Jump to content

Jon Snow's Real Name


Lucia Targaryen

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

That said, I'd be surprised if Jon decides he will change his name

Indeed. And that’s why even if a different name was considered or chosen at some point during Lyanna’s pregnancy, it won’t matter. The name he will be known for is the name he’s always had, Jon Snow. For the reasons already stated, but ialso ties in nicely w/ Tyrion telling him to embrace his bastardy. What will matter is that Jon will learn who his parents were, that he was not born out of a shameful liaison or whatever. But I’m pretty sure he won’t feel the need to advertise that, like, not at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Makk

I might have dismissed your post as amusing if it wasn't so boring. Accusations of "significant conjecture," "twisting" and "stretching" are asdafds'jkfsdaf'pojsfasf'azzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Sorry, fell asleep. The concepts I've presented are simple and easy to grasp. If you want to pretend otherwise, go ahead. It doesn't reflect poorly on me.

I did, however, get a chuckle out of the fact that you based your "much stronger" evidence of Aemon on Jon saying he was Aemon the Dragonknight and thinking that the famous KG had been his hero in his youth, while omitting the narrator saying about Jon, "Nor was he Aemon Targaryen." The narrator straight up tells us Jon is not Aemon Targaryen.

I agree that character motivation should be taken into account. I do not think pretending a character would have done what you wanted them to do falls under that heading. I can say that naming her baby Aegon would be completely in character with (what we are assuming about) Lyanna's character (for the sake of this discussion) because it is consistent with her marrying a Targaryen and having his baby. She had obviously planned on giving the baby a Targaryen name for months. Or, if you want to pretend you doubt she'd use a Targaryen first name, it's still such-and-such of House Targaryen.

The idea that naming the baby Aegon, or whatever, would have prevented Ned from protecting it is contradicted by the entire text of ASoIaF.

You asked if I have any evidence that GRRM is using the older half-brother Aegon to hide Jon's name being Aegon. Yeah, and it's really simple. GRRM tricks the reader into attempting to deduce the answer while starting with a faulty premise. Like this:

Since Ned is Jon's father, which women can we rule out as the mother? I'm sure you recognize the faulty premise, right? (You can rule out Lyanna because the Starks don't get down like the Targaryens. Tricky GRRM.)

Now compare that to: Since Rhaegar already named his first son Aegon, what was Jon's real name? (You can rule out Aegon because... )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Since Ned is Jon's father, which women can we rule out as the mother? I'm sure you recognize the faulty premise, right? (You can rule out Lyanna because the Starks don't get down like the Targaryens. Tricky GRRM.)

Shhh, you never heard that Ned and Lyanna had it going, and that's why Ned figured out Jaime and Cersei? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

(...)

"Nor was he Aemon Targaryen." The narrator straight up tells us Jon is not Aemon Targaryen.

(...)

The narrator in this case is Jon. And given Jon's poor judgement early in the books and GRRM's irony, this is exactly why I think that Jon is indeed Aemon Targaryen.

 

3 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

(...)

I can say that naming her baby Aegon would be completely in character with (what we are assuming about) Lyanna's character (for the sake of this discussion) because it is consistent with her marrying a Targaryen and having his baby. She had obviously planned on giving the baby a Targaryen name for months.

(...)

"What you are assuming about". Let's be fair with ourselves, we do not know anything (Jon Snow :P) for sure about Lyanna, except that she had the Wolf blood, that she was a Stark through and through, and this does not really support the Targaryen name theory!

 

3 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

(...)

Since Ned is Jon's father, which women can we rule out as the mother? I'm sure you recognize the faulty premise, right? (You can rule out Lyanna because the Starks don't get down like the Targaryens. Tricky GRRM.)

Now compare that to: Since Rhaegar already named his first son Aegon, what was Jon's real name? (You can rule out Aegon because... )

This is not a fair comparison. Even if I wouldn't "rule out" Aegon, it is not illogical to think that a woman in love naming her son the same as her husband's (lover's) son with his former (legitimate) wife is not bloody likely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta say that @J. Stargaryen and @Ygrain , both of whom are awesome posters I really respect, have convinced me that Aegon is the name Lyanna gave to Jon. The thematic and narrative evidence they have underlined is what sold me. It's too neat and there is no better alternative GRRM could have picked.

I'm not saying this because I think Jon will sit on the Iron Throne and fulfill a tired fantasy trope. I don't. I'm saying it because Aegon VII, King of the 7K, is the perfect embodiment of everything Jon Snow, King of Winter, must reject, based on what he has learned from Mance, Ygritte, and the freefolk.

