Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jon Weirgaryen

R+L=J v.119

Recommended Posts

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.

Frequently suggested readings: At the tower of joy by MtnLion and Ygrain's clarification (eta)


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 18 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)

"R+L=J v.96" (thread ninety-six)

"R+L=J v.97" (thread ninety-seven)

"R+L=J v.98" (thread ninety-eight)

"R+L=J v.99" (thread ninety-nine)

"R+L=J v.100" (thread one hundred)

"R+L=J v.101" (thread one hundred one)

"R+L=J v.102" (thread one hundred two)

"R+L=J v.103" (thread one hundred three)

"R+L=J v.104" (thread one hundred four)

"R+L=J v.105" (thread one hundred five)

"R+L=J v.106" (thread one hundred six)

"R+L=J v.107" (thread one hundred seven)

"R+L=J v.108" (thread one hundred eight)

"R+L=J v.109" (thread one hundred nine)

"R+L=J v.110" (thread one hundred ten)

"R+L=J v.111" (thread one hundred eleven)

"R+L=J v.112" (thread one hundred twelve)

"R+L=J v.113" (thread one hundred thirteen)

"R+L=J v.114" (thread one hundred fourteen)

The TWoIaF Spoilers] R+L=J threads were used to openly discuss spoilers from TWoIaF at the time we needed to protect that information.

"[TWoIaF Spoilers] R+L=J v.1"

"[TWoIaF Spoilers] R+L=J v.2"

"[TWoIaF Spoilers] R+L=J v.3"

"R+L=J v.115" (thread one hundred fifteen)

"R+L=J v.116" (thread one hundred sixteen)

"R+L=J v.117" (thread one hundred seventeen)
"R+L=J v.118" (thread one hundred eighteen)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok R+L=J version 119 this is your chance to make a good impression so play nice with the posters and have fun, don't want to end up like your last couple of siblings do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I do like Val, too. A triumvirate?



As far as the betrayal for love, I believe that it will be Barristan when he finds Ashara. But, purely speculation.




I agree with you non this, Jon Snow is definitely going to be with Val through to the end... Heavily Foreshadowed in ADWDs...



Dany will be the love interest of Azor Ahi Reborn...



--


I can't see Barriston Betraying Dany. One of her betrayals will involve a kidnaping & Barriston will rescue Dany in a Duskendale-like situation, then he will die (still in his prime)...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry to bring the topic back on but margk171 said,



No one's saying Rhaegar didn't chose Lyanna. What is being disputed is that he used his lance to give her the crown, which must indicate phallic imagery. Even if he did use his lance like Yandel claims, how does that indicate fertility like you guys suggest?




It doesn't indicate phallic imagery. It is a phallic imagery!



This is not our suggestion. Nor is it an invention of GRRM's. This is a symbol frequently used in literature as in other arts. Do read up on phallic symbols, from the Greek antiquity, to ancient Egypt, and ancient Scandinavia, the phallus has represented fertility. Swords, lances and spears, are considered phallic symbols because of their shape, and their association to male virility.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus



EDIT:



And now I'll drop it, promised.



1) Any possibility at all that Wylla the Wetnurse = the fisherman's daughter? That the fisherman's daughter, after her father's death, became a camp follower? The only other Wylla we know, as some have pointed out, is a Manderly. Phonetically speaking, the name Wylla, fits with other Manderly first names....so, is Wylla originally, from the Westerosi east coast?



2) And, who among you thinks the fisherman's daughter did have a child? And what happened to that child?



3) You guys really all believe Ned never dishonored anyone?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry to bring the topic back on but margk171 said,

It doesn't indicate phallic imagery. It is a phallic imagery!

This is not our suggestion. Nor is it an invention of GRRM's. This is a symbol frequently used in literature as in other arts. Do read up on phallic symbols, from the Greek antiquity, to ancient Egypt, and ancient Scandinavia, the phallus has represented fertility. Swords, lances and spears, are considered phallic symbols because of their shape, and their association to male virility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus

EDIT:

And now I'll drop it, promised.

1) Any possibility at all that Wylla the Wetnurse = the fisherman's daughter? That the fisherman's daughter, after her father's death, became a camp follower? The only other Wylla we know, as some have pointed out, is a Manderly. Phonetically speaking, the name Wylla, fits with other Manderly first names....so, is Wylla originally, from the Westerosi east coast?

2) And, who among you thinks the fisherman's daughter did have a child? And what happened to that child?

3) You guys really all believe Ned never dishonored anyone?

The point was that how could Rhaegar using his lance to place the crown ever indicate he was going to put a baby in Lyanna's stomach, when he doesn't say he needs another kid for another whole year and Jon isn't born for another 2?

The point is, they can't be related. Not that a lance isn't a phallic symbol or anything, just that in this case, it doesn't work with the timeline. If Rhaegar had presented her with it and kidnapped her the next day, sure. But not when he goes and fucks his wife for a year and has another kid with her. The timeline doesn't fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was that how could Rhaegar using his lance to place the crown ever indicate he was going to put a baby in Lyanna's stomach, when he doesn't say he needs another kid for another whole year and Jon isn't born for another 2?

