R + L = J v. 127

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

As to the seven rubies, I don't think we can count Viserys and Dany, but not Aegon, Daeron and Jaehaerys.. They were six siblings in total who lived.. I personally wouldn't count the two still births either, because neither one of the two children ever lived.

Perhaps the quote from Elder Brother can be viewed in a different way? Six have been found, we are all waiting for the seventh.. They are Seven Kingdoms, but you could argue that ever since Robert's Rebellion, they have not been united. Dorne has been plotting against the throne, the Westerlands have been plotting to take over the throne...

Can't "we are all waiting for the seventh" be symbolic for "we are all waiting for the Seven Kingdoms to be united together again"?

[BearQueen87]

As to the seven rubies, I don't think we can count Viserys and Dany, but not Aegon, Daeron and Jaehaerys.. They were six siblings in total who lived.. I personally wouldn't count the two still births either, because neither one of the two children ever lived.

Perhaps the quote from Elder Brother can be viewed in a different way? Six have been found, we are all waiting for the seventh.. They are Seven Kingdoms, but you could argue that ever since Robert's Rebellion, they have not been united. Dorne has been plotting against the throne, the Westerlands have been plotting to take over the throne...

Can't "we are all waiting for the seventh" be symbolic for "we are all waiting for the Seven Kingdoms to be united together again"?

I suppose but these aren't just rubies; they are the rubies that come off of Rhaegar's chest like drops of blood. GRRM has already pointed to the idea that these rubies are a blood simile. Viewing them in that light--as Rhaegar's blood--makes more sense.

I don't quite get why you propose not counting Viserys and Dany? One of them is still alive and both of them have the same blood as Rhaegar but are not Rhaegar himself, which seems to be why we exclude him.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I suppose but these aren't just rubies; they are the rubies that come off of Rhaegar's chest like drops of blood. GRRM has already pointed to the idea that these rubies are a blood simile. Viewing them in that light--as Rhaegar's blood--makes more sense.

I don't quite get why you propose not counting Viserys and Dany? One of them is still alive and both of them have the same blood as Rhaegar but are not Rhaegar himself, which seems to be why we exclude him.

No, I meant, you can't only count Viserys and Dany, and exclude Aegon, Daeron and Jaehaerys.. If you include one (or two, in this case) of Rhaegar's siblings in the count, you should include them all, right?

[JonCon's Red Beard]

As to the seven rubies, I don't think we can count Viserys and Dany, but not Aegon, Daeron and Jaehaerys.. They were six siblings in total who lived.. I personally wouldn't count the two still births either, because neither one of the two children ever lived.

If there was one more sibling, I would say that the six rubies are Rhaegar, Viserys, Aegon, Daeron, Jaehaerys, one more and finally, the seventh is Dany. Whatsoever, there was one more with a name: Shaena Targaryen. I dunno why is she named but not the others, but she's named nevertheless.

Considering the prophecy says that the PtwP will come from A and R's line, I think it would be fit if in fact, it's a child of them. Rhaegar thought it was him, but he didn't even know about Dany's existence.

[Ygrain]

No, I meant, you can't only count Viserys and Dany, and exclude Aegon, Daeron and Jaehaerys.. If you include one (or two, in this case) of Rhaegar's siblings in the count, you should include them all, right?

Not necessarily. Let us not forget that before TWOIAF, we had never heard about the other children - they are absolutely insignificant plot-wise, they never get mentioned by anyone.

[BearQueen87]

No, I meant, you can't only count Viserys and Dany, and exclude Aegon, Daeron and Jaehaerys.. If you include one (or two, in this case) of Rhaegar's siblings in the count, you should include them all, right?

Ah, I get what you're saying. I don't know, honestly. The original theory was long before the WB came out, so maybe J.Star has some insights he'd like to share. I think leaving the three young Targ children off isn't all that complicated because they died so young (just like leaving Rhaego off even though he exhibited signs of life in utero) and never mentioned in ASOIAF proper. Leaving Dany off, at least, makes little sense given that she is alive (and has dragons...)

[J. Stargaryen]

No, I meant, you can't only count Viserys and Dany, and exclude Aegon, Daeron and Jaehaerys.. If you include one (or two, in this case) of Rhaegar's siblings in the count, you should include them all, right?

The ruby symbolism predates TWoIaF. Also, what Ygrain said.

[sj4iy]

No, I meant, you can't only count Viserys and Dany, and exclude Aegon, Daeron and Jaehaerys.. If you include one (or two, in this case) of Rhaegar's siblings in the count, you should include them all, right?

I think you can absolutely exclude Daeron and Jaehaerys.

Why?

Because they didn't die after Rhaegar died.

Who lived/died after Rhaegar died?

Aerys

Rhaella

Aegon

Rhaenys

Viserys

Who still lives?

Dany

Jon

So perhaps it's suppose to be his blood that was spilled after his own.

[Ygrain]

Who still lives?

Dany

Jon

So perhaps it's suppose to be his blood that was spilled after his own.

