R+L=J v.145

[TheSmallOther]

One thing that's been on my mind lately is the complete lack of an agreed upon non-RLJ theory in the nearly 20 years since AGoT was published. Given the ridiculously obsessive nature of this fandom, someone -- really several someones -- would have figured it out and explained it by now, if there was a different answer. And many people would have agreed with those people. Because, if they were right, their explanation would have made sense to a lot of other people. But that hasn't happened.

I wonder if something like this doesn't belong in the OP. Are there competing theories? Not really.

Why there should be? Honestly, it's up to GRRM to decide how many alternative theories he wants to have in his books. He could choose to have 10 equally possible theories, put enough supportive material into the text and at the end reveal RLJ to everyone. Or he may put one obvious RLJ into the text and at the end completely destroy it. Or opposite - we may find out RLJ is true, but it means doom for Westeros. There are plenty possible outcomes.

It doesn't matter how clever Ser Isaac Newton was, he couldn't come up with laws of quantum mechanics. It doesn't matter these laws existed objectively since the birth of Universe. But the fact such genius couldn't even imagine this model, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

If only the timelines were that simplistic,i wouldn't bet on Jon being born in 283.

Why not? Are there hints that make him older/younger?

[stateofdissipation]

Totally agree with this.

We get Rhaegar was obsessed with prophecy from Aemon. They communicated with ravens. How many people that you communicate with by writing on this board would consider you obsessed with aSoIaF?

[J. Stargaryen]

Why there should be? Honestly, it's up to GRRM to decide how many alternative theories he wants to have in his books. He could choose to have 10 equally possible theories, put enough supportive material into the text and at the end reveal RLJ to everyone. Or he may put one obvious RLJ into the text and at the end completely destroy it. Or opposite - we may find out RLJ is true, but it means doom for Westeros. There are plenty possible outcomes.

It doesn't matter how clever Ser Isaac Newton was, he couldn't come up with laws of quantum mechanics. It doesn't matter these laws existed objectively since the birth of Universe. But the fact such genius couldn't even imagine this model, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I love ASoIaF, but something gets lost in the translation when you compare the mystery of Jon's parentage to the complexity of the universe. :) That said, GRRM's American editor was able to solve the mystery of Jon's parentage by reading the AGoT manuscript. So, at least one person has correctly guessed "the model."

[BearQueen87]

Can you remind me what was the reason behind Lyanna's abduction if we discount all prophecy-related business?

Love, to get away from Robert, if Aerys found out she was the KotLT and her life was in danger....

There is a difference between abduction and "abduction"

[Alia of the knife]

We get Rhaegar was obsessed with prophecy from Aemon. They communicated with ravens. How many people that you communicate with by writing on this board would consider you obsessed with aSoIaF?

I think Aemon was obsessed with prophesy, and given that these sort of things might come naturally to the Targs, perhaps it's not as all consuming as it might be for those for whom it doesn't come naturally.

All we know is that he read a book and wrote to Aemon. We don't have Rhaegars responses to his uncle. He might have been humoring his uncle.

We also see that he seems to have taken time out for very worldly concerns such as the IT and other family issues.

I think prophesy was a FACTOR, but something tells me Lyannas arrival into his life had more to ignite his interest in it,(in relation to her and justification for taking her),than Aemon.

Love and prophesy, a very heady combination.

[Lord Varys]

With the Ghost's prophecy in place I'm pretty sure Rhaegar was shown and led to believe in the prophecy - and that he was the one it referred to - by his family. I imagine Jaehaerys II concluded Rhaegar must be the One after Summerhall. Maester Aemon may have backed that belief - or not. Rhaegar himself would then have learned about all that from his parents - either Aerys/Rhaella or both.

[MtnLion]

If only the timelines were that simplistic,i wouldn't bet on Jon being born in 283.

Well, let's see. When was Robb born? Robb's nameday occurs earlier than Jon's. I think that pretty much establishes that Jon was born in 283. Then you have GRRM's word for Jon being born eight to nine moons before Daenerys. What kind of objection do you have? Anything substantial, or more visceral.

[stateofdissipation]

Can you remind me what was the reason behind Lyanna's abduction if we discount all prophecy-related business?

"Love"

He did not abduct her they eloped....

and

"Political"

To stop the Baratheon, Stark, Tully marriage arrangements.

[aaron30]

R+L= Jon is the biggest loser in the series.

[Sly Wren]

Well, to some extent, that's what makes it magic rather than either science (which has recipes that work for known reasons of cause and effect) or religion (which has recipes that work because they're rituals prescribed by the gods, who reward you for following them). There's a reason pompous magick types like to talk about "The Art", and it's not just so they can pronounce the capital letters.

