L+R=J ... but where would be the provenance?

[Thoheeks Bili]

On 2016-05-10 at 9:00 AM, Lord Friendzone said:

Ned would destroy any evidence. Leaving will doesn't make any sense unless Howland Reed got it. But then what it will be good for? It's no longer relevant and there is a different war to fight.

Of course Howland has it.......it's Johns twin sister, Meera.

[Tooms]

8 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

Ashara isn't Helen of Troy. No one "abducted" or ran away with her. No one started a war over her. So what that two of the Stark brothers were in love with her? Brandon died, and Ned never would have cheated on Cat, no matter what lie he ended up telling about Jon. Even Stannis knows that, "that wasn't Ned's way."

Fair point, I meant in terms of "capturing the imagination of men" because Ashara very much does so.

Ned could have cheated on Cat at the point. He married her in haste after Brandon died out of duty. He then went and waged war for a year and saw his friends and family die horrible horrible deaths. I believe he went to see Ashara after the war because he was in love with her. No one knew that except maybe Barriston Selmy (who suspects a Stark slept with Ashara at the tourney at Harrenhal) and Howland Reed. We've already established in the show that Ned lied about the fight at the ToJ and he was prepared to put aside honor for whatever was happening. What if the real twist is he did in fact sleep with Ashara and Jon is in fact his real child, and the ruse is that the child of R+L is someone else. That is a sad story, a bitter one, one Ned would truly regret. That fits the writing of GRRM a lot better.

[Lord Friendzone]

38 minutes ago, Tooms said:

Fair point, I meant in terms of "capturing the imagination of men" because Ashara very much does so.

Ned could have cheated on Cat at the point. He married her in haste after Brandon died out of duty. He then went and waged war for a year and saw his friends and family die horrible horrible deaths. I believe he went to see Ashara after the war because he was in love with her. No one knew that except maybe Barriston Selmy (who suspects a Stark slept with Ashara at the tourney at Harrenhal) and Howland Reed. We've already established in the show that Ned lied about the fight at the ToJ and he was prepared to put aside honor for whatever was happening. What if the real twist is he did in fact sleep with Ashara and Jon is in fact his real child, and the ruse is that the child of R+L is someone else. That is a sad story, a bitter one, one Ned would truly regret. That fits the writing of GRRM a lot better.

Ashara is not on the show.

[Tooms]

Just now, Lord Friendzone said:

Ashara is not on the show.

Largely irrelevant really ... She could still be ... Regardless

[IamMe90]

1 hour ago, House Toad said:

Not really if R+L=J no not Robert, Rheagal. What is the full impact, if you have the fire and ice from start, that is by birthright the ruler of the realm and he cannot even die now, moving from one act of heroism on to the next. If he ends up sitting on the Iron Throne upon ending, was the story only filler? Superman is the superman, because there was the superman? Had Ned done this, or had he done that, this wouldn't have happened and then we would be reading something different. Paradox defeating its timeline. Yes the tale has been informative, but its struggle futile, because that placement has defeated those means upon its ending.

 

 

I apologize, but I'm having a bit of a hard time deciphering exactly what you're trying to say...

But, I'll clarify. I didn't mean that his heritage would actually have no effect on the events to come. It will matter, because Jon is clearly destined to do great things in this story, and the merging of bloodlines and the associated magical powers/abilities he may inherit could have something to do with that. But I don't think it's not going to overtly affect the motivations and actions of a lot of major characters in the present time, because I don't think there's any plausible way for this to be "proven" to Westeros at large. And I don't think it matters, because Jon has been bestowed with natural leadership, a well rounded skill set, magical powers, and an important heritage. He's been set up to do great things by virtue of his abilities, moral compass, possibly a prophecy (though I remain dubious of this), and his unique knowledge of the real threat to Westeros. And, his heritage will matter greatly to us, because it will provide a solid understanding for why things unfold the way they do. 

Also, I don't think Jon will sit on the iron throne, nor do I care.

By the way, this is mostly my take on what's going to happen in the books. The show may vary well take a more grandiose and less subtle approach to this matter, but I'm hoping it doesn't.  

[Lord Friendzone]

9 minutes ago, Tooms said:

Largely irrelevant really ... She could still be ... Regardless

At this point hardly. They had 5 seasons of time to be mentioned on the show. They did bother with Lyanna from time to time, in the last two seasons more frequently as we're nearing the secret. You need to build up to it, audience needs to know her or at least some info about her. This would feel out of nowhere. Can you imagine reactions...Ashara Dayne is Jon's mother. Audience will be like: Who the hell is Ashara Dayne? Besides, it's more than clear Jon is not Ned's from the show or the books, but that doesn't mean that Jon will all of sudden stop looking at him, like on father. He will always be his father, even tho not a biological one.

