R+L=J v. 149

[LmL]

Hi!

Indeed! There you are, you monkey demon you!

In all seriousness, I was curious about where George might be drawing ideas for Tyrion from, so I typed in "monkey demon" and that's what I got. I wish I could say I have glorious university degrees and an encyclopedic knowledge of world mythology, but there it is. Google search, Wikipedia. Someone has to do something useful with the Internet, right? And wow, it's loaded with Lightbringer type stuff. I suspect once George had the basic concept of Lightbringer and AA fleshed out, he probably looked about for deities with similar ideas in their lore - comets, flaming swords, dragons, etc. Any myth that already uses these things gets sucked in to his mish-mash. Was the Mithras stuff the first influence towards fiery a words? Or lucifer? Or was it Thundarr? Hard to say which came first, but he definitely siezes on any mythology which bears something in common with his ideas that he already has. Thus, whenever he did find Sun Wukong, he was probably like "jackpot!" A monkey demon with connections to astronomy and fiery weapons and being born from stone (just like Mithras). It's a highly comparative archetype here.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Me too. I think it means he will be a important part of a battle between ice and fire, and not necessary ice&fire at the same time or a song of ice and fire. Maybe we were just infected with the ‘he will bring balance to the force’ mentality. His is the song of ice and fire, could mean the same as Churchill’s was the song of 2WW.

TWOW/ADOS

Spanish illustrator for ASOIAF said we will get a battle between ice and fire in which Red Keep and KL will get destroyed (and he talked with GRRM about it) and he also gave a hint that Targs will die out. The way he talked a song is about war and battle and not a person.

Btw, in previous threads some of us were doubting R+L=J and now we started this thread with a pessimistic outlook on the future. So I was wondering, how will you react if it turns out R+L=/=J and that Rhaegar failed and that Rhaegar doesn't even matter, because Targs are all about fire and Starks (Daynes) are the one true saviors of humanity? (I am not asking for all the reasons why this is not going to happen. Let just assume it happens and it turns out that 149 of threads about RLJ were a waste of time)

I don't know about how reliable that spoiler is. I tend to think that KL will get destroyed, but not in the way suggested in the spoiler. As to the meaning of ASOIAF, GRRM has already stated that this period of time will be known by that name -- and I think it is clear he really means the endgame battle involving Others and Dragons. But I also think it is clear that GRRM also intends the title ASOIAF to have other meanings as well. The most basic meaning is the war and battle or this period of time -- but it also is a statement about balance needed in the world (and other symbolic meanings) and, I think, it is a reference to Jon who is A Son(g) of Ice (Lyanna) and Fire (Rhaegar), personified. But of course, GRRM cannot discuss that meaning at this point. But he gave a big clue in AWOIAF with the reference to the Pact of Ice and Fire.

[Alia of the knife]

From SFDanny from the previous thread

I mostly agree. We don't know how long it took Ned until he got back to Winterfell.. It might be that he had send a message ahead to Robert, concerning Lyanna, or it could be that he waited until he could tell Robert in person. The journey from KL to Winterfell doesn't feature in this, as Robert would have known by then.

From Alia of the knife from the previous thread:

I agree, that a marriage between Robert and Lyanna would have been rather difficult. Perhaps Jon Arryn would have made Robert give up that dream, perhaps Robert would have done whatever he wanted, because he was king.

Look at Jeyne Westerling. Despite it having been half a year since Robb Stark had died, she is still told to wait two more years until marrying, as to prevent anyone from claiming any child of hers is Robb's. That's two and a half year, right there. Perhaps, something similar had been envisioned by Robert at the time of Rebellion's end.

Of course, that's looking from Robert's perspective only. It completely depends on which "what if" scenario, how Robert and Lyanna would have reacted.

I more see the song as a battle/war. Rhaegar, after Aegon's birth, states that "his is the song of ice and fire", not "he is the song of ice and fire". Rhaegar could have been wrong, of course ;) But atm, I'm more inclined to see it as a war, than as a person

I agree as well this is in reference to a battle.

