R+L=J v.123

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

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

Ah, well. I kinda figured. Just thought I'd ask.

How about a caveat at or near the beginning of the OP, pointing out that Martin has never indicated or confirmed an actual sexual relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna, but that for purposes of supporting the theory, we should go ahead and assume such a relationship existed, despite its absence from the text?

That is a foundational assumption for the theory, after all. And the only real support for it is Robert Baratheon's dubious claim that Robert raped Lyanna, based on we know not what evidence.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Ah, well. I kinda figured. Just thought I'd ask.

How about a caveat at or near the beginning of the OP, pointing out that Martin has never indicated or confirmed an actual sexual relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna, but that for purposes of supporting the theory, we should go ahead and assume such a relationship existed, despite its absence from the text?

That is a foundational assumption for the theory, after all. And the only real support for it is Robert Baratheon's dubious claim that Robert raped Lyanna, based on we know not what evidence.

There are quite a few beautiful analysis written on this forum, showing textual hints for such a relationship...

J. Star's blue rosetta rose, comes to mind, or am I misremembering here?

[JonSnow4President]

Ah, well. I kinda figured. Just thought I'd ask.

How about a caveat at or near the beginning of the OP, pointing out that Martin has never indicated or confirmed an actual sexual relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna, but that for purposes of supporting the theory, we should go ahead and assume such a relationship existed, despite its absence from the text?

That is a foundational assumption for the theory, after all. And the only real support for it is Robert Baratheon's dubious claim that Robert raped Lyanna, based on we know not what evidence.

As well as everything suggesting that at least Rhaegar loved Lyanna, and the fact that Lyanna was found, dying in a "bloody bed," which is only used to refer to childbirth. Unless you're insinuating that the Father knocked up Lyanna and that Jon is the Faith's version of Jesus.

[Ygrain]

There are quite a few beautiful analysis written on this forum, showing textual hints for such a relationship...

J. Star's blue rosetta rose, comes to mind, or am I misremembering here?

Jon Snow and the Blue Winter Rosetta Stone

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Jon Snow and the Blue Winter Rosetta Stone

At least I had a few words in the title correct :blushing: But yeah, this one was the one I meant :D

[Ygrain]

As well as everything suggesting that at least Rhaegar loved Lyanna, and the fact that Lyanna was found, dying in a "bloody bed," which is only used to refer to childbirth. Unless you're insinuating that the Father knocked up Lyanna and that Jon is the Faith's version of Jesus.

He didn't? My worldview has shattered!

[Jon Weirgaryen]

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.

Thank you @Ygrain, I have edited 1&2 into it. Clumsily maybe, suggestions for better paraphrasing always welcome.

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

Maybe yes and why not? I just haven't found the right anchor in the faq nor the wording for that. Do you?

[Ygrain]

Thank you @Ygrain, I have edited 1&2 into it. Clumsily maybe, suggestions for better paraphrasing always welcome.

Maybe yes and why not? I just haven't found the right anchor in the faq nor the wording for that. Do you?

ad 3) How about "another possible source of information may be the other, so far unknown, person(s) present at ToJ, as indicated in They had found him (Ned) still holding her (Lyanna's) body, silent with grief."?

[finger]

It isn't known whether Ashara got pregnant at Harrenhal. With the rather large amount of time passing between Harrenhal and the Sack, combined with Barristan's statements of "stillborn girl" and "soon after", I'd not simply assume that Ashara getting pregnant occured at Harrenhal, but keep in mind that it might have occured later...

True. The information is scarce. We only know that BS seems reluctant to tell and all points at the misdoer getting away with it, so it had to be very powerful. That makes Aerys suspect in HH. But in KL, the main suspect would be Rhaegar. Thorny.

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.

Not everybody, but there has to be three heads.

We're told about Aegon, Rhaenys, Viserys and Daenerys. Of those, Rhaenys is dead without a doubt. Jon doesn't seem to be much of a dragon, he's a northman, no matter who his father was.

The rules are stated in other episodes. A boy can be swapped, as Mance's son was. A prince can go around in disguise, as Egg did, or Jon. A prince can be evacuated, as that one slain in Bitterbridge. Myrcella was both evacuated and swapped during the trip. Viserys fled.

On this basis, you're free to speculate.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

ad 3) How about "another possible source of information may be the other, so far unknown, person(s) present at ToJ, as indicated in They had found him (Ned) still holding her (Lyanna's) body, silent with grief."?

That works. Done.

Wylla has been suggested, but we know it was Aegon...

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

As well as everything suggesting that at least Rhaegar loved Lyanna, and the fact that Lyanna was found, dying in a "bloody bed," which is only used to refer to childbirth...

Good point. It would be good to clarify the fact that (in these threads) Selmy's comment about Rhaegar loving Lyanna is interpreted to imply lovemaking and Selmy's firsthand knowledge of a sexual relationship. Also to stipulate that evidence for Lyanna's motherhood is viewed as per se evidence of Rhaegar's fatherhood.

These are not necessarily logical conclusions to draw. So to the extent we can lay them out as assumptions of the theory up front, it might help manage expectations.

[FittleLinger]

Good point. It would be good to clarify the fact that (in these threads) Selmy's comment about Rhaegar loving Lyanna is interpreted to imply lovemaking and Selmy's firsthand knowledge of a sexual relationship. Also to stipulate that evidence for Lyanna's motherhood is viewed as per se evidence of Rhaegar's fatherhood.

These are not necessarily logical conclusions to draw. So to the extent we can lay them out as assumptions of the theory up front, it might help manage expectations.

