[Book Spoilers] So with all the hints last night...

[Scarletfevre]

LF deducing the truth seems pretty plausible, especially since he was at the tourney in Harrenhall. Barristan the Bold knowing the truth is also plausible, since he and Rhaegar were buddies and jousted each other at fateful Harrenhall.

I agree with the idea that rumors get around, just like "everyone knows everything about everyone in KL", but I highly doubt Barry the Bold had any suspicions. Else, he'd have gone to fight for and protect Jon Snow, not Dany.

[The Bear]

Mainly because the Natural momentum of all the stories will push them to the wall. Stannis still has to do his save the Kingdom to win the Kingdom thing, ostensibly that's why he came north in the first place, so I don't think he pushes south yet, therefore he'll head to the wall. Brienne maybe the one to help Sansa get out of Winterfell, and she wants to kill Stannis, so either way the first place she's gonna want to go is the Wall. Not to mention events at the Wall might dictate things as well. Also though, remember when Brienne was talking to Pod about "all the good lords are dead,"? What if she found out the true king of Westeros had been hiding as a bastard boy, raised by the most honorable lord in the seven kingdoms, and rose to be the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch in only about 2 years. That's the type of resume someone like Brienne could follow, whether that means in a fight for the Iron Throne, or King in the North, or the Long Night. It makes a lot of sense to me, that doesn't mean it'll come to pass, but I'm feeling a lot more confident than I did last week.

But how is Jon the 'true king of westeros'? Rightful heir to Winterfell if he's named a Stark, sure. But king? No.

Robert Baratheon deposed the Targs. Yes, he was chosen to become the king because he had the most royal blood (his grandmother was a Targ) in an effort to seem more 'legitimate', but the second Robert conquered the realm and became King Robert Baratheon, first of his name, the Targs lost all their right to rule. That Dany is the Mad King's daughter means nothing, because the Baratheons won the throne through conquest and ended the Targ's claim to the Iron Throne.

Jon is still a bastard, he's just a Targ bastard rather than a Stark bastard. His father was legally married to Elia Martell when he fathered Jon, and even if Rhaegar and Lyanna did marry (as some theorise), it wouldn't be a legal marriage which means he's a bastard. Bastards aren't part of the succession, except for under exceptional circumstances (ie, made legitimate).

Stannis is the only 'rightful' king, because the Baratheons are the current ruling dynasty. Even if Dany re-took the IT by conquest and made the Targs the ruling dynasty again, Jon is still a bastard. There's really no way that he's the rightful king.

[Tywin Smokin a Blunt]

But how is Jon the 'true king of westeros'? Rightful heir to Winterfell if he's named a Stark, sure. But king? No.

Robert Baratheon deposed the Targs. Yes, he was chosen to become the king because he had the most royal blood (his grandmother was a Targ) in an effort to seem more 'legitimate', but the second Robert conquered the realm and became King Robert Baratheon, first of his name, the Targs lost all their right to rule. That Dany is the Mad King's daughter means nothing, because the Baratheons won the throne through conquest and ended the Targ's claim to the Iron Throne.

Jon is still a bastard, he's just a Targ bastard rather than a Stark bastard. His father was legally married to Elia Martell when he fathered Jon, and even if Rhaegar and Lyanna did marry (as some theorise), it wouldn't be a legal marriage which means he's a bastard. Bastards aren't part of the succession, except for under exceptional circumstances (ie, made legitimate).

Stannis is the only 'rightful' king, because the Baratheons are the current ruling dynasty. Even if Dany re-took the IT by conquest and made the Targs the ruling dynasty again, Jon is still a bastard. There's really no way that he's the rightful king.

Wow, I haven't been on here in a while, I forgot how butt-hurt the Stan-stans get when you mention anyone else having a claim to the throne. The entire concept of a "rightful king" has always been an oxymoron. Succession is almost always determined by who has the bigger army, not who came next in line, it just so happened that often those were one and the same. Jon, Dany, Stannis, Tommen, all their claims are meaningless. When I called Jon the "rightful king" I was speaking from Brienne's perspective, if she were to be the one to find out Jon's true parentage (and legitimacy was confirmed) she certainly would see him as the "rightful king" she's been searching for since Renly died. After all she certainly doesn't see Stannis as anything but a kinslayer, and is eager to remove him from the game anyway.

Let's also not forget, the war of the roses, which forms the historical basis for much of the story, ended with a relatively unknown claimant riding a bastard's claim to the throne, primarily because the "rightful king" was a horribly unpopular man. I'm not saying that's exactly how things will go, but anyone who thinks Jon (or even one of Robert's bastards) can't end up on the throne at the end of the story is fooling themselves.

