Jon = Aegon

[JonisHenryTudor]

I did consider that Aegon could have been sickly but that doesn't sound like Jon, does it?

No which is why I said you are likely correct. I only through my personal example out as a case where it is possible.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

Looking at the two theories there are a lot of problems with the <x>=L theory. It means that there is no resolution to the bastardry issue for Jon which is the key driver behind his decision to join the Nights Watch. It means that either Rheagar is a rapist or Lyanna betrayed her family. It justifies Robert's rebellion against the Targareans.

Another whole area of problems is the fact that the Kingsguard make a fight of it at the Tower of Joy rather than bend the knee or parlay. That does not make sense if they are protecting Lyanna alone because at that point Rheagar is dead and Ned is her brother. It makes no sense for them to keep her prisoner. Which is of course an argument for R+<x> = J. But if <x> = L, three members of the kingsguard are protecting the dead prince's mistress and her bastard child. That makes little sense. If J=A then the three members of the kingsguard are doing their job: they are guarding the true king. Their actions now make perfect sense.

The bastardy issue is no issue at all if Rhaegar and Lyanna were married (either by a Septon, or before a weirwood tree). The Targaryen's have a long history of Polygamy and this would be no different.

Also, you mention the Knight of the Laughing Tree being Lyanna (I agree), Aerys made an order to find that knight and kill him. If Rhaegar was helping Lyanna because she was found out, Lyanna would not betraying her family she would be in hiding from Aerys.

Jon would also be the true King if Lyanna and Rhaegar are married.

[JonisHenryTudor]

Hey, I did a science degree at Oxford. The way you prove something is you look at the reasons it might be false. I also work in crime prevention. People try to set false trails to put the blame on others all the time.

The reason I don't think the monster R+L=J thread is worth much is because the only people who are flogging that horse are already completely bought into the theory. They are only looking for confirmation. Its like a religion where the established position is presented as a privileged 'truth' that has to be disproved.

Reading the books it is obvious that Jon's true parentage is a critical plot issue and I thought R+L = J was the case for quite a while. But looking at the reveals in the series makes me think otherwise.

It is clear that there have to be two hidden Targareans as the dragon has two heads. It is also just about as clear as it can be that Jon is one of them. Otherwise Ned's behavior makes no sense. Rheagar is the only plausible Targarean father for Jon. therefore R+<x> = J.

The difference between R+L = J and R+A = J isn't actually very much in terms of mechanics. Both theories have Lyanna dying shortly after Jon's arrival and Ned promising to look after Jon. Both theories have Lyanna being the knight of the laughing tree.

The only firm detail we have for Aegon is his birth at Dragonstone. This is one of the visions that Dany sees in the house of the undying which tells us that it is a really critical event but we don't know why.

Looking at the two theories there are a lot of problems with the <x>=L theory. It means that there is no resolution to the bastardry issue for Jon which is the key driver behind his decision to join the Nights Watch. It means that either Rheagar is a rapist or Lyanna betrayed her family. It justifies Robert's rebellion against the Targareans.

Another whole area of problems is the fact that the Kingsguard make a fight of it at the Tower of Joy rather than bend the knee or parlay. That does not make sense if they are protecting Lyanna alone because at that point Rheagar is dead and Ned is her brother. It makes no sense for them to keep her prisoner. Which is of course an argument for R+<x> = J. But if <x> = L, three members of the kingsguard are protecting the dead prince's mistress and her bastard child. That makes little sense. If J=A then the three members of the kingsguard are doing their job: they are guarding the true king. Their actions now make perfect sense.

Now that doesn't mean that we aren't going to see <x>=L be a plot line at some point. In fact I think that it has been placed quite deliberately so that Jon can become a Targarean and take on dragon riding duties before the final reveal.

There are only two issues folk have come up with against <x>=E and I don't think either is a strong objection.

The first objection is that if J=A he would be a year older than if R+L=J and 'people would notice'. Why people think this is a problem is a mystery to me because what Ned brings back to Winterfell is a child of unknown age that he claims as his bastard. Yes, people can tell the difference between a newborn and a one year old. But in the books nobody is looking for R+L=J. they are not going to look at Jon and say 'that's never Lyanna's child' because the idea would never occur to them.

