R+L=J v.123

[Alia of the knife]

Back down the rabbit hole again, and Rhaegar is the "all father" of Westeros and Ashara is everyones mother.

In medieval times there was literally NO privacy, especially for royals. They were always watched. They had body servants who would actually wipe their privates after a privy visit.

And a female royal would have a bed maid sleeping with her as a "precaution."

Trying to switch a royal baby at birth would have been a very complicated process in a time when "personal space" would have been an alien concept.

If we do want to keep it simple, go back to the beginning and ask the question on the Authors purpose of a dead highborn lady such as a Ashara?

To be a red herring for Lyanna Stark whom the casual viewer/ reader hasn't caught onto yet.

Its more likely a hidden direwolf by the name of Allyria who resides at Starfall.

They can't all be dragons.

[BearQueen87]

They can't all be dragons.

The other animals need love too!

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Last thread there as some talk of changes to the FAQ at the start of the thread. I think this is a good idea, if only because there are a few questions that are frequently asked but aren't covered in the FAQ.

[...]

I liked @Kingmonkey's approch to rejuvenate the faq very much and have incorporated the comments of the other posters to it. Then I started reworking it to condense the wording to fewer, shorter and hopefully more concise sentences. Hopefully without taking away any that needed saying. Here it is:

The R+L=J theory claims Jon Snow most probably is the son of crown prince Rhaegar Targaryen and Ned's sister Lyanna Stark.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can Jon be a Targaryen if ordinary fire burned his hand?

Targaryens are not immune to fire. It's a myth that has been refuted by a list of Targaryens being burned. Danaerys 'the unburnt' was indeed unscathed when she hatched the dragon eggs, but that has not stopped her being burned on other occasions. See this thread on Targaryen fire immunity.

Don't all Targaryens have silver-golden hair and purple eyes (Valyrian looks)?

Not all of them: Good Queen Alysanne Alysanne had blue eyes. Some of the Great Bastards did not have typical Valyrian features. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) and Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had her mother's Dornish look (dark hair, olive skin, black eyes).

If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him?

Jon looks very like Arya, and Arya looks very like Lyanna. Jon is Ned's nephew, and Lyanna and Ned looked similar.

Ned is too honourable to lie. If he says Jon is his son, doesn't that mean he must be?

Ned tells Arya that sometimes lies can be honourable. His final words, a confession of his guilt, are a lie to protect Sansa. While a lie can be honourable, cheating on his wife isn't, so Ned's famed honour points to Jon not being his son.

How can Jon be half-Targaryen and have a direwolf?

He's also half Stark, through Lyanna. Ned's trueborn children are half Tully and that doesn't stop them having direwolves.

Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother?

Ned doesn't think about anyone being Jon's mother. If he did, there would be no mystery. He names 'Wylla' to Robert, but we do not see him thinking of Wylla being Jon's mother.

Why would Ned not at least tell Catelyn?

We don't have a list of what Ned promised to Lyanna, but know he takes his promises seriously. Maybe he promised not to tell anyone. In Chapter 45, Ned is uncertain what Cat would do if it came to Jon's life over that of her own children. If Catelyn knew that Jon was Rhaegar's son, she might feel that keeping him at Winterfell presented a serious risk to her own children. Ultimately, Catelyn did not need to know, so maybe Ned simply chose to be on the safe side.

Doesn't Ned refer to Robb and Jon as „my sons“ in the very first chapter?

Ned is keeping Jon's parentage secret. He never thinks of Jon as his son: In Chapter 45, Ned thinks of his children „Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon“ and explicitly excludes Jon from the list.

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?

He might. There has been polygamy among Targaryens in the past, so it is not easily ruled out in the case of Rhaegar, Elia and Lyanna. The presence of no less than 3 kingsguard knights at the Tower of Joy may be explained with them defending the heir to the iron throne, or even the new king. That wouldn't work so well if he was an illegitimate child.

Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal?

Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. Westeros does not have a constitutional monarchy, which makes the idea of royals being subject to the law tenuous. Examples demonstrate that it was considered an option: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it as an option for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Dany as a viable option. Daenerys said the same about Quentyn Martell. George says in this SSM: "If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want". There is also this SSM predating the worldbook.

Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage?

If so, why would they have apparently made no effort to use this leverage against Robert and Ned? Had they been ordered to, their Kingsguard vows would have taken precedence and still have required them to leave the Tower to protect Viserys when he became heir -- unless there was another that took precedence. Guarding Lyanna as a hostage at the Tower of Joy makes little sense: She would better be kept hostage at King's Landing, and wouldn't require kingsguards to guard her. The mere presence of three kingsguards implies something more important: guarding members of the royal family or maybe the heir.

Frequently suggested readings: At the tower of joy by MtnLion and support of the toj analysis by Ygrain

Isn't there an SSM that says the 3 Kingsguard were following Rhaegar's orders though?

The SSM you may be thinking of is probably this: 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."

We know from Barristan, protecting the king is the first and most important of all kingsguard duties. Jamie suggests some other KG to stay with the king when he wants to leave for the Trident and we also learn of a ritual that is performed when all KG meet and the king is guarded by someone who is not from the order.