The point is, they can't be related. Not that a lance isn't a phallic symbol or anything, just that in this case, it doesn't work with the timeline. If Rhaegar had presented her with it and kidnapped her the next day, sure. But not when he goes and fucks his wife for a year and has another kid with her. The timeline doesn't fit.

It is symbolism... Looking at all Rhaegar and Lyanna related info, it can be seen as a hint to us, the reader. To the characters, t seemed Lyanna simply received a crown of blue roses.

The fact that Lyanna did not disappear for another year doesn't change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is symbolism... Looking at all Rhaegar and Lyanna related info, it can be seen as a hint to us, the reader. To the characters, t seemed Lyanna simply received a crown of blue roses.

The fact that Lyanna did not disappear for another year doesn't change that.

Yes it does. GRRM is bound by his characters.

Rhaegar allegedly (after all we're basing this entirely off of a vision) doesn't need another kid until a year later. So what he does at Harrenhal cannot be connected to that, as he does not yet know he needs another child and cannot rely on Elia.

GRRM can't just place clues "for the reader" that don't make sense according to the character and more importantly to the timeline. He's bound by his story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does. GRRM is bound by his characters.

Rhaegar allegedly (after all we're basing this entirely off of a vision) doesn't need another kid until a year later. So what he does at Harrenhal cannot be connected to that, as he does not yet know he needs another child and cannot rely on Elia.

GRRM can't just place clues "for the reader" that don't make sense according to the character and more importantly to the timeline. He's bound by his story.

When Rhaegar placed the crown of blue roses in Lyanna's lap, he wad not tying to tell her "hey, girl. I'm going to get you pregnant sometime in the future."

He was giving her a crown, nothing more, nothing less, crowing her Queen of Love and Beauty. Why did he crown her? We can only speculate (the Knight of the Laughing Tree usually features in these speculations). But as Rhaegar at that point still personally believed Elia could birth him all the children he needed, there is currently no reason to assume that R by the time of the tourney had already decided that he needed to have a child by L.

R obviously knows what he did, and when and why. The reader (us) doesn't, and so, we get hints. Those hints can be symbolic.. as would be the case here. But the symbolism directed towards the reader doesn't have to apply directly and exactly in the same manner to the characters in the books..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does. GRRM is bound by his characters.

Rhaegar allegedly (after all we're basing this entirely off of a vision) doesn't need another kid until a year later. So what he does at Harrenhal cannot be connected to that, as he does not yet know he needs another child and cannot rely on Elia.

GRRM can't just place clues "for the reader" that don't make sense according to the character and more importantly to the timeline. He's bound by his story.

And you're apparently bound by ignorance. Learn how symbolism works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok R+L=J version 119 this is your chance to make a good impression so play nice with the posters and have fun, don't want to end up like your last couple of siblings do you?

Ha

Yes it does. GRRM is bound by his characters.

Rhaegar allegedly (after all we're basing this entirely off of a vision) doesn't need another kid until a year later. So what he does at Harrenhal cannot be connected to that, as he does not yet know he needs another child and cannot rely on Elia.

GRRM can't just place clues "for the reader" that don't make sense according to the character and more importantly to the timeline. He's bound by his story.

Do you understand how foreshadowing works? I'm honestly asking at this point.

In other news: shiny! And look Ser Creighton, we got about 3 posts before it went off the deep end!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was that how could Rhaegar using his lance to place the crown ever indicate he was going to put a baby in Lyanna's stomach, when he doesn't say he needs another kid for another whole year and Jon isn't born for another 2?

The point is, they can't be related. Not that a lance isn't a phallic symbol or anything, just that in this case, it doesn't work with the timeline. If Rhaegar had presented her with it and kidnapped her the next day, sure. But not when he goes and fucks his wife for a year and has another kid with her. The timeline doesn't fit.

Yes it does. GRRM is bound by his characters.

Rhaegar allegedly (after all we're basing this entirely off of a vision) doesn't need another kid until a year later. So what he does at Harrenhal cannot be connected to that, as he does not yet know he needs another child and cannot rely on Elia.

GRRM can't just place clues "for the reader" that don't make sense according to the character and more importantly to the timeline. He's bound by his story.

OK--others have tried to explain this point to no avail, but I will give it a try anyway. I am not 100% convinced that you are debating in good faith, but for this purpose, I will assume you are.

It has been many years since I was in a high school English class (just attended my 30-year high school reunion), but I still remember some of what we learned regarding symbolism and foreshadowing. The author in fiction literature absolutely is NOT bound by his characters when putting in foreshadowing. It is quite common that the characters are doing one thing for one reason--but that there is symbolism in the action which is not at all explicitly intended by the characters in-story but that foreshadows something that would happen later in the story. Authors in literature employ this technique all the time. The symbolism is not intended by the characters or even known by the characters. The symbolism is solely for the benefit of the readers--to make the story more interesting for them to read by giving "clues" about what will happen next.