This is a Crackpot theory but what if Lyanna had Rhaegar's twins?!

Yes, baby Aegon was killed in the Red Keep.

Ned goes down and finds Lyanna. She dies because she had twins instead of just Jon. Twins don't happen very often in ASoIaF so assuming it could kill Lyanna. Only other Twins are Cersei and Jamie and JoAnna didn't have Tyrion for 9 years and that birth killed her, so birthing Twins could have major affects on the female body.

Ned finds the two boys and makes the promise even darker. Clearly, one with darker hair will go with Ned and the one with Targaryen traits will be given to Ashara Dayne. Ned trusted her - he was going that way anyways to return Arthur Dayne's sword. He drops off baby 2 to Ashara. Ashara Dayne fakes her own death and heads to Essos to find any remnants of Targayren's. She finds Illyrio or Varys and they all work together to put this new baby on the throne a couple decades later.

It would explain the theory that Ashara Dayne is the Septa with Young Griff. It would explain how Griff had valyrian traits. It would explain the nature of Lyanna's death. Varys can easily spin the story in his favor. In the books Young Griff's age is questionable and at 16-17-18 it is easy to teach a kid his supposed age (even though he is younger than the actual Aegon)

I know it is a crackpot theory but I don't believe I have heard anyone bring that up before. the timeline fits and also brings Ashara Dayne into the fold as his septa.

Lol, be careful, you are treading on dangerous ground as of all theories, this one seems to make people crazy, though I'm fine with it and think it just as plausible. But my money would be on Wylla Manderly as a twin who dyes her hair and seems to be very mouthy- like mother like daughter.......

Son looks like mother but in nature is like the father, the daughter looks like the father but in nature like the mother.

[Lady Darry]

Do you have any more info on that spoiler? Illustrator for what exactly? Was there an interview, something like that? Sounds like a pretty big spoiler, I can't imagine GRRM revealing something like that so far ahead to someone.

Yes, he said it in interviews and on his blog. He is an Illustrator for ASOIAF in Spain. He said that when he was discussing his Spanish cover for The world of ice and fire. It is known that he was in contact with GRRM. So it was not just his imagination. We don't know how much he knows (we all know how D&D interpreted GRRM books, so maybe Corominas also misunderstood).

http://doriangraybd.blogspot.com.es/2015/04/el-mundo-de-hielo-y-fuego.html -illustrators blog. His cover is also similar to Dany and Bran vision in show (they both had the same vision). And Bran's vision appears in s4e2-which was written by GRRM.

[Kingmonkey]

Honestly the last two books are gonna be much darker than most people here would believe and some of the regulars in this thread are setting themselves for some massive heartbreak. I don't think it's a bad thing to distance yourself from the rosier versions of the R+L=J theory even if you believe it's the most likely outcome.

How common are these rosier versions? I suspect that a lot of people who are dubious about R+L=J are put off by the assumption that it's too much of a fairy tale, but I've always thought of it as something that bears an obvious resemblance to a fairy tale but is much darker. This seems hard to escape -- Rhaegar + Lyanna = rebellion, chaos, a huge body count and 14 years of guilt and sadness for Ned is right there in the books. This seems to be pretty standard GRRM modus operandi.

There are some people who think that RLJ = Jon marrying Dany and becoming the wise and generous new king of Westeros, but how many? If Rhaegar did indeed succeed in making the song of ice and fire, is this a positive thing? Obviously he thought so, but he might be wrong. It's not like we're given the impression prophecies always work out as expected. Jon might turn out to be the Prince that was Promised, but let's not focus on "prince" and think that indicates a happy ending. The Last Hero may have saved the world from the Others, but all his companions died and he lost everything he knew and loved doing so.

R+L=J is one theory. R+L=J+hugs'n'puppies is quite another.

[IMNHAAO]

.............

