Does Elia have time for a third child?

[JRose1989]

Nobody is disputing the frail health. What I am doing is actually reading the text and noting that nowhere are we told that Elia did not have a third child as a result.

I think he has set out lots of clues that point to both a correct solution and three false trails and you have taken one of the false trails.

And what we are all doing is seeing the constant references to her frail health, seeing the effects both the birth of Rheanys, and then Aegon had on her health(adverse in the EXTREME), reading that a third child would kill her, reading that she was at Harrenhall, not pregnant, and then reaching the conclusion that no. She didn't have any more children.

Nowhere in the text does it say that mobile phones don't exist.

But we have read the text, we have taken into account the fact that mobile phones have never EVER been mentioned, we see the evidence stacked against mobiles not being invented yet....and we reach the conclusion that Ned wasn't rocking a Samsung Galaxy.

Do you get where I'm coming from?

If you are so insistent that she could have another child, then it's on you to present the evidence.

[the conquering bastard 25]

We have a lot of foreshadowing: "the Dragon has three heads". We are also told Rheagar is obsessed with prophecy.

We have not yet been told the prophecy Rheagar was obsessed with. We only have that bit. But it looks like we are going to get a reveal on that eventually.

"everyone", we only have one source and an anonymous one at that.

On R+L=J, the problems are just so numerous it is difficult to know where to start. It is a theory that has been aggressively pushed by a handful of folk who are very enthusiastic about it and have told themselves that the problems don't matter so many times that they believe it.

If Rheagar was going to do the polygamy thing he would have done it openly and in public. A secret bastard cannot inherit, the politics of the matter make that impossible.

Jon can only inherit if there is indisputable proof that he is Targarean. But more importantly he is only going to want to inherit if he is not a bastard. He has already turned down WinterFell and more than half the land area of Westeros.

GRRM has made it very clear that the most important reveal on Jon is that HE IS NOT A BASTARD. Whether he is Targarean or Stark makes no difference. A secret polygamous marriage that isn't recognized by any of the Westeros faiths does not count.

You failed to think the marriage would only be secret until Rhaegar assumed the throne or regency.

You have failed to take into account that the lords of the Trident, Redwyne,Stark, Lannisters and Baratheons were making marriages across the board. Once they wed they would have become one giant house and power block, the only way to counter act that would be by removing some of the marriage players from the board, namely the Starks and Lanisters. The Starks because if they rebell andreteat behind MC there is nothing a southern army can do to make the Wolf bend the kneemshort of the north of dragons, while the Lanisters have to be removed as they know the inner workings of Aerys and by extension Rhaegsrs court and have the finances to fund a rebelling against the crown.

Did you ever stop to ask yourself how Rhaegar knew to have a crown of winter blue roses ready for Lyanna Stark, as she was fond of that flower. It would have been a simple manner of gathering info on the Stark children. One of the KGs own cousins was maester of WF and Aemon was on the Wall perfectly placed to gather info on the Starks and Northern politics as well.

Also after the Joust and Brandons Starks reaction to Lyannas crowing there was still at least two or three days left of the tourney.plenty of time for Rhaegar to have smoothed Brandons ruffled feathers.

Then there is this, why was Lyanna Stark not at River run with her brother? Makes sense that she would have gone to meet her new sister in-law and learn about running a southern household, but she wasn't there, she was either still at HH or Darry. Meaning she would have spent that time in between the Tourney and kidnappings in Loyalist hands( of the crown). Ashara as Elias lady in waiting wouldn't have been at court in Kl but on DS where the crowned prince and princess have made their seat. Making her the perfect go between Rhaegar and Brandon while they work out negotionations.

Then what about the delicate politics of Dorne and any send Lyanna there? Unless one looks at a map and think about the loyalties of the houses that control the land and feeling towards Sunspear.

The Tower is locatated in Fowler territory and he has no love for house Martell or the second most powerful house of done, whole there is a bitter rivalry between Martell and house ? Can't think of there name red viper dueled their lord and his wwound festered .At this time Quentyn would have been told young to foster making it an opportunity for the prince to further drive a wedge. Mandwoody the closest castle to the tower is beholder to house Fowler and Starfell and High Hermitage can help stall attacks coming from by way of Old Town and Sunspear, while also serving as a watchtower to give them time to move Lyanna to either Manwoody castle or the Daynes estates.

[JRose1989]

Also:

Jon Connington: "After the birth of Princess Rhaenys, her mother had been bedridden for half a year, and Prince Aegon’s birth had almost been the death of her. She would bear no more children, the maesters told Prince Rhaegar afterward."