[Tooms]

8 minutes ago, Lord Friendzone said:

At this point hardly. Thy had 5 seasons of time to mentioned her or show us Daynes. Thy did bother with Lyannas from time to time, in the last two seasons more frequently as we're nearing the secret. You need to build up to it, audience needs to know her or at least some inf about her. This would feel out of nowhere. Can you imagine reactions...Ashara Dayne is Jon's mother. Audience will be like: Who the hell is Ashara Dayne? Besides, it's more than clear Jon is not Ned's from the show or the books, but that doesn't mean that Jon will all of sudden stop looking at him, like on father. He will always be his father, even tho not a biological one.

True, the show is largely simplified so it's possible the books and the show will be very different. However, I'm leaning towards R+L=Twins (D & J). There is ample room for that to be legit.

For more on Ashara & Ned, ToJ etc... This video sums it up nicely: 

 

[ShadowKitteh]

I have a real hard time imagining GRRM going the Star Wars route with twins. Just, no.

 

[ummester]

27 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

I have a real hard time imagining GRRM going the Star Wars route with twins. Just, no.

 

He might, he's got the whole 'What I told you was true, from a certain point of view' thing going on - as well as killing mentors (Ned, Drogo) in the first episode/book 

Thing is, Westeros has gone to hell in a handbasket - what possible difference could Jon's bloodline make to any of this other than resorting to some silly fantasy trope about the promised one, which the story seems to be subverting with all the Azor Ahai misinformation ATM.

[Tooms]

9 minutes ago, ummester said:

He might, he's got the whole 'What I told you was true, from a certain point of view' thing going on - as well as killing mentors (Ned, Drogo) in the first episode/book 

Thing is, Westeros has gone to hell in a handbasket - what possible difference could Jon's bloodline make to any of this other than resorting to some silly fantasy trope about the promised one, which the story seems to be subverting with all the Azor Ahai misinformation ATM.

Exactly, and GRRM is very anti-hereditary in terms of succession. He personally doesn't believe you should attain things simply because you are born into it. His writing is very critical of the system of lineage in Westeros. It wouldn't make sense for Jon Snow's lineage to be something righteous, unless GRRM intends Jon to ultimately suffer a bad ending.

[hallam]

9 hours ago, ginny11 said:

No contrary evidence? Really?!?! LOL! Except the part where John looks exactly like the Starks? So are you insinuating Elia cheated with a Stark? If so Jon still would not be legitimate. I suspect you simply "forgot" about his Stark features. 

And Mel looks exactly 300 years old.

Appearances can be changed in this story. In the books we have the glamor spell that switches two people's looks. 

I haven't forgotten about the looks at all. I think that Lyanna died to perpetuate a glamour spell that was changing Jon's looks but the mechanism is different in the books and the show.

Nor have I forgotten 'JonCon' or 'I tell lies about Jon' as his name rather obviously tells us. 

 

9 hours ago, ginny11 said:

You remind me of people who, after the sixth Harry Potter book, refused to believe a certain highly admired, highly moral selfless character would order another character to kill him. Oh,  how wrong they were and all the foreshadowing and evidence was plain to see,  as it is with R + L = J. 

No it is refusing to believe that Voldemort's father as was widely predicted before book 7. Rejecting a hypothesis that doesn't work is not denial. 

 

3 hours ago, Lord Friendzone said:

Ashara is not on the show.

There are a set of things not in the show and the differences are predicted by the difference in the explanation for Jon's appearance.

I believe that in the book, Jon's appearance is a swap between fake Aegon and Jon. Fake Aegon is the child of a Stark brother and Ashara Dayne. A more powerful form of glamour spell swaps the appearances for as long as the blade that killed Lyanna is in contact with her body. When Jon opens the crypts and takes lightbringer from Lyanna's tomb he will become AA and look Targ. 

The show would not want to recast Jon so they killed the fake Aegon sideplot and everything associated with it, including Ashara. So in the show Jon's appearance is simply a 'look like a Stark' spell. And we get Mel demonstrating that.

 

The Lyanna suicide to protect Jon theory explains everything we have been told. It explains why the tomb was built, why the sword is inside, why Ned didn't bury Lyanna at the ToJ, why Asharaq Dayne disappears, who fake Aegon is, why Rheagar behaved as he did and provides coherent motives for all concerned. It also gives a good explanation for why the show has cut certain elements.