Btw, in previous threads some of us were doubting R+L=J and now we started this thread with a pessimistic outlook on the future. So I was wondering, how will you react if it turns out R+L=/=J and that Rhaegar failed and that Rhaegar doesn't even matter, because Targs are all about fire and Starks (Daynes) are the one true saviors of humanity? (I am not asking for all the reasons why this is not going to happen. Let just assume it happens and it turns out that 149 of threads about RLJ were a waste of time)

I wouldn't care at all, it's not like I have wagered something on it. I wouldn't be either more or less intelligent, more or less rich/poor. I like the idea per se, it seems to me that R+L makes sense, but should it be all about the Daynes I would actually be glad, I always wanted to know more about them.

Then I would go and enroll in an English class because obviously my English is getting really rusty because I saw no sign of it. Then I would re-read.

Of course should there be no clue in the books I would really be upset. You cannot be talking for years of clues/signs and foreshadowings and then suddenly have Arthur Dayne jump out of the cake. .... Ahem I don't know where that imagery came from ....

[Sly Wren]

Me too. I think it means he will be a important part of a battle between ice and fire, and not necessary ice&fire at the same time or a song of ice and fire. Maybe we were just infected with the ‘he will bring balance to the force’ mentality. His is the song of ice and fire, could mean the same as Churchill’s was the song of 2WW.

That works. Biggest problem for me in evaluating Rhaegar's statement about Aegon is that we don't have any context--what did he mean about "the song of ice and fire?" Martin has said that the phrase is what future generations will call the events of the books, so am assuming it means R thinks Aegon will play a key role as the PtwP in these events--but don't know what. So--Churchill analogy? Could be.

Btw, in previous threads some of us were doubting R+L=J and now we started this thread with a pessimistic outlook on the future. So I was wondering, how will you react if it turns out R+L=/=J and that Rhaegar failed and that Rhaegar doesn't even matter, because Targs are all about fire and Starks (Daynes) are the one true saviors of humanity? (I am not asking for all the reasons why this is not going to happen. Let just assume it happens and it turns out that 149 of threads about RLJ were a waste of time)

How react? Well, these are books, not holy writ. If I've guessed wrong (which is likely on many fronts) will be cool to see how.

"Rhaegar failed"--assuming you mean with Jon, vs. Aegon, yes? If so, seems I'd have to assume R was chasing prophecy to "create" Jon--and that assumption has holes. Dany's vision doesn't actually assert R is chasing more kids, just that "there must be another. The dragon must have 3 heads." Then R "looks" at Dany--if anything, that could be read as R thinking of other Targs to be the head. The blue rose in the Wall? Dany's vision doesn't give context. Readers have to think the rose = "Jon=Targ" vs. "Jon=son of Lyanna, stolen Stark daughter." R did give the rose crown. So he is tied to the roses, just not nearly as strongly as Lyanna is. And even if you assume rose means RLJ, then, "Jon as third head"--Dany's vision may imply this, but still requires reader to assume a bit. Not unreasonable assumptions, just not clear.

Bottom line--we don't know why R took L--really don't. Have to guess. If he was chasing prophecy with Aegon--that seems much clearer--seems likely he'll fail on that front. If it turns out R did all this for a prophecy to no avail--gotta admit I'd enjoy the irony. It's one of my favorite, completely non-logical reasons for liking RLJ--if R did all this and Jon's roles has nothing to do with R's interp of the prophecy but something else. I like irony--I'd like that. :)

[Alia of the knife]

Well he obviously wanted exactly that by making Lyanna the Helen of Troy of the situation. Which, on a side note, is ironic because I read a book a long long time ago about the return of one of the Greek heroes and the author proposed the possibility that Helen in reality never left with Paris, that what he took was something else entirely and war was waged not to recover an unfaithful wife, but the roots of the Greek civilization and power and its loss brought the fall of the Greek Empire and the rise of the Roman. It was an exceptionally good book I felt, much reminiscent of the Iliad "tone".

Sometimes I toy with the idea GRRM did pull something close to this, but then finding no sign in the books I discard the possibility because it wouldn't require the use of red herrings, but just outright lying to the reader by not giving them any clue at all.