The freefolks' political system is a step towards democracy, but importantly a manageable step from a narrative point of view. They vote with their feet and ride with whomever they choose. As Mance says:

"Free folk don't follow names, or little cloth animals sewn on a tunic," the King-Beyond-the-Wall had told him. "They won't dance for coins, they don't care how you style yourself or what that chain of office means or who your grandsire was. They follow strength. They follow the man."

Since the series began we have seen flawed kings on the Iron Throne, ruling over a feudal system that breeds inequity. I think the 7K will have to take a lesson from the freefolk if they are to survive, and while under normal circumstances the kings and lords of Westeros would never even consider that, the looming catastrophe will drive them to follow the man. The Wall falling will be symbolic of this political change, and perhaps the melting of the Iron Throne.

So yeah, I'm totally sold on Lyanna naming Jon, Aegon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2018 at 8:44 AM, Megorova said:

Can you name a single king in Martin's universe, that was a Snow, or Stone, or Rivers, etc.? Was there anyone, besides Jon, who was raised under fake name, not knowing who his real parents are? <- For other orphants and bastards that may be fine, but not for someone, who is going to become King of 7K. King Jon Snow? :huh: Just - no. And if he's going to change his last name, for example, from Snow to Targaryen, then why not to change his first name too? Because Aegon Targaryen sounds better than Jon Targaryen.

Benedict Justman was born Benedict Rivers, a bastard of houses blackwood and braken, he was able to unite his mother and fathers house and eventually all of the riverlands, House Justman ruled for several generations before being eliminated by the Ironborn invasion.

So not the same scenario as Jon but there is your one example of a bastard becoming king.(not counting Daemon Blackfyre of course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jô Maltese said:

The narrator in this case is Jon. And given Jon's poor judgement early in the books and GRRM's irony, this is exactly why I think that Jon is indeed Aemon Targaryen.

2

There's certainly a lot of irony in the books, but any case built upon it is built on shaky ground. This case, in particular, is built upon the assumption that GRRM is using irony. If he's not, then Jon's name is not Aemon, period. So, the whole case for Aemon absolutely rests upon this line being ironic.

10 hours ago, Jô Maltese said:

"What you are assuming about". Let's be fair with ourselves, we do not know anything (Jon Snow :P) for sure about Lyanna, except that she had the Wolf blood, that she was a Stark through and through, and this does not really support the Targaryen name theory! 

 

That's my point. You don't have to know anything about her specifically beyond her actions. They will tell you all you need to know to draw your conclusion. Keep in mind that I'm responding to the claim that she wouldn't have given the baby a Targaryen name. As such, I'm demonstrating that a Targaryen name would've been consistent with her actions.

Nor does it contradict it. But we can use common sense to rule out any sort of northern-name theories. It's really as simple as Ned wouldn't have needed to change the baby's name if she had. Also, if Jon has a real name it absolutely must be one that gives away his identity. Otherwise, there would be no need for it to be a secret. Again, it's just common sense. And I realize you're probably on the same page in that regard, but I'm not sure everyone else is.

10 hours ago, Jô Maltese said:

This is not a fair comparison. Even if I wouldn't "rule out" Aegon, it is not illogical to think that a woman in love naming her son the same as her husband's (lover's) son with his former (legitimate) wife is not bloody likely!

 

The comparison of making the reader start with a faulty premise is both valid and fair. In this case, the faulty premise GRRM makes you start with is that Rhaegar picked the name for Lyanna's baby. (He picked a name, specifically a girl's name, I believe.) And again, I posit that Lyanna was following Rhaegar's wishes by naming his son and heir Aegon. Because that is exactly what he wanted his son and heir called. And we know she definitely had access to the information that Elia and her children had been murdered via Ned if not prior. It really all falls into place once you realize that Lyanna named the baby, not Rhaegar. Just like RLJ falls into place once you realize that Ned is not the father and/or that Lyanna is the mother.

Calling the baby Aegon wasn't about Elia and her son. It wasn't a slight, or spite, or anything negative. It was about what her husband wanted his son and heir to be called. I see it as a very emotionally impactful and powerful moment. "What better name for a king?" doesn't necessarily mean Jon is going to be king. But it does tell us what Rhaegar wanted his son and heir to be called because of the way succession works.

---

I think makk mentioned that Rhaegar's children's names don't necessarily correspond to the original Targaryen trio since Rhaenys was the younger sister. That's true, but Rhaegar may well have chosen that name first since the Targaryens descend from her, not Visenya.