Only Jon Connington mentions the child birth as an issue and only for Rhaenys, not for Aegon. And notice that we don't have an actual statement, we have a prediction.

That quote from you came after seeing the above quote....where Aegon was mentioned the NEXT line after Rhaenys.

So....are you just ignoring text now or?

[the conquering bastard 25]

I think that the idea that GRRM would use a little magic predicated on someone giving their life to save the life of a child and rightful king is a lot more credible than the notion that a bastard has a legitimate claim to the throne.

We are told that Jon hates being a bastard far more often than we are told about Elia's ill health. It is central to his character. You can make all the handwavy dismissals you like but the only times the English crown ever went to anyone who was not in the legitimate line of succession was by right of conquest and in the case of Henry 7 his line was legitimated by parliament for the express purpose of allowing his line to inherit long before he was born.

Sigh, you make me sad.

There are so many things wrong with this statement.

Let's see, first the Enlglish monarchy founder was a bastard William the bastard ever heard of him? Well he did in fact have a blood claim to the English throne before he made war on England. That's for starters.

Henry Tudors claim was comes from the Beaufort claim, which made them royal bastards. Richard II had them recognized in Patent letters of 1399 and the Pope backed his play. It was a move to appease his uncle John Gaunt. However royal bastards they may be but Richard and Henry weren't stupid they both had parliament and the papacy bar them from the actual line of succession.

The war of the roses is coming to an end Lancaster has been defeated and York rules. Henry Tudor had no right to the throne other than by right of conquest. What he did was after the battle of bosworth, he dated his reign from the day before battle. Then he used his wife's claim as the daughter I'd dear and beloved Edward IV, removed the brand of bastard from her and later his own line. Did you ever wonder why Henry Tudor reached out for a Spanish bride for Arthur and later Henry? Because if one traces the bloodlines and with house Lancaster having won the war, it placed the English throne in jeopardy because the best claim to the English throne wasn't an English man but the Spanish royal house. Both house Lancaster and York had interwed with Spain. Spain at the time had influence like you wouldn't believe her most catholic majesty Isabella was cousin to Rodrigo Borgia or Pope Alexander VI, the most corrupt pope to ever sit the throne of st.peter but Spain with the monies coming in for the new world and their emerging fleet, they could have made war on England and as England at the time was bankrupt and broken from the war, the crown weak... The course of history might have been much different . now does Mary Tudors choice of husband make sense or Philph of Spain three attempts at war against England make sense? In a sense he was the last Tudor rose, have it Lancaster and Yorkists blood from all the intermarriage house Haspburg.

Also the Stuards were cut out of the line of succession and it was made a matter of law under Henry VIII, he didn't paticually care for his sister or his nephew. Nor did Elizabeth ever formallyrevoke the statue or make James Stuard her heir.

[hallam]

Also:

Jon Connington: "After the birth of Princess Rhaenys, her mother had been bedridden for half a year, and Prince Aegon’s birth had almost been the death of her. She would bear no more children, the maesters told Prince Rhaegar afterward."

That quote from you came after seeing the above quote....where Aegon was mentioned the NEXT line after Rhaenys.

So....are you just ignoring text now or?

Take a look at what is actually written there. It is not what you think it is.

Jon RetCon says

* Elia was ill for months after child 1.

* Elia almost died after child 2.

* The maesters were of the opinion that she would not have any more.

Where do you think it says she was incapable or did not try?

[hallam]

Sigh, you make me sad.

There are so many things wrong with this statement.

Let's see, first the Enlglish monarchy founder was a bastard William the bastard ever heard of him? Well he did in fact have a blood claim to the English throne before he made war on England. That's for starters.

Yes, a member of my mother's family was one of his men at arms.

That was almost nine and a half centuries ago. And it was by right of conquest.

Henry Tudor's line was legitimized before he was born.

You can keep pushing the silly claim that bastadry does not matter but it was critical ever since peerages became hereditary in Magna Carta.

[the conquering bastard 25]

Yeah if your talking about Henry VIII not Henry VII. There would be no way Henry VI would have revoked the letters paten of 1399(Richard) or 1401(Henry) as not only would that have muddied the waters of inheritance as Henry didn't have an heir by his wife for the first 8 yrs of their marriage. Nor would have been in Edward of York or Richard of York(the father not Richard III) interest as the whole issue of the war was does Richard of York not have a better claim as the great grand son of Edward III thru the second son Lionel of Clarence. The problem is the claim came thru the female line, and Henry of Bolingbroke having also won the crown by right of conquest but having a superior claim as the grandson of Edward thru the male line. But if that isn't enough to cause a headache there is also the fact that York had a claim in his own right thru the male but as a younger son than Gaunt and thus Bolingbroke.