[The Bear]

Wow, I haven't been on here in a while, I forgot how butt-hurt the Stan-stans get when you mention anyone else having a claim to the throne. The entire concept of a "rightful king" has always been an oxymoron. Succession is almost always determined by who has the bigger army, not who came next in line, it just so happened that often those were one and the same. Jon, Dany, Stannis, Tommen, all their claims are meaningless. When I called Jon the "rightful king" I was speaking from Brienne's perspective, if she were to be the one to find out Jon's true parentage (and legitimacy was confirmed) she certainly would see him as the "rightful king" she's been searching for since Renly died. After all she certainly doesn't see Stannis as anything but a kinslayer, and is eager to remove him from the game anyway.

Let's also not forget, the war of the roses, which forms the historical basis for much of the story, ended with a relatively unknown claimant riding a bastard's claim to the throne, primarily because the "rightful king" was a horribly unpopular man. I'm not saying that's exactly how things will go, but anyone who thinks Jon (or even one of Robert's bastards) can't end up on the throne at the end of the story is fooling themselves.

You're kind of off on your analysis of me. My belief that Stannis should hold the throne is soley based on how right of conquest works historically, not because I'm a stan for Stannis. I didn't say I liked him or thought he'd be a good king (in fact, I think Jon would be a better king), just that with the way right of conquest works being a Targaryan means nothing in terms of claim to the throne. I like Jon a lot more than I like Stannis, I just know how right of conquest works.

I totally understood you meant from Brienne's point of view, I just don't understand why you think Brienne would believe he's the 'one true king', since he has no armies, and is a Targ bastard. I don't see what would make someone look at Jon and say 'yup, he should be king'. He definitely has qualities that would make him an exceptional leader, but from the wording of your post I thought you meant his identity as Rhaegar's bastard meant something in terms of his eligibility for the IT. If that's not what you meant, then I missed your meaning.

I never said I don't think Jon will end up on the throne. I don't really think the IT will exist at the end but I definitely believe Jon will be some kind of ruler. I only meant that him being a Targ means nothing in terms of the IT since right of conquest means the Targ name (which he doesn't have anyway, being a bastard) is null and void unless a Targ re-conquers Westeros.

I'm a big Jon fan but I try to remain neutral about characters and view things objectively when talking about who is the 'rightful' king (and I agree, there's no such thing as a 'rightful' king). I work on the rules of the universe, which say right of conquest makes the former dynasty void in terms of succession, it's not about taking sides or being a stan for a character.

[TheSmallOther]

You're kind of off on your analysis of me. My belief that Stannis should hold the throne is soley based on how right of conquest works historically, not because I'm a stan for Stannis. I didn't say I liked him or thought he'd be a good king (in fact, I think Jon would be a better king), just that with the way right of conquest works being a Targaryan means nothing in terms of claim to the throne. I like Jon a lot more than I like Stannis, I just know how right of conquest works.

I totally understood you meant from Brienne's point of view, I just don't understand why you think Brienne would believe he's the 'one true king', since he has no armies, and is a Targ bastard. I don't see what would make someone look at Jon and say 'yup, he should be king'. He definitely has qualities that would make him an exceptional leader, but from the wording of your post I thought you meant his identity as Rhaegar's bastard meant something in terms of his eligibility for the IT. If that's not what you meant, then I missed your meaning.

I never said I don't think Jon will end up on the throne. I don't really think the IT will exist at the end but I definitely believe Jon will be some kind of ruler. I only meant that him being a Targ means nothing in terms of the IT since right of conquest means the Targ name (which he doesn't have anyway, being a bastard) is null and void unless a Targ re-conquers Westeros.

I'm a big Jon fan but I try to remain neutral about characters and view things objectively when talking about who is the 'rightful' king (and I agree, there's no such thing as a 'rightful' king). I work on the rules of the universe, which say right of conquest makes the former dynasty void in terms of succession, it's not about taking sides or being a stan for a character.

:agree: Almost with everything. Targaryens are in Westeros only for 300 years. They are "rightful" kings because it just so happened that Aegon and his sisters rode dragons instead of horses. And with all small folk uprising, with wildlings who do not want to kneel for any king with right name, but would follow man with right abilities, I'd say at the end of series kings and thrones will become irrelevant.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

I just don't understand why you think Brienne would believe he's the 'one true king', since he has no armies, and is a Targ bastard.