George cannot tell you they had sex, because then you'd be looking for a child. Simple as that.

In (slightly) other news - Some of the people in story believe Rhaegar raped her. Others believe he loved her. They were gone together nonetheless. How is it not a logical conclusion they had sex, whichever of the two is true?

Second set of other news: George didn't tell us that Roose Bolton killed Robb, that the Alchemist is Jaqen, and that Alleras is Sarella. Are they or are they not?

[finger]

George cannot tell you they had sex, because then you'd be looking for a child. Simple as that.

In (slightly) other news - Some of the people in story believe Rhaegar raped her. Others believe he loved her. They were gone together nonetheless. How is it not a logical conclusion they had sex, whichever of the two is true?

Second set of other news: George didn't tell us that Roose Bolton killed Robb, that the Alchemist is Jaqen, and that Alleras is Sarella. Are they or are they not?

George didn't tell us why three KG were wondering about Dorne, instead of joining the army.

Nobody does, actually. Weren't they?

[RumHam]

Shortly coming back to the matter of polygamy and the Aegon IV/Daemon example... The fact that Daemon was looking for Aegon to allow such a polygamous marriage says nothing about it being legal or illegal... Aegon had three 'reasons' to get the final say about Daemons marriage.. Aegon was his King (1), Aegon was his father (2), and Aegon was his head of House (3). So every single marriage that Daemon could have wanted, would have needed to be approved by Aegon, if Daemon wanted to keep any chance of this marriage bettering his position.. if Daemon had chosen Rohanne himself, and only Rohanne, he still would have needed to ask Aegon for permission.

It's the wording around it that suggests that polygamy was illegal.

a different tale claims that Daemon was not so much opposed to wedding Rohanne of Tyrosh as he was convinced that he could follow in the footsteps of Aegon the Conqueror and Maegor the Cruel and have more than one bride.

Why word it that way if it's an accepted fact that he could follow in the footsteps of Aegon and Maegor and have more than one wife?

Not only did Daeron refuse to permit his brother more than one wife, but he also gave Daenerys’s hand to Maron Martell...

Why does it say "refused to permit his brother more than one wife?" Why not just say he refused to give Daemon Daenery's hand?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

True. The information is scarce. We only know that BS seems reluctant to tell and all points at the misdoer getting away with it, so it had to be very powerful. That makes Aerys suspect in HH. But in KL, the main suspect would be Rhaegar. Thorny.

Why is Aerys suspect at Harrenhal? He is aroused by having seen people burn, and we've yet to see anyone having burned at Harrenhal in 281 AC.

Why not make Brandon Stark a suspect, he who is known to have interacted with Ashara at the tourney, and who is known to have been able to get his way with the ladies...?

It's the wording around it that suggests that polygamy was illegal.

Why word it that way if it's an accepted fact that he could follow in the footsteps of Aegon and Maegor and have more than one wife?

Why does it say "refused to permit his brother more than one wife?" Why not just say he refused to give Daemon Daenery's hand?

I see nothing strange to it.. Aegon, and later Daeron, were the ones who could say "yes" or "no" to the whole thing... Why would Daemon have believed he could have more than one wife, if it was illegal?

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

George cannot tell you they had sex...

Agreed. This would be a great thing to highlight in the OP, right at the beginning. And it's more or less what I'm trying to point out: that we should be up front in identifying the sexual relationship as an assumption made for the sake of the theory, while acknowledging the fact that it's not textually supported outside of King Robert's version of history.

Otherwise it seems as if we don't even recognize the key weakness of the theory - or worse, that we're trying to gloss over it and pretend it's not there.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Rhaegar and Lyanna had a child, that is the person formally known as Jon Snow.

We assume Rhaegar and Lyanna had sex, but this is still being heavily debated by at least one member of the discussion thread.

(like this? Are you happy now?)

[J. Stargaryen]

Rhaegar and Lyanna had a child, that is the person formally known as Jon Snow.

We assume Rhaegar and Lyanna had sex, but this is still being heavily debated by at least one member of the discussion thread.

(like this? Are you happy now?)

Absolutely not. Do not alter anything for the benefit of trolls.

[RumHam]

I see nothing strange to it.. Aegon, and later Daeron, were the ones who could say "yes" or "no" to the whole thing... Why would Daemon have believed he could have more than one wife, if it was illegal?

Because he thought he could get his father to allow it, even though it wasn't normally allowed.

The use of the word convinced is strange. Like I know I can have lunch, there's no reason to think I shouldn't be able to have lunch. So one wouldn't say "RumHam may have been convinced he could have lunch." Now if I for some reason thought I could do something that I normally wouldn't be able to do, like say travel back in time, then someone might say "RumHam may have been convinced he could travel back in time and ride a dinosaur."

Edit: As you say Aegon and Daeron were the ones who could say yes or no, for a variety of reasons. But the book specifically says "refused to permit him more than one wife" which suggests "you need special dispensation from the king to practice polygamy" is one of them.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Rhaegar and Lyanna had a child, that is the person formally known as Jon Snow.

We assume Rhaegar and Lyanna had sex, but this is still being heavily debated by at least one member of the discussion thread.

(like this? Are you happy now?)

It's a good start. How about the following (my additions in bold):

Many regular participants in these threads believe that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a child, and that this child is the person formally known as Jon Snow.

In support of this belief, these participants assume Rhaegar and Lyanna had sex, but this is still being heavily debated by at least one member of the discussion thread and is not clearly supported in Martin's first 5 books.

.