that right next to HH where Lyanna was taken? The Isle of Face FULL of Weirwoods? Helpful.

[The Twinslayer]

Jon could never be legitimate. That would require a marriage, and marriage requires Lyanna to either be given away by her father (who ran to KL to demand her back when she was kidnapped and subsequently died), her new lord and head of household Ned (never has the power to give her away until Rickard his dead and by that point he's fighting against the Targs), or her king Aerys (who would know that that would destroy the kingdom). So how would Jon ever be considered legitimate? He'd be a bastard no matter what.

I agree. It would also require Rhaegar to break his marriage vow of fidelity to Elia and enter into a polygamous marriage, which everyone agrees to be against the rules of the Faith (no septon has ever knowingly performed a polygamous marriage) and which some of us believe to be illegal as well.