I thought you meant his identity as Rhaegar's bastard meant something in terms of his eligibility for the IT.

him being a Targ means nothing in terms of the IT since right of conquest means the Targ name (which he doesn't have anyway, being a bastard) is null and void unless a Targ re-conquers Westeros.

Considering one of the major points of Jon's arc has been dealing with the stigma that came with being Ned's bastard, it is very unlikely that he would find out who his parents are and learn he isn't one kind of bastard but another kind of bastard. Somehow it will be revealed that Lyanna was Rhaegar's second wife. His parentage wouldn't matter otherwise. The point has to be that he is the Targ heir or there isn't much of a point.

[Woman of War]

I believe he's referring to the Howland Reed = High Sparrow theory. Not one I personally subscribe to, though I do consider it a possibility.

Why are people so fixated on Howland Reed??

There is Benjen out there somewhere, he must have been in the show as well for a reason other than to disappear.

He will tell us about Jon's story.

P.s.

The entire concept of a "rightful king" has always been an oxymoron.

this!

[Ser Pounce FTW]

The entire concept of a "rightful king" has always been an oxymoron.

Further, I'd say GRRM is saying there is no such thing and that being a leader should be earned not expected as some part of some entitlement. The more you have to say "I am" or "It is mine" the more you are not.

[Amoracchius]

Hasn't HR=HS been discredited? I thought Ran (or Elio maybe?) had made a definitive statement, but I could be wrong. Either way, no I don't buy that Howland Reed is in King's Landing.

Why are people so fixated on Howland Reed??
There is Benjen out there somewhere, he must have been in the show as well for a reason other than to disappear.
He will tell us about Jon's story.

Woman of War, First of all, let me just say that I'm a big fan of your posts. You write very well (an increasingly rare quality) and I really appreciate seeing your perspective on the boards.

That having been said, I'm very confused by speculation that Benjen knows about R+L=J. I think that his disappearance is important to the story (otherwise why would Jon have brought up wanting to take Ghost and go find him more than a thousand pages later?) but I don't see the evidence that Lyanna or Ned or anyone else confided in Benjen about the secret of Jon's birth. I mean, obviously, anything's possible, but besides Bran's vision of Lyanna and Benjen play-fighting as children and her dumping wine over his head in the KOLT story, there's just not a lot about the the two of them together. Even if they were very close, Benjen was very young and was left as the Stark in Winterfell during the war (much like Bran) so he wouldn't have seen Lyanna after her abduction/disappearance. Assuming that R+L=J is true and that she wasn't already pregnant when she left Winterfell, how would Benjen know that his sister had a baby on the other end of the continent? How would he know who the father was? How would he know that Ned was lying when he said that Jon was his? Maybe Ned could have confided in Benjen when he came home from the war, but (1) Ned seemed pretty intent on keeping that secret; and (2) if there are hints that Ned did tell him something about Jon's parentage, I must have missed them.

So I'm honestly asking, where does the idea that Benjen knows about R+L=J come from? Have I missed something?

[Amoracchius]

EDIT: Sorry, double post.

[Philpenn]

Mayhaps Benjen is a warg, but always kept it secret? Would explain how he knew, and also how near all the Stark kids are but no one else for the last many generations?

[Frimmel]

Why are people so fixated on Howland Reed??

There is Benjen out there somewhere, he must have been in the show as well for a reason other than to disappear.

He will tell us about Jon's story.

P.s. this!

In the books isn't Reed the only other living person besides the infant to have been at the Tower of Joy?

This is not to dismiss Benjen as being important but Howland is the only eye witness to the Tower of Joy remaining.

[TheSmallOther]

In the books isn't Reed the only other living person besides the infant to have been at the Tower of Joy?

This is not to dismiss Benjen as being important but Howland is the only eye witness to the Tower of Joy remaining.

Well, who said anything about infant? :)

[Chilli]

Everyone who knew Ned can deduce who Jon's mother is.

1) Lyanna is 'kidnapped' and 'raped' by Rheagar

2) Ned is too honorable to cheat on catelyn

3) Shortly after Lyanna's and Rhaegar's death, Ned comes home with a very Stark looking kid

Logical conclusion is that the kid is Lyanna's. And because she was with Rhaegar, logical conclusion is that he is the father.

I don't get why not everyone who knew Ned or Lyanna or maybe Rhaegar comes to that conclusion.

But of course hey won't know the specifics like Howland who was in the Tower of Joy and the won't know about the prophecy/AA/TPTWP or a possible marriage.