Which is my problem with any theory other than R+L.

I don't think Dayne is ever cited in the same sentence with her (?), so for as much as I am told every time the sword of the morning was around Lyanna was powdering her nose. Of course GRRM might expect me to be sensible and not want to be spoon-fed everything, but I would have expected many read herrings and one real clue. I'm overwhelmed by the stench of all these decaying herrings and I am missing the clue. So, to my dismay, no sword of the morning. A severely good-looking guy, honourable and seriously bad-ass at fighting. I wonder why I am so interested in one of the few decent human beings described in the book...

Howland Reed to be her lover would mean he is one of the most cowardly pigs that ever lived even by GRRM stories's standards, which you will have noticed are pretty unrealistically low. No one is as MIA as Howland. It would require much malice on his part to create this mess and do absolutely nothing. Not that he had to try to stop it, I am not expecting grand heroism, but at least to do something somehow for his child, whom Ned would know is his (because of the promises etc etc...) It would have been so easy: "Look, Cat, I have a bastard son, let's pretend he doesn't exist as most do, we will just send him to be raised at some bannerman's place, possibly one that doesn't really have much contacts with us at all... Ever heard of crannogmen?"

Her brothers would make it a double incest considering that at the beginning he wanted to pair Jon with Arya so I am excluding them without even addressing the issue (which might prove unwise, but my sanity has to be preserved even at this late stage).

The only one left is Robert. He was a dirtbag he would of course go to bed with Lyanna as soon as he had a chance, she didn't seem so excited at the idea of marrying the idiot though, as soon as she is told of the betrothal she is less than enthusiastic and that paragon of virtue of Ned finds excuses for the pig. I mean! Ned makes me want to hug him and hit him in the mouth with a shovel at the same time so often than bipolar-ism is just the least I can expect in my diagnosis.

With R+L being the only "honest" solution comes the issue if she was willing or not, which is less important for the story in itself. A child is born whether his mother was raped or not. Being Jon the lucky bastard he is she was probably raped which would be the final step into the series becoming "A series of unfortunate ice and fire songs". Snicket has never been my taste and it wouldn't become such even in medieval settings so hopefully I will be spared this.

I am not sure what you mean with "darker". "The return of the king" for me was rather dark/sad, and Frodo was the epitome of bittersweet. I was probably too young when I read it and I tell you, it wasn't pretty. I SO see Jon going towards this path... A man trying his best to do the right thing, a piece of him lost to his enemy and a future of isolation from all he loved.

About Rhaegar and getting his prince that was promised, well, George is good at giving you exactly what you wanted and making you bitterly regret it. Jon might possibly just be better off dead for good. There is always a price and he is not the kind of guy to which George gives a pass. Ever.

I wonder why he seems to give some characters aids in some form or another while others seem to have a black cloud drawn on top of their head with the occasional lightning strike hitting them in the ass.

My sense is that GRRM wanted to center on Arya and Jon, and I think it will still be that way but rather than the original "in your face" introduction, it will come about gradually and through time.

But, making them NOT brother and sister, but cousins as was the way with the nobility during Medival period and would be in line with Martins historical references, thus introducing alternative parents, not Ned and whoever, but Lyanna and Rhaegar solves that problem.

"Marriage was a form of political alliance. It was a way to cement a political alliance – one of the ways to bind to families together and hopefully make peace between them or to establish that… they would be allies against a third common enemy. You didn’t want your sons or daughters, if you were a lord, marrying for love. That was, that was insane… If you had a vassal whose loyalty you questioned, maybe you married him to one of your daughters and thereby bind him more closely to the family. If you have a rival you’d been at war with and now you make peace, you marry a daughter to his son…”“-GRRM

I speculate this statement as it pertains to Arya will come into play later when it comes to reunification with the north/south since it seems likely that Jon will be king at some point.