Of course fantasy always blurs the lines between magic and science (Qyburn) and magic and religion (Melisandre), but I think part of what GRRM is trying to do is tell us: no, in my world, it's really all magic, and when they claim they know what they're doing, they're either lying to someone else or lying to themselves.

Amen--pretending/trying to control magics gets people into really bad situations--Bloodraven's a tree. Enough said. Makes me very nervous with Mel at that Wall with Shireen--burning that child would be nightmarishly horrible, even though the books have been setting us up for this for a while. And trying to play with magic always goes wrong--Mel burns Shireen to raise Stannis and "accidentally" raises Jon or burns Shireen to raise Jon--either way, can see this turning really horrible. Not happy.

I'd bet that even in his earliest vision of the story, when Arya was destined to end up with Jon, Sansa was very domestic and motherly, and Arya was not at all; she was always the prickly tomboy who'd rather hold a sword or a horse's reins than a baby or an embroidery kit, and that's why we were supposed to like her. So, the fact that Sansa still seems more motherly 5 books later (although she's taken a bit of a dark turn herself--nowhere near comparable to Arya, but not the fairy-tale princess she started as) doesn't necessarily mean much.

Also, I think Arya's story ultimately comes down to making a choice between embracing being the Lone Wolf even though she knows that it means death, or creating a new family to survive. (Of course put in those words, it doesn't sound very romantic, but "Jon, I can't be a Lone Wolf anymore, I need to need someone, I need to be needed, I need you" sounds like a line out of a soap opera and means the exact same thing, so don't put too much stock in that....)

Totally fair on Arya, Sansa, and the 1993 letter. Still think he changed Sansa's "staying with Joffrey" to free her up to reconnect with Starks--and maybe Jon. No way to know yet. But Arya--can see her reconnecting with family, yes. But that kid's been dark for a while. I love the character, but do not see her shifting fully out if it--not when two of her big ties to the family are Needle and Nymeria--the people-eating-pack-leader.

And that's why he was so mad at Robert for pardoning the Lannisters' child-murdering. "Robert, I finally worked out the whole speech for when Jon grew up, and now what am I supposed to tell him instead?" "Speech? What speech? What do Aegon and Rhaella have to do with your bastard boy? Is there something you need to tell me?" "It's a long story, never mind. Can we talk about something else? Um... So, um, how 'bout those Dornish women, eh? I'm sure you've got some tales."

Thus proving that Ned had more than one reason for wanting to get the hell away from King's Landing . . .

[Black Crow]

I wasn't suggesting specific wording, just the gist of the point I was trying to make. I also think the fact that there are many other theories kind of proves part of my point. There's nothing approaching a consensus from the non-RLJ side, despite people suggesting just about every possible alternative. From Aerys to Arthur Dayne to Howland Reed to even Tywin Lannister. Oh, let's not forget Robert and Mance. It's not like people out there aren't considering other options. They absolutely are. And those are just the possible solutions with Lyanna as the mother. I didn't even mention the theories where Ned is the father.

By popular request Heresy 175 will be running an X+L=J special in which possible alternatives will be offered to contrast and compare the options.

As I said to you the other day I do think myself that R+L=J is the most realistic, albeit holding a soft spot for Ser Arthur Dayne, but on the whole I prefer to concentrate on the emphasis both in text and SSM to Jon's mother. I'm happy to be corrected on this point but I don't recall GRRM ever referring to Jon's parents. Its always been about his mother.

As I again said the other day [and funnily said in an OP for this very thread a year or so back, which Angalin reprinted as the OP of the following iteration] I think that rather than quarreling over the identity of Jon's father, its more constructive to look at the various possible and sometimes very different outcomes from that rather than fixating on the King Jon Targaryen option.

[IceFire125]

its more constructive to look at the various possible and sometimes very different outcomes from that rather than fixating on the King Jon Targaryen option.

I respect that. However, to use your wording 'fixating' on Jon being King, I respectfully disagree. I think it's not fixating at all, it's actually due to "careful reading", Martin's own words, thus it has merit for discussions.

[The Twinslayer]

I love ASoIaF, but something gets lost in the translation when you compare the mystery of Jon's parentage to the complexity of the universe. :) That said, GRRM's American editor was able to solve the mystery of Jon's parentage by reading the AGoT manuscript. So, at least one person has correctly guessed "the model."

That is interesting. Do we know if that was the final manuscript? Or did GRRM make changes to make it more difficult to figure it out?