"Protect vs Obey" is an ongoing subject of debate that is unlikely to be settled until we know more. Either viewpoint is compatible with R+L=J.

Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir?

No, in the case of an eldest son dying before the king dies, a grandson comes before a younger son. This may even be true if the grandson is yet unborn and might later turn out to be a girl after all. The world book is written with a Lannister bias in hindsight by maesters who have never learned all of what we know from Ned's dreams and memories.

Timing is still unclear, so it is worthy to note that we cannot tell if the world book info is correct in which one prince was chosen over another, and we wonder why that has been done.

But Ned is dead, who's going to tell anyone about it?

Bloodraven and Bran may have learned of it through the weirwood network. Benjen might know. Checkov's Crannogman Howland Reed is the sole survivor of the encounter at the Tower of Joy, and GRRM has stated he has not yet appeared because he knows too much about the central mystery of the book. "They had found him [Ned] still holding her [Lyanna's] body, silent with grief." shows that there also was someone else besides Howland to find Ned.

Why is this important? What impact can it have on the story?

The careful way the mystery of Jon's parentage was created is reason to believe it's important. What impact it will have on the rest of the series is still unknown.

This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true?

It is not so obvious to the majority of readers. Some will get it on their first read, but most will not. Readers who go to online fan forums, such as this, still represent a very small minority of the 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. Crowd-sourced internet-based mystery solving like this inevitably make solved mysteries seem more obvious in hindsight.

George is a „breaker of tropes“, there can be no hidden prince, it's just too cliché.

In order to break a trope it needs to be installed in the first place. It is yet unknown what will happen to Jon in the future. Being the son of Lyanna and Rhaegar does not imply the fairy-tale style happy ending associated with the hidden prince trope.

Since this theory has been refined so well, will Martin change the outcome of the story to surprise his fans?

He has stated that he won't change the outcome of the story just because some people have put together all the clues and solved the puzzle.

I hope it makes sense and is acceptable as the new faq.

Otherwise, please tell me what changes need to be made.

eta: for unknown reasons, the post's text formatting was all garbled. I cleared that up. Sorry!

eta2: a few corrections (see strikethrus). eta6: most of them were syntactical tidyups - now deleted.

eta3: additions by @Black Crow. eta4: updated and suggested for removal on account of @Ygrain's commentary.

eta5: more suggestions by @Ygrain

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Early readers excuse me please: for unknown reasons, the above post's text formatting was all garbled when I posted it. I cleared that up. Sorry!

[Alia of the knife]

The other animals need love too!

LOL, thats right, but more importantly, their bloodlines need to make a comeback too in whatever capacity.

And its not completely a crackpot as GRRM said in one of his interviews that Brandon died without any sons, or something to the affect, (I don't have the exact quote), and it led one to believe that Brandon may have left behind his own pack of a few she wolves. ;)

[FittleLinger]

LOL, thats right, but more importantly, their bloodlines need to make a comeback too in whatever capacity.

And its not completely a crackpot as GRRM said in one of his interviews that Brandon died without any sons, or something to the affect, (I don't have the exact quote), and it led one to believe that Brandon may have left behind his own pack of a few she wolves. ;)

Actually, it was that Brandon clearly died with no legitimate children, but it is absolutely possible that he had bastards, male or female.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

I think there were a few SSMs on that matter. Found the "Brandon died before he had sons" in this one.

eta: very shrewd if he actually meant: all of Brandon's sons would have been born after his death. - but I don't think so.

[Black Crow]

Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother?

Ned doesn't think about anyone being Jon's mother. If he did, there would be no mystery. He names 'Wylla' to Robert, but we doesnot se him thinking of Wylla being Jon's mother.

Why would Ned not at least tell Catelyn?

We don't have a list of what Ned promised to Lyanna. We know he takes his promises seriously. He might have promised not to tell anyone. In Chapter 45 Ned is uncertain what Cat would do if it came to Jon's life over that of her own children. If Catelyn knew that Jon was Rhaegar's son, she might feel that keeping him at Winterfell presented a serious risk to her own children.

Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir?

No, in the case of an eldest son predeceasing the king, a grandson comes before a younger son. This may even be true if the grandson is yet unborn and might later turn out to be a girl after all. The world book is written with a Lannister bias by maesters who have never learned all of what we know from Ned's dreams and memories.

I hope it makes sense and is acceptable as the new faq.

Otherwise, please tell me what changes need to be made.

Whilst I still disagree with the favoured interpretation of what happened at the tower, I'm not going to start a fight over it but as to the rest would point out the typo highlighted in red above.

As to the second, its worth pointing out that the best way to keep a secret is to observe the need to know principle. However curious, Catelyn did not need to know who Jon's mother was, so it was safest that she did not learn the secret.