As for alternative theories, I would be more apt to throw Whent in with Lyanna rather than Arthur. Whents brother arranged the tourney which means Whent and his brother would have interfaced, and now that it appears to be the case that Lyanna stayed with the Whents, it would put him in proximity with her, and whereas Arthur seems pretty dedicated and unlikely to allow for any distractions, there is something to Whent that seems a bit dark, however, I am firmly in camp R+L=J.

[Lady Darry]

Rhaenys_Targaryen

I posted the wrong link.

Yes, he said it in interviews and on his blog. He is an Illustrator for ASOIAF in Spain. He said that when he was discussing his Spanish cover for The world of ice and fire. It is known that he was in contact with GRRM. So it was not just his imagination. We don't know how much he knows (we all know how D&D interpreted GRRM books, so maybe Corominas also misunderstood).

http://doriangraybd.blogspot.com.es/2015/04/el-mundo-de-hielo-y-fuego.html -illustrators blog. His cover is also similar to Dany and Bran vision in show (they both had the same vision). And Bran's vision appears in s4e2-which was written by GRRM.

Here is the right link with some additional info (spoilers TWOW/ADOS):

http://doriangraybd.blogspot.com.es/2015/04/el-mundo-de-hielo-y-fuego.html

Pues sí, el Trono de hierro recién forjado por el rey que está sentado en él, Aegon I, es el motivo de la sobrecubierta. Y ese mismo símbolo del poder y orden es el que aparece en la cubierta, siglos después, convertido en una ruina solitaria en un paisaje desolado. El trono nació en un baño de sangre y terminará en un baño de hielo o fuego.

http://lossietereinos.com/desvelada-la-portada-de-el-mundo-de-hielo-y-fuego/

Pues en palabras de Enrique Corominas, que vemos el alfa y omega de la saga, el principio y el final, en la cubierta y la sobrecubierta. Mientras que una contemplamos a Aegon el Conquistador en su Trono recién forjado, en el otro aparece el mismoTrono vacío en un paraje inhóspito y desolado, fruto de los estragos del hielo y el fuego. ¿No es absolutamente genial?

He is talking about the battle between ice and fire and destruction around IT (Red Keep destroyed etc...). Aegon I is there because he started it in fire and blood and it will end in ice and fire

[IMNHAAO]

.....

As for alternative theories, I would be more apt to throw Whent in with Lyanna rather than Arthur. Whents brother arranged the tourney which means Whent and his brother would have interfaced, and now that it appears to be the case that Lyanna stayed with the Whents, it would put him in proximity with her, and whereas Arthur seems pretty dedicated and unlikely to allow for any distractions, there is something to Whent that seems a bit dark, however, I am firmly in camp R+L=J.

Do you mean Os-cannotrememberthefirstname Whent, the kingsguard? The one who was at the tower of joy? I have no recollection at all about him, I mean except the bare minimum. :stunned:

Is there something in the text that could support the theory?

I must admit I would much prefer the comet/sword of the morning or the dragon to the giant bat. :shocked: But that's me being shallow. :laugh:

[UnmaskedLurker]

Rhaenys_Targaryen

I posted the wrong link.

Here is the right link with some additional info (spoilers TWOW/ADOS):

http://doriangraybd.blogspot.com.es/2015/04/el-mundo-de-hielo-y-fuego.html

Pues sí, el Trono de hierro recién forjado por el rey que está sentado en él, Aegon I, es el motivo de la sobrecubierta. Y ese mismo símbolo del poder y orden es el que aparece en la cubierta, siglos después, convertido en una ruina solitaria en un paisaje desolado. El trono nació en un baño de sangre y terminará en un baño de hielo o fuego.

http://lossietereinos.com/desvelada-la-portada-de-el-mundo-de-hielo-y-fuego/

Pues en palabras de Enrique Corominas, que vemos el alfa y omega de la saga, el principio y el final, en la cubierta y la sobrecubierta. Mientras que una contemplamos a Aegon el Conquistador en su Trono recién forjado, en el otro aparece el mismoTrono vacío en un paraje inhóspito y desolado, fruto de los estragos del hielo y el fuego. ¿No es absolutamente genial?