Cercei and Littlefinger in the war of five kings are echos of Aerys and some actor, probably Tywin in Robert's rebellion. History repeats itself. 

[sandpiper]

15 hours ago, hallam said:

True, but look what happened as a result.

Robb was King in the North at the time, he didn't need permission from his family to break the engagement. Lyanna could chose to avoid marrying Robert but getting married to someone else while she was a minor...

Robb's marriage leads to catastrophe for himself and his family. And most people agree that marrying while engaged to Frey was a completely idiotic move. So why is it an idiotic move for Robb but a heroic romantic move for Lyanna?

The Red Wedding is GRRM telling us that this is not a romantic novel.

All you seem to be saying is that with Rob, history has repeated itself. Not something I realised on first reading/ viewing, of course, but Rob is doing pretty much the same thing which Rhaegar did and which caused the war in the first place. It is in fact another whopping clue itself.

[Arya Gendry]

By the old gods and the new...this thread...

Baby swaps, decades-long glamours, forced miscarriage birth defects, children born from barren wombs...and Ashara Dayne?

I can't say what will happen in the books. I'm beginning to think I'll never find out anyway. But the show...

Lyanna was in episode one. Whyyyyyy mention her and Rhaegar time and again if they don't matter? Why so much exposition for two dead people if their story isn't integral to the bigger one?

But Ashara Dayne has never once been mentioned on the show, not even in a whisper. Theoretically, she could still show up, sure, but that would only solidify D&D as the most grievous hacks in the universe.

 

2 hours ago, hallam said:

There are a set of things not in the show and the differences are predicted by the difference in the explanation for Jon's appearance.

I believe that in the book, Jon's appearance is a swap between fake Aegon and Jon. Fake Aegon is the child of a Stark brother and Ashara Dayne. A more powerful form of glamour spell swaps the appearances for as long as the blade that killed Lyanna is in contact with her body. When Jon opens the crypts and takes lightbringer from Lyanna's tomb he will become AA and look Targ. 

The show would not want to recast Jon so they killed the fake Aegon sideplot and everything associated with it, including Ashara. So in the show Jon's appearance is simply a 'look like a Stark' spell. And we get Mel demonstrating that.

The Lyanna suicide to protect Jon theory explains everything we have been told. It explains why the tomb was built, why the sword is inside, why Ned didn't bury Lyanna at the ToJ, why Asharaq Dayne disappears, who fake Aegon is, why Rheagar behaved as he did and provides coherent motives for all concerned. It also gives a good explanation for why the show has cut certain elements.

Cercei and Littlefinger in the war of five kings are echos of Aerys and some actor, probably Tywin in Robert's rebellion. History repeats itself. 

I think it wise to apply Occam's Razor to the argument. "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." As complicated as the R+L=J may seem, it really isn't. The evidence is plentiful and rather simple. Anything more convoluted runs the risk of going way beyond suspension of disbelief.

[sandpiper]

8 hours ago, Tooms said:

- If it's a simple as R+L=J and Lyanna asked Ned to promise her to protect Jon, which he did to his own dishonor, then why does Ned think this is a broken promise?

Presumably because there is something about whatever he promised which he has not fulfilled. Sure, Jon is alive, but hardly in a good position. At minimum Ned might have been asked to explain to him the true nature of his birth, but instead he allowed him to pledge himself to the nights watch in ignorance. maybe most of all, Ned may well have acted in what he though was the best interest of everyone, but it has all gone horribly wrong. And the way it has gone wrong suggests he must have promised more then to simply keep the child alive and give it a home.

8 hours ago, Tooms said:

- Why did Ned bury those who died at the ToJ, why did he not send the bones back to their families as was the custom? Ned supposedly tore down the ToJ by himself somehow (wildefire?) and buried the bodies under the stones of the tower. This is weird and disrespectful according to Westerosi tradition.

It isnt weird if you want to erase all evidence of what happened at the tower and give a different account of what happened. Explaining what really happened raises too mant questions. 'here is body of x, died valiantly rescuing the true heir to the throne'?

 

8 hours ago, Tooms said:

- Ashara Dayne commits suicide after Ned shows up, but the Daynes love Ned completely, there is no ill-will toward him. So what the hell man?

i have no idea unless there is a touch of the Jamie-Cersei about them too.

[sandpiper]

8 hours ago, Tooms said:

 What if the real twist is he did in fact sleep with Ashara and Jon is in fact his real child, and the ruse is that the child of R+L is someone else. That is a sad story, a bitter one, one Ned would truly regret. That fits the writing of GRRM a lot better.