The second objection is that in the books we are repeatedly told that Jon looks like a Stark. This is not mentioned repeatedly in the show, if at all. People tell Jon he acts like his father.

This isn't a problem in the books because there are presumably looks altering spells available at a price. Possibly this has something to do with Lyanna's death. But even if not, the great houses are closely inter-bred. Cersei and Jamie were offered to the Martells. Why is it so hard to believe that there isn't a Stark somewhere in the family tree? This is not a question of what is 'likely' for a Martell, if GRRM wants to make Elia's father a Stark, he can.

From a narrative point of view J=A makes much better sense. It allows the whole of Robert's rebellion to be re-interpreted. Rheagar was rebelling against his mad father before he killed his children. Perhaps Brandon and Rickard were part of that plot. Perhaps the Lannisters were as well. J=A allows the whole of that civil war to be rewritten so that Robert becomes a mere usurper rather than having any valid claim.

R+L=J introduces shades of grey. None of the characters involved are completely pure. But that is something that works much better at the middle of the book. Most people prefer a knockout at the end.

I am a candidate for a PhD in history, so I know a thing or two about evidence/arguments as well.

I think the critical thing to understand with R+L=J is that it has been around for almost two decades. So almost two decades of arguments, evidence, and counter arguments. It still holds strong. I would certainly agree if someone posed the idea in January 2015 and by February everyone said HOLY HELL that is precisely right. At that point, I would certainly say hold up a moment.... BUT this has been argued and pushed against since the 1990s (as far as I know). SO...

[JonisHenryTudor]

Funny, I didn't know that they taught such lax approach to studying resources at Oxford, not to mention cherrypicking. I think I have had enough here.

It is possible the poster did not see how long the theory has been around. As I said in a previous post, if this was offered days ago and accepted immediately then questioning it is reasonable.

But, and I repeat, this has been around for two decades, so...

[Lord Estermont]

Actually fAegon was the one destined to rule since the beginning by Varys and illyrio, its just dany complicated things with their plans.Last but not least always remember that the books have covered about a two year period, fAegons appearance is timely with the state of westeros and lets not forget the war of the five kings which ended a bunch of storylines and started others which are pivotal now but not on agot, your saying fAegon cant be the ultimate victor is proof less as in 2 books a period just as big as another wot5k can be covered.

[Ygrain]

It is possible the poster did not see how long the theory has been around. As I said in a previous post, if this was offered days ago and accepted immediately then questioning it is reasonable.

But, and I repeat, this has been around for two decades, so...

The poster was pointed to the source material as well as provided with information on the timelines etc. He either handwaves it or keeps ignoring it, and generally seems to be missing a lot of what is going on in the books. Believe me, reasonable questioning looks different.

[JonisHenryTudor]

The poster was pointed to the source material as well as provided with information on the timelines etc. He either handwaves it or keeps ignoring it, and generally seems to be missing a lot of what is going on in the books. Believe me, reasonable questioning looks different.

No I know. Just trying to find a reason...

I think we need to find out via show or WoW (early on) otherwise Hodor will be a lost targ and Jon is the product of Lord Tywin and Cat......the reason Cat hates Tywin so much and Ned keeps the secret to honor his wife....... :bang:

[Ser Leftwich]

I took another look and you are right there, but I was also wrong about the date of the alleged elopement which is a year after the tornament. So the chronology still works.

One reason I find J=A more plausible is that it gives an explanation for introducing the knight of the laughing tree. Unless it is just pointless misdirection, the mystery knight is Lyanna. She is the only person who would need to conceal her identity. This explains why Rhaegar makes her queen of truth and beauty

Rhaegar/Lyanna definitely disappear after the birth of Aegon.

The only thing that is not explained is the Stark features and that seems a fairly small problem when the great houses of the seven kingdoms would surely be heavily intermarried.

