R+L=J v.116

[The Twinslayer]

You do realize that Ran believes RLJ, right? That he considers is pretty much canon at this point?

I have seen statements from Ran to the effect that he believes that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents. I have also seen him say that he does not believe that the 3KG were at the TOJ because there was a king inside it --which is consistent with the statement in the world book that Viserys was the "new heir" once Rhaegar died. I have not seen him indicate that he thinks Jon was born legitimate.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

I've heard all the arguments and they all require you to reach a very specific conclusion based off very specific interpretations off perceived slights in the text, and stress is required to be placed on words that otherwise had no stress. In short, you need to reach to create the connections to make R+L=J. It's certainly possible to come to this conclusion, but it requires a huge amount of jumping around connecting perceived dots, while ignoring everything else. It's called confirmation bias. You want it to be true, so you find anything that could be slightly interpreted to reach this conclusion and call it evidence, while simply dismissing anything that could run contrary to it.

This is, in fact, a fair description of some of the activity taking place in these RLJ threads. Not all of what passes for "support" around here is very convincing - but then, much of what is identified as "support" these days is collected on rereads, by folks who've already taken the conclusion ("R+L=J") for fact. In other words - in these threads, the conclusion is assumed as premise for reading and interpreting the text.

That's not an indictment, really. It doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily wrong. It does mean however, that in reading these threads, you get a mix of clues and hints - some (1) which were essential to arriving at the conclusion in the first place; others (2) which may only be discernable or justifiable on the basis of that conclusion. At this point, it's often unclear whether commenters to these threads make any distinction between the two. But then, the vast majority of them have already made up their minds.

All of which is to say that - while I applaud your determination to come to your own conclusions about the theory, I suspect that your frustration with this thread has led you to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are good reasons for rational people to think that R+L=J. Enthusiasm for the possibility has certainly resulted in some over-the-top claims, and has emphasized "connections" that are really rather tenuous. But in the end, it's pretty clear that Martin has put a great deal of effort into making "R+L=J" a part of his story.

Now, is "R+L=J" actually true? And what, ultimately, would be the value of that truth? The jury is still out on those questions...

[BearQueen87]

I have seen statements from Ran to the effect that he believes that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents. I have also seen him say that he does not believe that the 3KG were at the TOJ because there was a king inside it --which is consistent with the statement in the world book that Viserys was the "new heir" once Rhaegar died. I have not seen him indicate that he thinks Jon was born legitimate.

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.

This is, in fact, a fair description of some of the activity taking place in these RLJ threads. Not all of what passes for "support" around here is very convincing - but then, much of what is identified as "support" these days is collected on rereads, by folks who've already taken the conclusion ("R+L=J") for fact. In other words - in these threads, the conclusion is assumed as premise for reading and interpreting the text.

Maybe because we want to talk about the "so what" aspect instead of having to constantly go round in circles over proving RLJ to begin with? It's not like naysayers are coming up with anything that hasn't been said 10x times before.

Now, is "R+L=J" actually true? And what, ultimately, would be the value of that truth? The jury is still out on those questions...

1. Yes, it is actually true.

2. Ultimate value: Jon is "balance kid" and will do "the thing" that restores balance to Westeros.

I, one member of the jury, have reached that conclusion. I am far and away more interested in discussing #2 than going another 10 pages on #1.

[sj4iy]

I'll take quality over quantity. Among the people who actually pay attention to the series and dig a little deeper beyond what they're spoonfed (i.e. the sorts of people who typically post on a forum dedicated to discussing the series in minute detail), R+L=J is basically canon. The masses who read the series casually and don't pay that much attention may not have put it together yet, but they're not exactly the sorts I'd expect to have a deeper understanding of the series.

http://time.com/3003227/game-thrones-jon-snow-mother/

http://www.businessinsider.com/game-of-thrones-jon-snows-parents-theory-2014-7

http://www.vulture.com/2014/07/does-this-tell-us-who-jon-snows-mother-is.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/15/jon-snow-mother-game-of-thrones_n_5588011.html

I could keep going with more newsmedia outlets that all picked up the same R+L=J video on youtube and said that it was the best explanation for Jon Snow's mother they've seen so far.