[Genius]

I'm fixated on Howland Reed because of the implication that he has to be some sort of combat or magical badass, since he and Ned are the only ones to survive the ToJ. Maybe not, but he's advertised so many times throughout and he's probably not dead, so he should pop up eventually. I would doubt he's too magical, or else Ned probably would have mentioned it when discussing him at some point? But I've always found his absence way more intriguing than Benjen's, because there's a ready explanation for Benjen being missing. He just went North and died somehow. Plus, we were briefly introduced to Benjen and we sort of know him. I've never been able to come up with a reason for Howland Reed staying out of everything, since it seems like he actively allowed his children to participate, so it's one of the main things I'm interested in reading about in TWOW (I hope).

[jugdesh258]

Everyone who knew Ned can deduce who Jon's mother is.

We can only say this as outside observers because we read the book or to lesser extent saw the show. We can only really deduce that the average westerosi has no clue since obviously Ned was successful in keeping the secret for so long. It is different for some to ponder that Lyanna "liked it" in recalling the circumstances of the kidnap rather then taking the leap to Jon's identity. If there were strong rumers at the time then Robert would have had the babe killed. Nobody is going to be pondering this years later.

Alot of lords had bastard children. Regardless of how many say Ned was great guy, the same integrity would suggest that there is no reason to doubt Ned's sincerity in owning up. He was off in war for a long time and it is not as if Cat was his by default and not by first choice

[The Bear]

Considering one of the major points of Jon's arc has been dealing with the stigma that came with being Ned's bastard, it is very unlikely that he would find out who his parents are and learn he isn't one kind of bastard but another kind of bastard. Somehow it will be revealed that Lyanna was Rhaegar's second wife. His parentage wouldn't matter otherwise. The point has to be that he is the Targ heir or there isn't much of a point.

I'm not sure how that could work because Rhaegar was married in the faith of the seven, where there are no second wives. The TOJ is in Dorne, where it's acceptable to have a paramor, but even then the children are bastards. Maybe there's some convoluted way that he's not a bastard, and I get what you're saying, and that the irony of him living with the stigma of being a bastard when he's actually Rhaegar's son would be for nothing if he was still a bastard, but to me having them be married would feel kind of, well, convoluted. I'd think that being married in the faith of the seven would mean that other religious ceremonies like a marriage would be considered void? I'm not sure how that will be addressed.

Rhaegar was obsessed with the prophecy and loved Lyanna but there's nothing in the prophecy to suggest he had to be married to produce the three kids he believed he needed to have. I actually kind of like the idea that he's still a bastard even after his real identity is revealed, and he becomes a king or ruler in spite of that status.

So until it's revealed that they were legally married when Jon was born or someone can find a convincing way to get around being married to Elia I'm going to consider him a Targ bastard. It's not a derogatory thing.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

Maybe there's some convoluted way that he's not a bastard, and I get what you're saying, and that the irony of him living with the stigma of being a bastard when he's actually Rhaegar's son would be for nothing if he was still a bastard, but to me having them be married would feel kind of, well, convoluted. I'd think that being married in the faith of the seven would mean that other religious ceremonies like a marriage would be considered void? I'm not sure how that will be addressed.

Actually all of the Targaryen kings married under the Faith of the Seven according to Martin. I agree it will seem forced, especially since there weren't any dragons around at the time but it wouldn't be any more forced than some of the other things that are in the books. In fact, if Jon's bastard status hadn't been such a big thing in the books, I would say it would not need to happen but since it's very unlikely that he sits the Iron Throne, I don't see what other purpose his mystery parentage could have other than to legitimize him when he no longer has the psychological need to be legitimized because he's already made a positive successful life for himself as an honorable, worthy leader of the Watch.

[Amoracchius]

he's already made a positive successful life for himself as an honorable, worthy leader of the Watch.

Bowen Marsh disagrees.

[CrastorsLivingSon]

Everyone who knew Ned can deduce who Jon's mother is.

1) Lyanna is 'kidnapped' and 'raped' by Rheagar

2) Ned is too honorable to cheat on catelyn

3) Shortly after Lyanna's and Rhaegar's death, Ned comes home with a very Stark looking kid

Logical conclusion is that the kid is Lyanna's. And because she was with Rhaegar, logical conclusion is that he is the father.

I don't get why not everyone who knew Ned or Lyanna or maybe Rhaegar comes to that conclusion.

But of course hey won't know the specifics like Howland who was in the Tower of Joy and the won't know about the prophecy/AA/TPTWP or a possible marriage.

Everyone who knew Ned would trust Ned's word that Jon is his because Ned is renowned for his honor. It is never questioned because no one questions his word. If "The Ned" says it, he means it because he is too damn honorable to mean anything else.