Jon being a bastard might not matter to readers, but it would make a huge difference to Jon. Why would being Rhaegar's bastard instead of Ned's change Jon's situation with the night watch? Having always been a different person, having always been legitimate but not knowing it would make all the difference in the world. It would mean that he was the rightful king before he took the Nights Watch oath.

It does not matter when the tourney was, the premise in the OP is that Rhaegar held the tourney to hide/split up his TWO children. He did not have two children at that time so the idea of the tourney makes no sense, whole theory falls apart.

At the time, technically, since he only had a daughter, Rhaegar had no children in the line of succession.

[hallam]

Funny, I didn't know that they taught such lax approach to studying resources at Oxford, not to mention cherrypicking. I think I have had enough here.

Funny, I don't see any actual argument there. Argument is an intellectual process, not just the automatic gainsaying of what the other person says.

There is only one substantive objection to this theory that has been raised which only applies in the book and has at least two possible explanations. That is hardly 'cherry picking'. Rather, you are projecting. I pointed out that relying on a timeline set up to show 'R+L=J' is plausible is not an argument against J=A since the only evidence for the timeline is R+L=J. In formal logic terms, that is known as begging the question. Your timeline is a consequence of your theory, not evidence.

J=A fits the facts in the books better and more importantly presents better story arcs for the main characters.

R+L=J makes Jon a bastard and that means he can only become the prince who was promised if he renounces the Nights Watch oath to become king. J=A avoids that problem completely, Jon is already a prince, no need to leave the NW to fulfill the prophecy.

J=A also makes Tyrion's arc much more critical because unless Jon leaves the NW, Tyrion is the only surviving Targarean who can have issue and without that there will be nobody to ride the dragons in future. So Tyrion's children will sit on the Iron Throne even if he never does. If Jon leaves the NW he can father his own children.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

At the time, technically, since he only had a daughter, Rhaegar had no children in the line of succession.

Not that I disagree with what you are saying, but this isn't true.

Rhaeneys would be in the line of succession, just at the back of it. Any uncles and brothers would come before her but she would still be in the line

[JonisHenryTudor]

Funny, I don't see any actual argument there. Argument is an intellectual process, not just the automatic gainsaying of what the other person says.

There is only one substantive objection to this theory that has been raised which only applies in the book and has at least two possible explanations. That is hardly 'cherry picking'. Rather, you are projecting. I pointed out that relying on a timeline set up to show 'R+L=J' is plausible is not an argument against J=A since the only evidence for the timeline is R+L=J. In formal logic terms, that is known as begging the question. Your timeline is a consequence of your theory, not evidence.

J=A fits the facts in the books better and more importantly presents better story arcs for the main characters.

R+L=J makes Jon a bastard and that means he can only become the prince who was promised if he renounces the Nights Watch oath to become king. J=A avoids that problem completely, Jon is already a prince, no need to leave the NW to fulfill the prophecy.

J=A also makes Tyrion's arc much more critical because unless Jon leaves the NW, Tyrion is the only surviving Targarean who can have issue and without that there will be nobody to ride the dragons in future. So Tyrion's children will sit on the Iron Throne even if he never does. If Jon leaves the NW he can father his own children.

A few things.

There may not be a NW after the first few chapters of WoW, so that may not be a problem.

Henry Tudor was a "bastard".

You seem to be operating on the assumption that Jon's ac needs to make other character arcs more critical? That seems a bit odd.

Also are you suggesting that Lyanna's baby was switched? If that is so, then why would the KG be at the ToJ?

Or are you suggesting Ned took Aegon, named him Jon, and then returned to Winterfell but continue dwelling on his sister as a deflection? Why would Ned take someone else's child?

Please don't take offense, but this is the problem with science. The process of scientific inquiry does not transfer well to the humanities/literary fields. Often many things are left out that are crucial, and in this case human emotion and context. It doesn't make any sense that Ned would take someone else's child home. Why would Lyanna pretend that Aegon is hers and then make Ned promise to protect a child not hers while her baby is shipped elsewhere? Why would Ned even agree to that? If that is the case, why would Ned dwell on Lyanna and not ever consider her missing child?

[hallam]

It does not matter when the tourney was, the premise in the OP is that Rhaegar held the tourney to hide/split up his TWO children. He did not have two children at that time so the idea of the tourney makes no sense, whole theory falls apart.