The best answer probably is, 'so what if Jon is the son of ashara and Ned'? If it were true there are no consequences for the plot and the book has raised the issue of Jon's parentage at great length  only to dismiss it with no effect. Pointless writing. Similarly the idea that Howland Reed might have adopted one of a pair of twins. Well anything is possible, but since nothing of consequence has been written about Reed's children, it seems most unlikely they will suddenly burst into centre stage.

Any twist is possible in an unfinished story, but no, it does not better fit what GRRM has written. It fits much worse.

[sandpiper]

6 hours ago, ummester said:

Thing is, Westeros has gone to hell in a handbasket - what possible difference could Jon's bloodline make to any of this other than resorting to some silly fantasy trope about the promised one, which the story seems to be subverting with all the Azor Ahai misinformation ATM.

Thing is, this IS a silly fantasy book. Did you not notice the dragons, magic and reincarnation?

[sandpiper]

6 hours ago, Tooms said:

Exactly, and GRRM is very anti-hereditary in terms of succession. He personally doesn't believe you should attain things simply because you are born into it. His writing is very critical of the system of lineage in Westeros. It wouldn't make sense for Jon Snow's lineage to be something righteous, unless GRRM intends Jon to ultimately suffer a bad ending.

Anti hereditary? Just how many characters are there of importance who literally started from nothing? Even Balish was a minor Lord. Varys was given a push into greatness by intervention of a magician. Brienne is a lord's daughter. Maester Aemnon of the nights watch is a targaryen.

[Jon Snow Bengal]

34 minutes ago, sandpiper said:

The best answer probably is, 'so what if Jon is the son of ashara and Ned'? If it were true there are no consequences for the plot and the book has raised the issue of Jon's parentage at great length  only to dismiss it with no effect. Pointless writing. Similarly the idea that Howland Reed might have adopted one of a pair of twins. Well anything is possible, but since nothing of consequence has been written about Reed's children, it seems most unlikely they will suddenly burst into centre stage.

Any twist is possible in an unfinished story, but no, it does not better fit what GRRM has written. It fits much worse.

Twins is way too star warzy. 

My thoughts are that if Ashara and Ned were in love but Ned became betrothed to Catleyn ..... and then on top of that presents a bastard child from someone else. It's the ultimate betrayal of Ashara & she couldn't live with it. 

Ah its fun speculating.

My feeling is that Jon will never find out and always think of himself a bastard & if he is on the throne then a bastard Usurper. Bittersweet

 

[Jon Snow Bengal]

Very simple-

Ned promised to raise him - as a prince.

He LITERALLY is the prince who was promised.

So so simple.

Natural, organic & free range too

 

[House Toad]

9 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

 

I apologize, but I'm having a bit of a hard time deciphering exactly what you're trying to say...

But, I'll clarify. I didn't mean that his heritage would actually have no effect on the events to come. It will matter, because Jon is clearly destined to do great things in this story, and the merging of bloodlines and the associated magical powers/abilities he may inherit could have something to do with that. But I don't think it's not going to overtly affect the motivations and actions of a lot of major characters in the present time, because I don't think there's any plausible way for this to be "proven" to Westeros at large. And I don't think it matters, because Jon has been bestowed with natural leadership, a well rounded skill set, magical powers, and an important heritage. He's been set up to do great things by virtue of his abilities, moral compass, possibly a prophecy (though I remain dubious of this), and his unique knowledge of the real threat to Westeros. And, his heritage will matter greatly to us, because it will provide a solid understanding for why things unfold the way they do. 

Also, I don't think Jon will sit on the iron throne, nor do I care.

By the way, this is mostly my take on what's going to happen in the books. The show may vary well take a more grandiose and less subtle approach to this matter, but I'm hoping it doesn't.  

From a narrative perspective Superman Jon born from birthright or in line to succession having the powers of Superman immortality, heritage, warging, and powers is now the Superman. If we end with Superman, what was the information in-between a formula that has lead to Superman, defeating the story? Creating a paradox or an irrelavant timeline, because had any events taken a different course the tale is almost undone, as it amounts and it will always amount to Superman, a beginning an ending. That struggle throughout means what to a Superman, putty or filler? That timeline becomes imaginary. Do you need any proof with Superman? Sshh Jon is not Superman, there is Superwoman and superbabies, informative?

Jon is a pawn there is consequences from his resurrection he is a hero when a hero is needed against the darkness that is falling, but for that ending, no it wasn't the life of a lowly bastard who slumdog millionaire, because he always was the top dog. Do you understand the fantasy?