Basically- people believing R+L=J are NOT in the minority. It's not even close.

[UVA]

Some of the new info that I remember

- Lyanna was "kidnapped" near Harrenhal

- Rhaegar had half a dozen of his friends with him

- The incident happened at the very end of the year of the False Spring

- Rhaegar and Elia lived mostly on Dragonstone and not in King's Landing

.

..and that Rhaegar seemed to be more of a game player, suggesting that his affair with Lyanna might have been motivated by realpoltick just as much as for love or ideological concerns.

[sj4iy]

I think we have to see in this case what Martin intends, especially if he is using history as a template.

Martin said he would flesh out the tensions between father and son, and if this was an unspoken piece of that, it would actually explain alot, especially given how he favors Viserys.

I suppose my question would be why Aerys thought he could name Viserys heir without removing Rhaegars line first?

He was insane?

Really, I don't know if Aerys could simply just 'pass over' the rightful heir in Aegon to name Viserys without some sort of approval by a council or something. It would see the type of thing that would need such to help prevent a succession war. "My crazy father named me heir!" isn't exactly going to fly with many noble houses who disliked Aerys and liked Rhaegar.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Maybe because we want to talk about the "so what" aspect instead of having to constantly go round in circles over proving RLJ to begin with?

Yes, of course. I completely agree. Once you've decided you know the answer, it makes sense to stop asking the question. That's my point, actually - that markg171 is approaching the issue from a different place than RLJ thread regulars, and his frustration does not surprise me.

I, one member of the jury, have reached that conclusion. I am far and away more interested in discussing #2 than going another 10 pages on #1.

I know. So I apologize for belaboring questions that you've already settled for yourself. I'm really not a contrarian - just a skeptic, who's interested in taking a closer look at the evidence, and reserving full judgment until after we've heard the closing arguments.

[sj4iy]

This is one of the quotes I was thinking of when I said that Dany thinks that if everything had gone according to plan, Aegon would have been king -- but this does not tell us that she thinks Aegon was ahead of Viserys after Rhaegar died. I take it you posted this in response to my asking whether Dany ever said or thought anything that was inconsistent with the statement in the world book that after Rhaegar died, Viserys (rather than Aegon) was the "new heir" to the throne.

There is no inconsistency here. I say this because even if you are right and Aegon was Aerys' heir, Dany's statement is not literally true. The reason Aegon never became king is not because the Mountain killed him. It is because Rhaegar lost at the Trident and House Targaryen fell. Dany is using this statement as shorthand for all of that, and to remind herself of the brutal murder of an infant. To put it another way: Is Dany really saying that after Rhaegar and Aerys were killed, Aegon would have been king if only the Mountain hadn't smashed his head? Of course not.

So there is no conflict between what Dany says and what Maester Yandel wrote in the official history. But if there were, I would take Yandel's word for it, since he is a trained historian and Dany's information about succession laws and the actions of her father is pretty limited.

There is an inconsistency.

Nothing in the main series corroborates this news. Nothing at all. Jaime would have known, right? But he never mentions it.

And again, it means nothing at all unless the KG at the ToJ knew about it. And there's no way to prove that they did.

[Debra Morgan]

So can I ask you a question about Alfie Allen's interview about Jon's parentage?

What did you ask him about in return?

You know, I asked him about who Jon Snow's real parents were, and he told me. I can't say who, but I can tell you that it involves a bit of a Luke Skywalker situation. It will all come to fruition eventually. The whole thing with all the fight over proper succession is partly inspired by the War of the Roses in the late 1400s, and back then, to ensure pedigree, the monarchies were kind of inbred. It's definitely fucked up, but it definitely happened back then, so that's why there's incest with the Targaryen line. It's toned down, though.[/qoute]

I didn't understand why did he say about the incest? (English is not my natural language))) ). I understood that the series is inspired by the War of the Roses and the monarchies were kind of inbred at that time and Targaryen's family is the example, but what did he mean saying "It's toned down, though"? That kings in Europe didn't marry their sisters? Or sth else?