Did you know that Henry Tudor was thinking of legitimizing Henry Fitzroy? His son by Bessie Blout. The only reason he didn't do so was because he was hedging his Bets on Anne.

If Bastards can't rule then the entire Tudor line would never have ruled. The ppl would have accepted Henry VII as divine mandate as well as Henry VIII. But Mary or Elizabeth do daughters who both bore the stigima of bastard and depending on who you asked neither of their mother's marriages were valid. Henry VIII was buried next to Jane Seymour. As a political statement that Edward VIs mother was his true and only queen making Edward his heir.

The Tudors was political geniuses as well as PR experts. Most ppls perception of the War of the Roses comes from Pop culture and Shakespeare's writings on the matter and guess who those historical plays were written to flatter? a Tudor Regime. Making Richard III a twist evil man whom killed his nephews, when at the time Henry Tudor never openly named Richard as their killer. While Henry V is this warrior king... While the world remembers Henry VI was a sweet simple crazy man. While I don't deny he was a little off his rocker,he isn't the simple doe eyed man pop culture potrays him as. If anything the word simple back then ment inadept. Which Henry had in spades. My point given the right spin or take on events can be done and have been done. Our history books are full of the official story but with a little research and time one can find out that what's written in history biooks and how things played out are two different things and I think George is doing a wonderful job of illistrating that point.

I also mentioned that William the Bastard had a blood claim before he went to WAR. So I am still saying right of conquest but that doesn't negate he still in fact had a blood claim to the English crown and was named heir by Edward.

[hallam]

Well you can claim it doesn't matter but GRRM tells us that it matters to Jon.

And that is hardly the other problem that is dismissed with handwaving. We are given evidence that Ned considers Lyanna to have been so heroic as to merit the unique honor of a monument in the winterfell crypt. We are given foreshadowing that there is something really important to Jon down there which will reveal his parentage.

I don't think unmarried mother merits a monument, do you?

[JRose1989]

Take a look at what is actually written there. It is not what you think it is.

Jon RetCon says

* Elia was ill for months after child 1.

* Elia almost died after child 2.

* The maesters were of the opinion that she would not have any more.

Where do you think it says she was incapable or did not try?

Ok, so I see you have chosen to completely ignore my post above in regards to what the text does and doesn't say.

I shall quote it here for your convenience.

And what we are all doing is seeing the constant references to her frail health, seeing the effects both the birth of Rheanys, and then Aegon had on her health(adverse in the EXTREME), reading that a third child would kill her, reading that she was at Harrenhall, not pregnant, and then reaching the conclusion that no. She didn't have any more children.

Nowhere in the text does it say that mobile phones don't exist.

But we have read the text, we have taken into account the fact that mobile phones have never EVER been mentioned, we see the evidence stacked against mobiles not being invented yet....and we reach the conclusion that Ned wasn't rocking a Samsung Galaxy.

Do you get where I'm coming from?

If you are so insistent that she could have another child, then it's on you to present the evidence.

[hallam]

Ok, so I see you have chosen to completely ignore my post above in regards to what the text does and doesn't say.

I shall quote it here for your convenience.

I stop reading as soon as you claim that we should interpret what the text implies as opposed to what it actually says.

GRRM is very explicit and exact. You read what you want to see into what he wrote and then complain that I don't agree with you.

As with the bloody bed, you are taking the most obvious interpretation of the words and ignoring the fact that GRRM uses the unreliable narrator format. He says he never lies but he does mislead.

The question I asked is whether it is possible time wise. At this point we are only considering whether the theory passes the opportunity test.

And as for the famous restaurant meal, when D&D asked who Jon's mother was, it happened several years before Dance with Dragons was published containing the JonCon passage. So either GRRM thought we needed more clues or he thought the solution a bit too obvious since D&D presumably guessed correctly.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Do I have to ask about explanation when it comes to Jon's looks or I will get an answer?

[Jak Scaletongue]

i fixed that for you.

Ok firstly what are these good objections to R+L=J?

The Bastardy issue is negated by the fact GRRM included polygamy in the story, yes people like to argue against a polygamous marriage, but whilst it is debatable I believe the evidence weighs in favour of it, and frankly if he is still a bastard so what? that in no way negates the evidence which is very strong that he is Rhaegar's and Lyanna's son. My biggest problem with the polygamy thing is that Maegor the Cruel isn't really someone a person should hope to emulate - whether it's marriage, ruling, or general personality. I've always felt that the way George introduced the idea of polygamy was in such a way as to make it difficult and/or impossible for polygamy to be generally accepted by the Westerosi. I have no issues with R+L=J, but the idea of a polygamous marriage doesn't sit well with me, not with Maegor the Cruel being the only example we have of a polygamous marriage. I'd rather he just stay a bastard.