He is talking about the battle between ice and fire and the end of IT. Aegon I is there because he started it in fire and blood and it will end in ice and fire

I used google translate to get a sense of what the Spanish means. I am not sure it is really that much of a spoiler for those who have been paying close attention. I am not sure how much I can discuss outside a spoiler box so here are my more detailed thoughts in a box:

Of course KL will be destroyed in a battle between Ice and Fire. Winter is coming. We have visions of snow heading into the South. The Others are bound to reach KL. On the fire side we have both wildfire that Aerys had stored and the dragons that are coming West. I don't think there is any surprise that at he end of the war/battle, KL and much of Westeros will be in ruins. I also don't think there is any doubt that the war will be a battle between Ice (Others) and Fire (Dragons), at least in part. So I don't think anyone should find this information to be much of a spoiler.

The information above -- not in this post but your prior post -- about the Targs dying out is a potential spoiler. If he knows what he is talking about, I suspect it merely means that Dany is likely to die at the end of the war (something I have suspected for a while). Only after the war is over might people find out that Jon also is a Targ.

[The Twinslayer]

I think this is very reasonable. In the last few threads, I have quoted this SSM that you are debating and the other SSM about times and distances to show the uncertainty in GRRM's timelines. And you have taken it further in the right direction. :thumbsup:

Thanks. It is interesting to look at how the story has evolved as GRRM was writing it. I started thinking about this more after GRRM's original plan for the series was released. You can see a lot of those ideas in the published books, but some of them he clearly discarded. That process of changing his plans did not stop when he published AGOT, since you can see that he changed his mind about much of the backstory to the Rebellion between AGOT and ASOS. And this SSM shows that he was still changing his mind about important issues during the period between the publication of ACOK and ASOS.

I like this, because it shows that each of these books gets a lot of his creative energy and attention. It also explains why he is taking a long time between books. If he was just filling in the details of a 20 year old outline, he could crank out a book a year. But the end result would not be nearly so interesting as what we are getting.

Can we at least agree that the SSM puts to bed any of the theories out there that Jon and Dany are twins?

Yes. Let's agree to agree on that.

But, of course, we don't need this SSM to prove that. Rhaella died giving birth to Dany on Dragonstone 8 or 9 months after the Sack. If Jon and Dany were twins, how would Ned have a chance to collect Jon from Dragonstone?

This is a Crackpot theory but what if Lyanna had Rhaegar's twins?!

Yes, baby Aegon was killed in the Red Keep.

Ned goes down and finds Lyanna. She dies because she had twins instead of just Jon. Twins don't happen very often in ASoIaF so assuming it could kill Lyanna. Only other Twins are Cersei and Jamie and JoAnna didn't have Tyrion for 9 years and that birth killed her, so birthing Twins could have major affects on the female body.

Ned finds the two boys and makes the promise even darker. Clearly, one with darker hair will go with Ned and the one with Targaryen traits will be given to Ashara Dayne. Ned trusted her - he was going that way anyways to return Arthur Dayne's sword. He drops off baby 2 to Ashara. Ashara Dayne fakes her own death and heads to Essos to find any remnants of Targayren's. She finds Illyrio or Varys and they all work together to put this new baby on the throne a couple decades later.

It would explain the theory that Ashara Dayne is the Septa with Young Griff. It would explain how Griff had valyrian traits. It would explain the nature of Lyanna's death. Varys can easily spin the story in his favor. In the books Young Griff's age is questionable and at 16-17-18 it is easy to teach a kid his supposed age (even though he is younger than the actual Aegon)

I know it is a crackpot theory but I don't believe I have heard anyone bring that up before. the timeline fits and also brings Ashara Dayne into the fold as his septa.

I don't think this is crackpot.

But take it one step further. What if Ashara gave birth to Jon and Lyanna gave birth to Young Griff? Ned would still take Jon home with him, and Ashara would still fake her death and take Aegon over to Essos.

[Sly Wren]

I don't think this is crackpot.