Here is an example of foreshadowing from wikipedia:

Foreshadowing is used in much of the works of John Steinbeck. In Of Mice and Men, Lennie accidentally kills a mouse, a dog and finally Curley's wife. This foreshadows his own death. When Carlson kills Candy's Dog, Candy tells George, "I ought to of shot that dog myself" making George later chose to kill Lennie himself to save him from dying by the hands of a stranger. Doing it the way that Carlson did it was for the best because, "He won't even feel it."

As you can see from this example, when Lenny kills others accidentally or Candy talks about it being better to be killed by a loved one than a stranger--neither Lenny nor Candy intends to be making any statement about Lenny's eventual death. The statements are meant for the reader to figure out that eventually George is going to have to choose to kill Lenny. The author was not bound by what the characters knew--the author did not need the characters to intend for their actions or statement to relate to Lenny's death. They related to Lenny's death because that is how many authors write their fiction.

So here we have an obvious phallic symbol being used by Rhaegar to place a crown of flowers in the lap of a girl that we know he later runs offs with in secret for an extended period of time. Of course at the time Rhaegar took that action, he had no intent relating to this phallic symbolism. Of course Rhaegar had no idea at that point he was eventually going to run off with Lyanna. This is symbolism in literature--it is not related to the intent of characters performing the symbolic action. The characters almost never intend the symbolic action to have the symbolic meaning that the readers are expected to understand (at least the attentive readers).

Anyone who is familiar with how symbolism and foreshadowing works in literature would consider this scene to be almost a "ham handed" way of foreshadowing a sexual relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna. It really is not ambiguous for anyone who has ever studied literature and how symbolism and foreshadowing has been used in literature for centuries. Once a reader knows that Rhaegar and Lyanna ran off and were isolated for an extended period of time, the scene in which Rhaegar uses his lance to put a crown of flowers in the lap of Lyanna can only be understood as symbolism by the author to indicate a future sexual relationship between the two characters. I would put forth a prediction that 100% of English teachers would agree with this analysis. It really is not a close call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not underestimate the craftsmanship of George. This "Wylla-I know about the promise" thing is very delicately written similar to this one:



Salladhor Saan was a resourceful old pirate, and his crews were born seamen, fearless in a fight. They were wasted in the rear.



This is what double entendre is.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

markg171 Some things in a story are presented by the author to educate the reader. They do not need to make sense to the characters, and indeed some characters are baffled and express their bewilderment to grab the reader's attention and direct it to the situation. The author's intention is not to spoil the journey, but enhance it, by being indirect. (Children's stories are much more direct.)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mithras, I'm afraid you've lost me. What is "Salladhor Saan was a resourceful old pirate, and his crews were born seamen, fearless in a fight. They were wasted in the rear." a double entendre for?




ETA:



Can we talk about Wylla and the fisherman's daughter? I'm thinking Wylla, can also be a name from the Reach. That's where the Manderlys originally came from, yeah? And Willas Tyrell....



I don't know where I'm going with this honestly.... it just seems like there could be more behind the casual mention of the fisherman's daughter, besides being a red herring.



And it would be good to know more about Wylla.... 'sides that she knows about the promise....



OH! Almost forgot. That Quentyn vs dragons chapter? Viserion, the white dragon gets grazed at the neck with an arrow. The blood is like lava, smoking hot. Guess what chapter follows right after? Yup. That chapter, with the neck wound, and the smoking belly wound... and a dragon cornered by traitors.... it's at least a thematic clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3) You guys really all believe Ned never dishonored anyone?

That's what Ned says himself:

“I swear, women lose all modesty in the heat. They swim naked in the river, right beneath the castle. Even in the streets, it’s too damn hot for wool or fur, so they go around in these short gowns, silk if they have the silver

and cotton if not, but it’s all the same when they start sweating and the cloth sticks to their skin, they might as well be naked.” The king laughed happily.

Robert Baratheon had always been a man of huge appetites, a man who knew how to take his pleasures. That was not a charge anyone could lay at the door of Eddard Stark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it would be good to know more about Wylla.... 'sides that she knows about the promise....

Well, I go along with GRRM dropping a hint that Wylla the wetnurse will show up, and will have known what Ned promised to Lyanna. GRRM likes to create slick little hints, chortling away. It is one of the tidbits that makes a reread fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what Ned says himself:

“I swear, women lose all modesty in the heat. They swim naked in the river, right beneath the castle. Even in the streets, it’s too damn hot for wool or fur, so they go around in these short gowns, silk if they have the silver

and cotton if not, but it’s all the same when they start sweating and the cloth sticks to their skin, they might as well be naked.” The king laughed happily.

Robert Baratheon had always been a man of huge appetites, a man who knew how to take his pleasures. That was not a charge anyone could lay at the door of Eddard Stark.

...I don't find that sentence very conclusive, but, Ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×