[Debra Morgan]

I have seen statements from Ran to the effect that he believes that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents. I have also seen him say that he does not believe that the 3KG were at the TOJ because there was a king inside it --which is consistent with the statement in the world book that Viserys was the "new heir" once Rhaegar died. I have not seen him indicate that he thinks Jon was born legitimate.

Does Ran know who Jon's parents are?

[BearQueen87]

Does Ran know who Jon's parents are?

He said recently that he believes RLJ to be true beyond a doubt; he doesn't even consider it a theory anymore, really. But I don't think GRRM has actually told him.

[Han Snow]

Of the opposition that posts here there are four, maybe five types of people:

1. Trolls

2. Rebellious teens with reading comprehension skill not yet fully developed.

3. Combination of the first two (yikes!)

4. People who hate the notion of R+L = Jon so, so much that they will blind themselves to common sense and logical reasoning because of that hatred. Only GRRM can help those by finishing the saga. *side note - expect of these people to be in the front lines clamoring how Grrm is a hack and the novels suck when they are finally finished.

5. Rational people who didn't catch the clues while reading so they ask for more information.

[sj4iy]

So can I ask you a question about Alfie Allen's interview about Jon's parentage?

I didn't understand why did he say about the incest? (English is not my natural language))) ). I understood that the series is inspired by the War of the Roses and the monarchies were kind of inbred at that time and Targaryen's family is the example, but what did he mean saying "It's toned down, though"? That kings in Europe didn't marry their sisters? Or sth else?

I think he was talking more about incest in the Targaryen line vs royal incest in real life (which was much worse than what Martin depicted).

As far as the "Luke Skywalker" scenario, it could simply mean that Rhaegar Targaryen, who is somewhat viewed as a villain in the series for 'kidnapping' Lyanna, is actually Jon's father.

[Debra Morgan]

I think he was talking more about incest in the Targaryen line vs royal incest in real life (which was much worse than what Martin depicted).As far as the "Luke Skywalker" scenario, it could simply mean that Rhaegar Targaryen, who is somewhat viewed as a villain in the series for 'kidnapping' Lyanna, is actually Jon's father.

Ok, thanks

[The Twinslayer]

Does Ran know who Jon's parents are?

I don't know, and I don't want to convey the impression that I am privy to anything Ran has not said publicly, because I am not.

That said, I believe that Ran has said that he does not discuss theories with GRRM, which leads me to conclude that he does not know for sure.

Ran has said that his personal belief is that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents. He has also said that the 3KG were not at the TOJ to guard Jon. He indicated that he thinks Lyanna's baby was moved to Starfall to protect him from Lyanna's fever. That would mean that the presence of the 3KGs at the TOJ has nothing to do with whether or not Jon was legitimate.

[Debra Morgan]

He said recently that he believes RLJ to be true beyond a doubt; he doesn't even consider it a theory anymore, really. But I don't think GRRM has actually told him.

I heard that GRRM didn't tell his wife.

[The Twinslayer]

There is an inconsistency.Nothing in the main series corroborates this news. Nothing at all. Jaime would have known, right? But he never mentions it.And again, it means nothing at all unless the KG at the ToJ knew about it. And there's no way to prove that they did.

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.

[sj4iy]

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.

Not corroboration. Simply a fact of the age.

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.

Not CORROBORATION. IE: something in the main series that SUPPORTS the idea that Aegon was passed over by Aerys.

Of course, this only proves that the Great Council is needed in decisions concerning succession, and that it can't be done unilaterally.

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.

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.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

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

[sj4iy]

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

I'm also not sure how the Great Council making a decision on succession supports the idea that a king can unilaterally pass over the rightful heir.