But take it one step further. What if Ashara gave birth to Jon and Lyanna gave birth to Young Griff? Ned would still take Jon home with him, and Ashara would still fake her death and take Aegon over to Essos.

Like the idea of Lyanna's twins. Like the idea that Ashara's baby lived and that it was Ned's. No evidence, just liking.

Only problem with "Jon=Ashara's while Griff=Lyanna's" is the blue rose in the Wall--it's one of the very few symbols that seems specific and consistent enough to rely on. Really seems like Jon is the son of a stolen Stark, whatever the context. But Ned and Ashara's son as Young Griff? Ned lets Ashara keep him because she can't bear to part with him--seems like Ned.

[Lady Darry]

I used google translate to get a sense of what the Spanish means. I am not sure it is really that much of a spoiler for those who have been paying close attention. I am not sure how much I can discuss outside a spoiler box so here are my more detailed thoughts in a box:

Of course KL will be destroyed in a battle between Ice and Fire. Winter is coming. We have visions of snow heading into the South. The Others are bound to reach KL. On the fire side we have both wildfire that Aerys had stored and the dragons that are coming West. I don't think there is any surprise that at he end of the war/battle, KL and much of Westeros will be in ruins. I also don't think there is any doubt that the war will be a battle between Ice (Others) and Fire (Dragons), at least in part. So I don't think anyone should find this information to be much of a spoiler.

The information above -- not in this post but your prior post -- about the Targs dying out is a potential spoiler. If he knows what he is talking about, I suspect it merely means that Dany is likely to die at the end of the war (something I have suspected for a while). Only after the war is over might people find out that Jon also is a Targ.

the part about Targs dying out-I said I think he gave us a hint. But maybe I am wrong. it is my interpretation of his talk about Aegon I. It is pretty obvious from text KL will get destroyed. But it is not just about that, destroyed KL and IT could mean the end of 7K. So maybe we will get independent kingdoms just like before Aegon I and destruction of Targ legacy. It could mean that Jon can't became a king of 7K. He still has North, but Targ blood is irrelevant for that. But we are interpreting Jon's king imagery as a clue he is a legit Targ

[UnmaskedLurker]

the part about Targs dying out-I said I think he gave us a hint. But maybe I am wrong. it is my interpretation of his talk about Aegon I. It is pretty obvious from text KL will get destroyed. But it is not just about that, destroyed KL and IT could mean the end of 7K. So maybe we will get independent kingdoms just like before Aegon I and destruction of Targ legacy. It could mean that Jon can't became a king of 7K. He still has North, but Targ blood is irrelevant for that. But we are interpreting Jon's king imagery as a clue he is a legit Targ

Spoiler boxes are so annoying:

I don't see how it can just go back to the "7" kingdoms. Riverlands were ruled by Iron Islands. Will that go back? The separate kingdoms were constantly at war. Is that the state GRRM will leave things in -- worse political situation than when the books started? Where is the sweet part of bittersweet?

The words you used were "Targs will die out". That phrase is so ambiguous I don't know what it means in this context. Dany is the only known Targ, which is why I thought it might mean that Dany dies -- everyone thinks the last Targ is dead -- and then Jon is revealed as a "secret" Targ. But I admit, if it really is a spoiler, it can mean a lot of things.

[SFDanny]

I mostly agree. We don't know how long it took Ned until he got back to Winterfell.. It might be that he had send a message ahead to Robert, concerning Lyanna, or it could be that he waited until he could tell Robert in person. The journey from KL to Winterfell doesn't feature in this, as Robert would have known by then.