Yes, we do not know who was the maester of Dragonstone and it is exactly why we can't assume that he was loyal to Tywin Lannister. Maester Pycelle was Tywin's man and betrayed Aerys because of it. Pycelle served in the Small Counsel along Tywin for years and created a relationship of admiration and loyalty with him. The only other maester that could be a Lannister man is Maester Theomore; he was a Lannister of Lannisport and Wyman Manderly feared that he could stay loyal to his old familiar allegation and warns the Iron Throne that he was making a alliance with Stannis, but we can't say if Theomore would do that or not. In all fairness, we can't assume he wasn't either - the Lannisters are notoriously fertile, could be more than one Lannister has been sent to the Citadel. But that's just a thought I had while reading the comment, not really support one way or another!

So excluding familiar relationship or loyalty due acquaintanceship with Tywin we can't say that this maester was lying to Rhaegar. Of course, he could be corrupted with gold, gifts, women, but it is a accusation that we cannot prove. True, we can't say one way or another - or even if it was Tywin who corrupted the maester (IF the maester was even corrupted).

Jon Connington doesn't like Elia, but probably he received this piece of information from Rhaegar or something close to him.

Only Jon Connington mentions the child birth as an issue and only for Rhaenys, not for Aegon. And notice that we don't have an actual statement, we have a prediction. ----------"... and Prince Aegon's birth had almost been the death of her." How does that not read as an issue during childbirth? She ALMOST DIED!! That's a much bigger "issue" than being bedridden half a year. ALMOST DIED is the biggest issue you can have in childbirth without ACTUALLY DYING! And "he would bear no more children" is a statement, by definition. There's no question mark nor is there any wishy-washy-ness that comes with predictions. Mind you, we don't know exactly what the maesters told Rhaegar, word for word, but JonCon *states* that she wouldn't have any more children (which could be partially hindsight, stating that she didn't, in fact, have any more children cause she's dead). JonCon isn't predicting anything - he's stating a fact - Elia didn't have any more children.

If I was investigating a case for a client I would agree with you that this evidence suggests it unlikely Elia had more children. But that is not what we are doing here.

We are looking to solve the puzzle set by GRRM. And to do that we have to ask whether these statements are clues or intended to mislead.

The question is 'if GRRM wanted to mislead us about Elia's health without lying, would he have written these statements?' No, he wouldn't have, because by having three, four, different characters tell us she's frail and/or delicate he'd be lying to us, not misleading us.

The answer in each case is yes. Look at how the only direct statement is from Connington and it is a third hand report of what the Maesters said. And also note the name of the character: Jon Con, aka Jon Contradicter.

The timeline makes it difficult for Jon to be Aegon but it fits perfectly with Jon being a third child. It leads to Danny and Jon both being born a few months earlier than in the timelines developed to show R+L=J. But it fits all the information we are given.

The reason I got into Jon=Aegon is that it provides a very organic and obvious way to join the whole Roberts Rebellion backstory into a single narrative proceeding from a single cause. R+L doesn't do anything apart from let Jon ride a dragon and explain why Ned concealed him.

R+E=J provides a way to explain the behavior of Rhaegar and Aeyrs (responding to prophecy), Lyanna's behavior (escaping arranged marriage, saving the child), Ned's monument to Lyanna (the token keeping Jon's appearance changed is inside with Lyanna's body).

There are many open questions in the backstory that GRRM gives a strong hint that we will see an explanation for without giving one (yet). Those have to flow organically from the reveal on Jon's parentage.

Take a look at what is actually written there. It is not what you think it is.

Jon RetCon says

* Elia was ill for months after child 1.

* Elia almost died after child 2.

* The maesters were of the opinion that she would not have any more.

Where do you think it says she was incapable or did not try? Oh, there was probably still sex had - there's such a thing called the rhythm method. While I wouldn't recommend it if you have access to the much more effective birth control pill, condoms, diaphragms, sponges, etc, it's moderately effective when there's no birth control options readily available (or you disapprove of them - "good" Catholics use it*) and a much better choice than the "pull-out" method. It's also pretty handy if you're actually trying to get pregnant - want a baby, have sex when you're likely to be ovulating; no baby, have sex when you're not likely to be ovulating. It's actually pretty handy once you've got a handle on your cycle - and that only takes a couple of months (if you're regular). If you're irregular, it's still effective, just a bigger chance for an "oops." Which they've got moon tea to handle - and if another kid might kill you, it's side effect of possibly wrecking your womb is irrelevant. As for the incapable, well, the maesters said she wouldn't (shouldn't) have any more children. That's pretty much incapable. Not sterile, but certainly not capable.