Damn, I hoped that Jon might make it...

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

So then it's simply seven Targaryens who outlived Rhaegar? Do we know what happened to the other six rubies? Say, is the exact location of one or two known (Dany and possibly Aegon), and have four or five others been destroyed (/killed: Aerys, Rhaenys, Rhaella, Viserys and possibly Aegon)...? With the seventh being missing (/hidden: Jon)? I don't really have the time to try and look it up..

[BearQueen87]

I think you can absolutely exclude Daeron and Jaehaerys.

Why?

Because they didn't die after Rhaegar died.

Who lived/died after Rhaegar died?

Aerys

Rhaella

Aegon

Rhaenys

Viserys

Who still lives?

Dany

Jon

So perhaps it's suppose to be his blood that was spilled after his own.

Oh that's a really good point.

Damn, I hoped that Jon might make it...

Valar morghulis?

[sj4iy]

Of course, no matter how people want to interpret it, the important part of Rhaegar's rubies is that one is missing...just like one of Rhaegar's children is 'missing'. That's the actual takeaway from it, I would say.

[BearQueen87]

So then it's simply seven Targaryens who outlived Rhaegar? Do we know what happened to the other six rubies? Say, is the exact location of one or two known (Dany and possibly Aegon), and have four or five others been destroyed (/killed: Aerys, Rhaenys, Rhaella, Viserys and possibly Aegon)...? With the seventh being missing (/hidden: Jon)? I don't really have the time to try and look it up..

Doesn't say. Just that they washed up on shore of the QI.

[IceFire125]

That is why I pointed out in the last thread Theon's statement to the boat captain's daughter that her father should be happy about her relationship with Theon because not every man has the honor of raising a king's bastard. If you read every line of the books through the R+L=J lens, you'll conclude that Theon is really saying that Ned should have been honored (rather than dishonored) due to having to raise Jon.

I have now read the Ruby theory, too, and it seems like much of the same. If you start with the assumption that any reference to Rhaegar must also be about Jon, you can really struggle to find some way to interpret those rubies as a reference to Jon. But if that is what GRRM intended he would not have given Rhaella three new live births in the world book.

That's funny, before Feast and Dance came out, I was hoping and holding out, trying to believe, trying to look through the lens of Brandon + Ashara = Jon theory (due to factor of Dawn = Lightbringer, thus the Dayne connection), making all kinds of argument for that theory in my head (limited evidence as it may be), but I could not supplant the evidence pointed out by R+L=J theorists. Even worse, once reading ADWD, the R+L=J theory got more bumped in evidence boost than B+A=J theory. So should I continue to believe in faith that GRRM will give us more hints so that we could conclude B+A=J or other X+Y=J more evidence in the last 2 books, supplanting all factors he wrote pointing to R+L=J???

In light of what he says in public and interviews, that he will not change, due to the reason that he wrote hints and clues from earlier on (heavily points to R+L=J).

I honestly don't think so.

[markg171]

Wow, some battle went on in these threads last night.... Was that because he forum had been offline for a few hours guys?

In response to @markg171, who responded to my post quite a few pages before closing limit (but then the storm of posts came):

No Dany assumes that it must have been signed then. She has no idea when it was signed.

That's quite an assumption, isn't it? Dany doesn't show she assumes it. She states it, and shows no doubt. It is a contract she is reading, after all, and besides the agreement and the signatures of the people involved, a date and location are common on contracts.. so saying 'she's just assuming' is your assumption, not a fact.

In fact, Dany is asked what the parchement says, and answers that it is a pact signed in Braavos. She's not assuming anything. She's stating a fact, when asked what's on the paper.

In addition, the presence of the Sealord is quite telling, isn't it. Was it you who suggested that perhaps the agreement was signed before her birth, hence the fact that she wasn't mentioned? So, if not signed at Braavos, then what? The Sealord and Oberyn managed to sneak to Dragonstone, and Robert did nothing about it when Oberyn returned to Dorne?

Well I meant that she assumes it was signed in Braavos, as she believes it was signed when she lived at the house with the red door which she believes is Braavos. So when she gets a pact that was signed in Braavos, she will say "ah this was signed when I lived in Braavos". But it could have been signed before she was ever born and doesn't necessarily have to have been signed while she lived in Braavos.

I don't doubt it was signed in Braavos, as the Sealord bore witness to it. He's not going to leave Braavos just to witness a secret marriage pact concerning the politics of a different country. He'd make them come to him if they needed a witness. I just don't think, we can safely say that it was signed during the period when she lived in Braavos (or at least thought she did but let's not get into that here). To me, that's simply her assumption as she knows that her, Viserys, and Darry were in Braavos at that time.

[F The King]

Because the Martells are Doran and Oberyn, and Elia (knowing the prophecy etc would tell them).

The Martells would be pretty upset if Rhaegar married another woman while still wed to Elia, no?