At the time, technically, since he only had a daughter, Rhaegar had no children in the line of succession.

You can hardly say that the whole theory falls apart. It means there is a different reason for the tournament, that is all.

R+L=J is so full of holes that we are now up to v171 of that theory. I think I am allowed v1.1.

Since we are agreed R+<x> = J, it follows that Jon was protected by three members of the kingsguard when Ned arrived at the tower of Joy. If Rhaegar was spiriting his child off to safety it would make sense to put him under the protection of at least one kingsguard and have some female he could completely trust to care for the child. It can't be one of the children's nurses because that would raise questions.

Further, in the books, Sam and Gilly are bringing Mance Raider's son to OldsTown. Gilly is caring for another woman's child to save its life. Just the sort of parallel GRRM throws out.

[JonisHenryTudor]

You can hardly say that the whole theory falls apart. It means there is a different reason for the tournament, that is all.

R+L=J is so full of holes that we are now up to v171 of that theory. I think I am allowed v1.1.

Since we are agreed R+<x> = J, it follows that Jon was protected by three members of the kingsguard when Ned arrived at the tower of Joy. If Rhaegar was spiriting his child off to safety it would make sense to put him under the protection of at least one kingsguard and have some female he could completely trust to care for the child. It can't be one of the children's nurses because that would raise questions.

Further, in the books, Sam and Gilly are bringing Mance Raider's son to OldsTown. Gilly is caring for another woman's child to save its life. Just the sort of parallel GRRM throws out.

So Lyanna birthed her child and let it go to watch over Aegon? Lyanna was lying in a puddle of her own blood.

[Ygrain]

Funny, I don't see any actual argument there. Argument is an intellectual process, not just the automatic gainsaying of what the other person says.

There is only one substantive objection to this theory that has been raised which only applies in the book and has at least two possible explanations. That is hardly 'cherry picking'. Rather, you are projecting. I pointed out that relying on a timeline set up to show 'R+L=J' is plausible is not an argument against J=A since the only evidence for the timeline is R+L=J. In formal logic terms, that is known as begging the question. Your timeline is a consequence of your theory, not evidence.

J=A fits the facts in the books better and more importantly presents better story arcs for the main characters.

R+L=J makes Jon a bastard and that means he can only become the prince who was promised if he renounces the Nights Watch oath to become king. J=A avoids that problem completely, Jon is already a prince, no need to leave the NW to fulfill the prophecy.

J=A also makes Tyrion's arc much more critical because unless Jon leaves the NW, Tyrion is the only surviving Targarean who can have issue and without that there will be nobody to ride the dragons in future. So Tyrion's children will sit on the Iron Throne even if he never does. If Jon leaves the NW he can father his own children.

You got arguments in post 46, and I can only repeat that the information on Aegon's age as well as Jon's borth comes directly from GRRM, as you would have known if you did bother to go through the materials, instead of playing Mr Clever. Do your homework first before you start throwing around unbased assumption about people's mental processes.

[Ser Leftwich]

Doesn't Apple Martini have a magic question for this situation?

Also, why would Ned say that he dishonored both himself and Catelyn, if the bastard he shows up with was old enough to have clearly been born before he was married to Cat?

[JonisHenryTudor]

You got arguments in post 46, and I can only repeat that the information on Aegon's age as well as Jon's borth comes directly from GRRM, as you would have known if you did bother to go through the materials, instead of playing Mr Clever. Do your homework first before you start throwing around unbased assumption about people's mental processes.

I would also like to add one point.

D&D were asked who Jon's parents were. They gave a sufficient answer, which most likely was correct because it suited Martin. My guess is that D&D leaned on the most popular theory, which is R+L=J. Obviously this proves nothing, but not everything can be a coincidence. We have no idea what happened in that interview, but my guess is that D&D told Martin that R+L=J and won him over.

Also content of show. Thus far Aegon is not in the show, and D&D are playing up the hints in this season. We all know how much they cut, etc, but I find it odd that if J=A that D&D have no included anything about Aegon.