*I'm Catholic, but not a practising one - I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm implying I'm the "bad" Catholic :)

[hallam]

Westeros has contraceptives - moon tea.

Do they work on Targs though?

[Dukhasinov]

Ok firstly what are these good objections to R+L=J?

The fact that Ned had no reason to hide Jon`s true parentage. Even as a son of Rhaegar, his bastardy would make him no threat to Robert`s place on the Iron Throne. And the existence (in the distant past) of polygamy does not negate this. No Targaryen since Maegor had multiple wives, and even then, it caused widespread anger in the Seven Kingdoms. That was almost 300 years ago. Even if Rhaegar could get a Septon to perform the ceremony, a polygamous marriage would not be recognized as legitimate by the Lords and people of Westeros, still making Jon legally a bastard.

Now, I absolutely do believe in R+L=J. I`m just saying that legitimate arguments are there. I think Ned concealed Jon`s parentage to protect the reputation of his sister. The official narative is that Lyanna was kidnapped by Rhaegar, even though we have a lot of evidence to suggest that it was an elopement.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Do they work on Targs though?

Why not?

I will have to ask you again. If Jon is Elia's son how about his looks?

[hallam]

Why not?

I will have to ask you again. If Jon is Elia's son how about his looks?

His looks are easily dealt with in a book with dragons and zombie corpse raisers.

People are more than happy with the idea Jon survives For the Watch with magic. Why you would think looks are an obstacle is a bit odd.

Bastardy is a problem because the books say it is a problem for Jon.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

His looks are easily dealt with in a book with dragons and zombie corpse raisers.

People are more than happy with the idea Jon survives For the Watch with magic. Why you would think looks are an obstacle is a bit odd.

Bastardy is a problem because the books say it is a problem for Jon.

So he looks like Ned2.0 even if he is the son of a Martell and a Targ because there is magic in the books? How do you expect people to take that *theory* seriously? So again, if he is Elia's and Rhaegar's son why he looks more than a Stark than the majority of the Stark children are look like?

[hallam]

So he looks like Ned2.0 even if he is the son of a Martell and a Targ because there is magic in the books? How do you expect people to take that *theory* seriously? So again, if he is Elia's and Rhaegar's son why he looks more than a Stark than the majority of the Stark children are look like?

Same way they are going to take Jon's ressurection after FTW seriously.

We already have one glamor spell swapping the looks of two people and we have a statement that Mel's sword glamor is empty because there is no heat. Clearly there are higher forms of magic.

Ashara had a child by either Ned or Benjen, Jon is Rheagar and Elia's child. The two had their looks swapped by some sort of spell and Lyanna died to make it permanent.

Fake Aegon is actually Ned or Benjen's bastard.

The show is taking a different course because they don't want to overdo the magic. So no fake Aegon.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Same way they are going to take Jon's ressurection after FTW seriously.

We already have one glamor spell swapping the looks of two people and we have a statement that Mel's sword glamor is empty because there is no heat. Clearly there are higher forms of magic.

Ashara had a child by either Ned or Benjen, Jon is Rheagar and Elia's child. The two had their looks swapped by some sort of spell and Lyanna died to make it permanent.

Fake Aegon is actually Ned or Benjen's bastard.

The show is taking a different course because they don't want to overdo the magic. So no fake Aegon.

I cannot say if you are serious or not. As we have seen it needs a gem for a glamor spell. Which is this gem when it comes to Jon?

Is there anything in the books, and btw fanfictionpages are not the original text from GRRM, which show that Lyanna had any knowledge of nagic or she was a magician practicioner? And if BloodRaven needed a gem to make him look like the Plumm guy, Lyanna would had to be a better magician than he was. So, where in the books is there anything like that?

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

So far, this theory included, among other things: Rhaegar seeking aid from, specifically, Lyanna Stark to go in hiding and guard his oldest/youngest son (him and him alone, too, not his sibling or siblings). The existence of yet to be introduced, a truly powerful magical artifact, perfectly concealing a growing Jon Snow's appearance for his whole life, even from hundreds of leagues away (alternatively, Jon Snow looks a Stark because of Lyanna's warging; for some reason). Ashara Dayne providing a child to serve as a decoy, and killing herself in consequence. And, for the punchline, all this, allegedly, makes the story simpler and more straightforward.

Surely, it can't not be a joke, can it?