There is this SSM. The final sentence is interesting: There might have been a few later instances as well. I'd need to look that up... (or make that up, as the case might be). A few instances after Maegor, like maybe Rhaegar and Lyanna and Elia, that he can look up in his notes, or make up as he needs?

Your earlier suggestion that polygamy is a sin is incorrect. Nowhere is polygamy described as a sin. But, incestous relationships are described as an affront to gods and men. Why would Westeros tolerate brother and sister marrying? Rhaella and Aerys were brother and sister, and they didn't have any dragons.

Why was Meagor exiled by Aenys then? Was it not for the act polygamy, something the Faith disdained?

Didn't Jaehaerys back up the marriage of Aerys and Rhaella with some sort of prophecy that they would give birth to TPTWP?

[XSarellaX]

OK, it's totally random, but I have to ask.

In Jon I, aGoT, he claims he is better than Robb with a sword, but Robb is the better lance. In this case, does Jon mean Robb is better at jousting? I might be confused because lance and spear, in my language, are the same word, and while one can fight with a spear on foot, I'm not sure if the same applies to lances...

The reason I'm curious is because, as Jaime noted, jousting is 3/4 horsemanship, so maybe Jon's statement implies Robb is the better rider. And I was hoping Jon had taken a little bit more after Lyanna (besides his looks).

[sj4iy]

OK, it's totally random, but I have to ask.

In Jon I, aGoT, he claims he is better than Robb with a sword, but Robb is the better lance. In this case, does Jon mean Robb is better at jousting? I might be confused because lance and spear, in my language, are the same word, and while one can fight with a spear on foot, I'm not sure if the same applies to lances...

The reason I'm curious is because, as Jaime noted, jousting is 3/4 horsemanship, so maybe Jon's statement implies Robb is the better rider. And I was hoping Jon had taken a little bit more after Lyanna (besides his looks).

A lance is a spear-like weapon. Robb was better at fighting with it, yes. However, that doesn't automatically mean that Robb would best Jon at jousting, because horsemanship is a big part of jousting, and Jon is a talented horseman. Also, fighting with a lance during battle and fighting with a lance during a tourney are very different and require different techniques, so it's really not a good way to judge

I don't think Jon's statement implies at all that Robb is a better rider than he is. He simply means that Robb is better at using a spear/lance in a fighting situation.

[markg171]

OK, it's totally random, but I have to ask.

In Jon I, aGoT, he claims he is better than Robb with a sword, but Robb is the better lance. In this case, does Jon mean Robb is better at jousting? I might be confused because lance and spear, in my language, are the same word, and while one can fight with a spear on foot, I'm not sure if the same applies to lances...

The reason I'm curious is because, as Jaime noted, jousting is 3/4 horsemanship, so maybe Jon's statement implies Robb is the better rider. And I was hoping Jon had taken a little bit more after Lyanna (besides his looks).

"Robb is a stronger lance than I am, but I'm the better sword, and Hullen says I sit a horse as well as anyone in the castle."

Seeing as he mentions riding horses immediately after, I'd say he was talking about fighting on horseback, in which case then yes Robb would be the better jouster.

I've seen people try to take the horsemanship thing to mean that Jon is one of the best riders in Winterfell (by arguing that if he's as good as anyone then he's as good as the best) to make a connection to Lyanna, but that's just absolutely false. When you're described as being as good as everyone else, you are being described as being average. People who have played sports know the "as good as anyone" term and it just means that someone's good enough to be there. Their talent merits them a spot on that team, but they're not outstanding, nor are they the weakest link. They're just an average player compared to everyone else.

Even if you want to disagree with me on the use of that term, you're free to do that, but as Harwin notes to Arya, he and his father were in a class of their own when it comes to horsemanship. So Jon most assuredly is not as good as the best riders in Winterfell, as the best were Hullen and Harwin and they were above everyone else. So not matter what, Jon is not an elite rider.

And Jon looks like Ned. Ned himself thinks that Jon looks like he did when he was younger. He has the Stark features and would bear a resemblance to Lyanna through that, but he is said to look like a young Ned.

[markg171]

A lance is a spear-like weapon. Robb was better at fighting with it, yes. However, that doesn't automatically mean that Robb would best Jon at jousting, because horsemanship is a big part of jousting, and Jon is a talented horseman. Also, fighting with a lance during battle and fighting with a lance during a tourney are very different and require different techniques, so it's really not a good way to judge

I don't think Jon's statement implies at all that Robb is a better rider than he is. He simply means that Robb is better at using a spear/lance in a fighting situation.

Just conveniently forgetting the part where Robb is a good horseman too eh? If he's better with a lance, and is at least as good as Jon at riding horses, then how did you possibly come to the conclusion that Robb isn't a better jouster than Jon?

I mean do you think that Jon found out that Robb was better with a lance than him by them trying to hit targets, or by jousting together and getting knocked on his ass? Do you think Jon found out he was better with a sword than Robb by practicing movements under Rodrik's eye, or by fighting him? He obviously came to his conclusions by competing against Robb.