[JonisHenryTudor]

Doesn't Apple Martini have a magic question for this situation?

Also, why would Ned say that he dishonored both himself and Catelyn, if the bastard he shows up with was old enough to have clearly been born before he was married to Cat?

There is that.

[Ygrain]

Doesn't Apple Martini have a magic question for this situation?

Also, why would Ned say that he dishonored both himself and Catelyn, if the bastard he shows up with was old enough to have clearly been born before he was married to Cat?

Yep but the question pertains to N+?=J

And why does Cat think that Ned fathered his bastard after they were married.

[hallam]

The bastardy issue is no issue at all if Rhaegar and Lyanna were married (either by a Septon, or before a weirwood tree). The Targaryen's have a long history of Polygamy and this would be no different.

Yes and no, With the High Sparrow running round with the church militant, what the Targareans used to get up to would no longer be sufficient to claim the throne.

It is possible the poster did not see how long the theory has been around. As I said in a previous post, if this was offered days ago and accepted immediately then questioning it is reasonable.

But, and I repeat, this has been around for two decades, so...

Ah, so the reason people don't agree with you is ignorance of the fine arguments somewhere else?

Nope, I have known about the theory for several years and considered it valid till yesterday.

I am a candidate for a PhD in history, so I know a thing or two about evidence/arguments as well.

I think the critical thing to understand with R+L=J is that it has been around for almost two decades. So almost two decades of arguments, evidence, and counter arguments. It still holds strong. I would certainly agree if someone posed the idea in January 2015 and by February everyone said HOLY HELL that is precisely right. At that point, I would certainly say hold up a moment.... BUT this has been argued and pushed against since the 1990s (as far as I know). SO...

Let me guess, Regent's University? Where I come from the length of time people have believed a thing is no test of truth. People believed in the story of the flood for two thousand years. Until very recently the story of Moses and exodus was considered to be historical fact by most archaeologists in the field. People believed in Newtonian physics for several centuries before relativity.

There are numerous examples of large numbers of people getting the wrong idea and refusing to change their mind despite the facts.

A few things.

There may not be a NW after the first few chapters of WoW, so that may not be a problem.

Henry Tudor was a "bastard".

You seem to be operating on the assumption that Jon's ac needs to make other character arcs more critical? That seems a bit odd.

Also are you suggesting that Lyanna's baby was switched? If that is so, then why would the KG be at the ToJ?

There were only two Henry Tudors who became king, both were very much legitimate. Henry VII's father was illegitimate but he was legitimized by act of Parliament. The only English king to be born a bastard was William the conqueror who like Henry VII won the throne by right of conquest, not right of birth.

Under J=A, Lyanna is never pregnant, there is no baby. Her actions are purely honorable to save the life of the legitimate heir to the throne at all costs.

So Lyanna birthed her child and let it go to watch over Aegon? Lyanna was lying in a puddle of her own blood.

There had just been a battle with eight dead and only two survivors. Under R+L=J, Lyanna dies in childbirth. Under J=A, she dies protecting Aegon's life. Why are you sure the blood is hers. Does Ned do a DNA test?

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

Yes and no, With the High Sparrow running round with the church militant, what the Targaryens used to get up to would no longer be sufficient to claim the throne.

It is not like once Jon knows the truth (if he can prove it or not) the King on the Iron Throne is going to hand it over and apologize. Jon is only getting the throne if he has a huge following (or marries someone who already took the throne). So it really doesn't matter if people have a problem with Rhaegar marrying Lyanna, if Jon has a big enough army (or a dragon) it wont matter.

Under J=A, Lyanna is never pregnant, there is no baby. Her actions are purely honorable to save the life of the legitimate heir to the throne at all costs.

There had just been a battle with eight dead and only two survivors. Under R+L=J, Lyanna dies in childbirth. Under J=A, she dies protecting Aegon's life. Why are you sure the blood is hers. Does Ned do a DNA test?

The "bloody bed" clearly refers to childbirth. You can argue who the baby was, or if the baby survived and who the father was all day long, but at the end of the day, Lyanna was pregnant and had a child.