I agree with this as well. I just wanted to explain why I still include Gendry with Bella as proof Robert wasn't faithful to Lyanna while he was supposed to be engaged to marry her. It's certainly possible that Ned sends a raven to Robert from Starfall or someplace along his travels, but this seems like news Ned would deliver himself. That Gendry was conceived in this time period also fits Robert's personality. Bella is conceived when Robert is separated from Ned as well - while he is hiding out in the brothels of Stony Sept waiting for the Northern and Vale forces to meet him. Robert's faithfulness to Lyanna looks to be only good when Ned is with him to curtail his philandering. Robert knows Ned is on a mission to relieve the siege at Storm's End, and he could very well know that Ned is also looking to find Lyanna, although I doubt he knows of the details of Ned's mission to the tower. This should be a man who is overturning every rock to find his lady love. Yet he takes the opportunity to fall in bed with a King's Landing tavern wench. At least we know Lyanna had him pegged right.

[Lady Darry]

Spoiler boxes are so annoying:

I don't see how it can just go back to the "7" kingdoms. Riverlands were ruled by Iron Islands. Will that go back? The separate kingdoms were constantly at war. Is that the state GRRM will leave things in -- worse political situation than when the books started? Where is the sweet part of bittersweet?

The words you used were "Targs will die out". That phrase is so ambiguous I don't know what it means in this context. Dany is the only known Targ, which is why I thought it might mean that Dany dies -- everyone thinks the last Targ is dead -- and then Jon is revealed as a "secret" Targ. But I admit, if it really is a spoiler, it can mean a lot of things.

I agree, they really are.

I also don't know.

Maybe Riverlands would get divided between North and Vale or something like that. Stark/Arryn childeren have claim to it. I am a Targ fan and I am not objective when it comes to their legacy and their rule, so I am not sure if GRRM wanted us to like them or their rule. Was 1 king really better than 7 kings? GRRM made a point of how 7K are large and hard too controle and how there were a lot of wars when Targs were in power and how hard it is to control 7K without dragons. Some also say that Targs were out of place in 7K and never belonged there and that GRRM wrote them as ‘bad guys'. Maybe GRRM agrees and he thinks that independent 7K are better? I haven’t read other GRRM books, but Preston Jacobs made a point how almost every GRRM story ends rather sad or bittersweet. Usually, a main character endures a lifetime of loneliness at the end. GRRM critics Tolkien, but LOTR ends pretty bitter. Magic is gone from the world, Frodo is lonely and in pain etc...

What is 7K without KL or IT? This are strong symbols of rule. And it would be an irony if after all those wars for control of IT, IT would get destroyed.There is some foreshadowing for Arya+Jon. How different roads lead to the same castle, how girls don’t get the sword and bastards don't get the arms. There is also Robb’s will. Maybe Jon is according to Robb already a King in the North. And all those king imagery are about North?

There could also be some interesting religious consequences to destruction of KL. They discovered wildfire under sept of Baelor -does this mean it will be spared? if Sept of Baelor would not burn, and everything else would it would be interpreted as a sign from gods.

[The Twinslayer]

Like the idea of Lyanna's twins. Like the idea that Ashara's baby lived and that it was Ned's. No evidence, just liking.

Only problem with "Jon=Ashara's while Griff=Lyanna's" is the blue rose in the Wall--it's one of the very few symbols that seems specific and consistent enough to rely on. Really seems like Jon is the son of a stolen Stark, whatever the context. But Ned and Ashara's son as Young Griff? Ned lets Ashara keep him because she can't bear to part with him--seems like Ned.

If the blue rose at the Wall is the only problem with Jon being Ned and Ashara's, then the problem can be easily solved in a future book if Arya shows up at the Wall and she and Jon fall in love. Then the rose is about forbidden love involving a Stark maiden (Bael + Stark maiden, because he is a wildling; Rhaegar + Lyanna, because he is married and she is betrothed; and Jon + Arya, because he is in the Watch and has sworn not to wed or father children, and because they are too closely related). It also gives an explanation for the chink in the Wall, since Arya would be tempting Jon to break his vows.

[MtnLion]

Honestly, can we stay on track, here? This is not about what Jon will do, though it is about what he is. This is not about the future of the Iron Throne, but that Jon was born an heir to that throne.

[MtnLion]

Whilst twisting his mustache and snickering, our evil author GRRM muses to himself, "I won't lie to my readers, I'll manipulate a dupe into doing it for me." Heh heh.