By popular request Heresy 175 will be running an X+L=J special in which possible alternatives will be offered to contrast and compare the options.

As I said to you the other day I do think myself that R+L=J is the most realistic, albeit holding a soft spot for Ser Arthur Dayne, but on the whole I prefer to concentrate on the emphasis both in text and SSM to Jon's mother. I'm happy to be corrected on this point but I don't recall GRRM ever referring to Jon's parents. Its always been about his mother.

As I again said the other day [and funnily said in an OP for this very thread a year or so back, which Angalin reprinted as the OP of the following iteration] I think that rather than quarreling over the identity of Jon's father, its more constructive to look at the various possible and sometimes very different outcomes from that rather than fixating on the King Jon Targaryen option.

Have you done an R+L=? thread? That could be interesting.

[Black Crow]

I respect that. However, to use your wording 'fixating' on Jon being King, I respectfully disagree. I think it's not fixating at all, it's actually due to "careful reading", Martin's own words, thus it has merit for discussions.

It certainly has merit for discussion but its not the only viable outcome

[IceFire125]

It certainly has merit for discussion but its not the only viable outcome

Of course not. You'll find through out the history of R+L=J threads, that not all believe of Jon's royal heritage, as in Rhaegar married Lyanna. But for me, personally, it's selling Martin short on his eloquent writing, providing many layers and layers of clues, hints and foreshadowing that Jon was indeed born of royal blood.

I was one of the hard staunch supporters of B+A=J long time ago (because of the Jon will bring forth the Dawn--theory), but I can't force people to discuss that theory, forcing them to support it, when texts are heavily support R+L=J side in the narrative timeline, logistics, clues, hints, and Martin's heavy foreshadowing for Jon in the series.

If B+A=J were to have merit of discussions, it would be as equal to R+L=J's popularity by now, objective and careful readers, without bias, will see that.

[wolfmaid7]

Why not? Are there hints that make him older/younger?

Yes a few in fact.

Well, let's see. When was Robb born? Robb's nameday occurs earlier than Jon's. I think that pretty much establishes that Jon was born in 283. Then you have GRRM's word for Jon being born eight to nine moons before Daenerys. What kind of objection do you have? Anything substantial, or more visceral.

I'm actually putting that together for part 2 of an essay but food for thought starting with why is it and who decided Jon was younger than Rob especially when Ned said nothing of the matter or discussed Jon and any info surrounding his birth.Cat's interpretation of when Ned fathered Jon "fathered a child chance on campaign" gives no time frame,it seems that it was decided when Jon was born and arranged in such a way that he came after Robb.Socially i can understand why that would be done but Cat doesn't know,no one knows and Ned just let everyone run with what ever they thought about his bastard's birth as best suited their peace of mind.He never validated or contradicted anything that was said.

So logically we can't use Robb's nameday to check Jon's because that was clearly constructed,which leaves GRRMs statement about Jon being born 8-9 moons before Dany .I think there is enough ambiguity and hints that Dany's birth didn't happen when and where we think atlease from where i sit,but as i said i'm putting it together and would like to do so before i post it or share with regards to that.

[The Twinslayer]

So logically we can't use Robb's nameday to check Jon's because that was clearly constructed,which leaves GRRMs statement about Jon being born 8-9 moons before Dany .I think there is enough ambiguity and hints that Dany's birth didn't happen when and where we think atlease from where i sit,but as i said i'm putting it together and would like to do so before i post it or share with regards to that.

Is that SSM from 1999 still operative? It was a response to a question about whether Ned and Ashara were together at the right time for them to be Jon's parents. GRRM tries to say that they could have been together at the right time by noting that Ashara was not nailed to the floor in Starfall and then by saying this:

"As a matter of fact (a tiny tidbit from SOS), she was one of Princess Elia's lady companions in King's Landing, in the first few years after Elia married Rhaegar."

We know that that part isn't correct, because that tidbit didn't appear in Storm of Swords, and because the World Book says that Elia and Rhaegar lived on Dragonstone during that period.

If you read that SSM carefully, it sounds like GRRM was planning to tell us in Storm of Swords that Ashara lived in King's Landing in the period leading up to the Rebellion and that she and Ned crossed paths during the Rebellion at a time that would have permitted them to be Jon's parents. But he changed his mind, didn't include that information in Storm of Swords, and 15 years later he decided to place Ashara, Rhaegar and Elia on Dragonstone instead of King's Landing.

In other words, I don't think that SSM can be relied on for anything now, including the relative ages of Jon and Dany.

Here's a link:

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1040

[Dan slayer of hot pies]

dp

[Dan slayer of hot pies]

dp