As to the third, its worth pointing out the timing and circumstances. Aerys named his younger son Viserys as his heir following Rhaegar's death at the Trident. In theory Aegon should have been the heir, but was evidently passed over as being an infant and one who would have placed the kingdom in the hands of the Martells. It was a perfectly reasonable move at the time and moreover the decision was made at a time when Jon, whether legitimate or not, had yet to be born.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

@Black Crow: thanks, I corrected that. Am thinking about your thoughts being incorporated. I am aware of different interpretations and while I go with the famous one, I am actively pondering the other ideas that have been presented as well. I find it too difficult to show all possible paths simultaneously so I believe must stick to small changes and murky tradition.

its worth pointing out that the best way to keep a secret is to observe the need to know principle. However curious, Catelyn did not need to know who Jon's mother was, so it was safest that she did not learn the secret.

I think of a way to add that. Much appreciated.

its worth pointing out the timing and circumstances. Aerys named his younger son Viserys as his heir following Rhaegar's death at the Trident. In theory Aegon should have been the heir, but was evidently passed over as being an infant and one who would have placed the kingdom in the hands of the Martells. It was a perfectly reasonable move at the time and moreover the decision was made at a time when Jon, whether legitimate or not, had yet to be born.

Indeed... now how to say that... eta: we don't know either the time of the decision nor the birth date, so not certain whether his birth or the decision came first.

[Ygrain]

we don't know either the time of the decision nor the birth date, so not certain whether his birth or the decision came first.

Actually, we don't even know whether the said decision took place. The information comes from a dubious source outside the main series where such a thing was never, ever, hinted at.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Actually, we don't even know whether the said decision took place. The information comes from a dubious source outside the main series where such a thing was never, ever, hinted at.

Thanks for the insight. Updated the line you addressed and marked it to be removed.

[Black Crow]

Actually, we don't even know whether the said decision took place. The information comes from a dubious source outside the main series where such a thing was never, ever, hinted at.

Perhaps, but does it really matter? Whether or not Jon is the son of Rhaegar far less legitimate, his existence is a secret and therefore so far as the world is concerned Viserys, whether by decree or sheer survival was the last known Targaryen prince and therefore heir to the Iron Throne until Khal Drogo removed him as an obstacle to his wife's claim by tipping a bucket of molten gold over his head.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

@Black Crow: thanks, I corrected that. Am thinking about your thoughts being incorporated. I am aware of different interpretations and while I go with the famous one, I am actively pondering the other ideas that have been presented as well. I find it too difficult to show all possible paths simultaneously so I believe must stick to small changes and murky tradition.

Have you considered mentioning the possibility that the KG knights defeated by Ned had been assigned to protect Aegon Targaryen? He is said to have survived the Sack, after all - and if he did, then we would expect him to have had significant KG protection. His presence in or south of the Prince's Pass is not necessarily incompatible with RLJ, but would provide reasonable context to justify the KG presence found there.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Have you considered mentioning the possibility that the KG knights defeated by Ned had been assigned to protect Aegon Targaryen? He is said to have survived the Sack, after all - and if he did, then we would expect him to have had significant KG protection. His presence in or south of the Prince's Pass is not necessarily incompatible with RLJ, but would provide reasonable context to justify the KG presence found there.

When you present a theory in an OP, you don't list other possible scenario's, do you?

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Have you considered mentioning the possibility that the KG knights defeated by Ned had been assigned to protect Aegon Targaryen?

Yes, I have of course considered it. And then dismissed it as no textual proof has yet been found.

[Ygrain]

When you present a theory in an OP, you don't list other possible scenario's, do you?

Especially if it's a scenario with none to zero support.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Especially if it's a scenario with none to zero support.

I am not gonna ask if it is closer to none or closer to zero.

[Ygrain]

I am not gonna ask if it is closer to none or closer to zero.

That's very astute of you :-)

[Jon Weirgaryen]

That's very astute of you :-)

*blush*

[Ygrain]

1) Isn't there an SSM that says the 3 Kingsguard were following Rhaegar's orders though?)

The SSM you may be thinking of is probably this: 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."

"Protect vs Obey" is an ongoing subject of debate that is unlikely to be settled until we know more. Either viewpoint is compatible with R+L=J.

2) Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir?

No, in the case of an eldest son dying before the king dies, a grandson comes before a younger son. This may even be true if the grandson is yet unborn and might later turn out to be a girl after all. The world book is written with a Lannister bias by maesters who have never learned all of what we know from Ned's dreams and memories.

Timing is still unclear, so it is worthy to note that we cannot tell if the world book info is correct in which one prince was chosen over another, and we wonder why that has been done.

3) But Ned is dead, who's going to tell anyone about it?

Bloodraven and Bran may have learned of it through the weirwood network. Benjen might know. Checkov's Crannogman Howland Reed is the sole survivor of the encounter at the Tower of Joy, and GRRM has stated he has not yet appeared because he knows too much about the central mystery of the book.

1) I'd suggest including the reference to Barristan's musing on "first duty" as well as the ritualized KG staff meeting, and perhaps the notion that when Jaime wanted to go to the Trident, he suggested that another KG should stay behind instead of him.

2) I'd include that the book is written in hindsight, as it may have affected the maester's perception of the events. Aegon was Aerys' heir for minutes, so technically, Viserys was Aerys' new heir.

3) Shouldn't there be a mention of the mysterious "they" who found Ned holding Lyanna's body as possible another source of information?