---

7 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I gotta say that @J. Stargaryen and @Ygrain , both of whom are awesome posters I really respect, have convinced me that Aegon is the name Lyanna gave to Jon. The thematic and narrative evidence they have underlined is what sold me. It's too neat and there is no better alternative GRRM could have picked.

I'm not saying this because I think Jon will sit on the Iron Throne and fulfill a tired fantasy trope. I don't. I'm saying it because Aegon VII, King of the 7K, is the perfect embodiment of everything Jon Snow, King of Winter, must reject, based on what he has learned from Mance, Ygritte, and the freefolk.

The freefolks' political system is a step towards democracy, but importantly a manageable step from a narrative point of view. They vote with their feet and ride with whomever they choose. As Mance says:

"Free folk don't follow names, or little cloth animals sewn on a tunic," the King-Beyond-the-Wall had told him. "They won't dance for coins, they don't care how you style yourself or what that chain of office means or who your grandsire was. They follow strength. They follow the man."

Since the series began we have seen flawed kings on the Iron Throne, ruling over a feudal system that breeds inequity. I think the 7K will have to take a lesson from the freefolk if they are to survive, and while under normal circumstances the kings and lords of Westeros would never even consider that, the looming catastrophe will drive them to follow the man. The Wall falling will be symbolic of this political change, and perhaps the melting of the Iron Throne.

So yeah, I'm totally sold on Lyanna naming Jon, Aegon.

:cheers:

It warms my heart a little when people come around on this issue. While I'm not sure if Jon will accept, reject, or even possibly accept then reject (:idea:) the name (and titles that come with) Aegon VII, I do think it will come up one way or the other. It seems like it's set up too perfectly not to.

And, yes, Ygrain is awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Back door hodor said:

Benedict Justman was born Benedict Rivers, a bastard of houses blackwood and braken, he was able to unite his mother and fathers house and eventually all of the riverlands, House Justman ruled for several generations before being eliminated by the Ironborn invasion.

So not the same scenario as Jon but there is your one example of a bastard becoming king.(not counting Daemon Blackfyre of course)

By "Can you name a single king in Martin's universe, that was a Snow, or Stone, or Rivers, etc.? " I didn't meant bastard becoming King, I meant - him keeping that same name/lastname, even after his coronation. Was there King "X" Snow, or King "Y" Rivers? No, there wasn't. Benedict Rivers from your example, wasn't crowned as Benedict Rivers, he was crowned as Benedict Justman. Which is an evidence, that supports my claim, that someone with a bastard's lastname, won't be sitting on Iron Throne. First, he will have to take a different name/lastname, during his coronation. So if Jon will become King, he will take a different last name, and, probably, first name too. He won't be King Jon Snow, he will be King Aegon VII Targaryen. There will be no King Snow, as there never was one like that before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

By "Can you name a single king in Martin's universe, that was a Snow, or Stone, or Rivers, etc.? " I didn't meant bastard becoming King, I meant - him keeping that same name/lastname, even after his coronation. Was there King "X" Snow, or King "Y" Rivers? No, there wasn't. Benedict Rivers from your example, wasn't crowned as Benedict Rivers, he was crowned as Benedict Justman. Which is an evidence, that supports my claim, that someone with a bastard's lastname, won't be sitting on Iron Throne. First, he will have to take a different name/lastname, during his coronation. So if Jon will become King, he will take a different last name, and, probably, first name too. He won't be King Jon Snow, he will be King Aegon VII Targaryen. There will be no King Snow, as there never was one like that before.

Oh yea I definitely agree with that....if Jon is king he will not be King Snow...sorry if I was unclear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@J. Stargaryen Points well taken and well made, as usual. Sorry I’m on my phone so can’t really develop my answers by quoting you. That said, I am always surprised by the “Rhaegar wanted Lyanna to name her son Aegon” argument. I mean, Rhaegar died before his first born Aegon did, so it just does not make any sense IMHO. Granted, if Lyanna knew about the fate of the little Aegon before she gave birth to Jon, then this  could be her choice, knowing how important it was in her beloved eyes, but I still find it unlikely (see above). Actually, what would make also sense then, would be to name her son “Rhaegar”....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Jô Maltese said:

Actually, what would make also sense then, would be to name her son “Rhaegar”....

That was my position, I thought it made sense as part of the R+L=J reveal. But I'm swayed to Aegon by this quote:

"Aegon," he said to a woman nursing a newborn babe in a great wooden bed. "What better name for a king?"

And how it ties into this quote from Mance:

"Free folk don't follow names..."

Trope ---> subversion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Jô Maltese said:

@J. Stargaryen Points well taken and well made, as usual. Sorry I’m on my phone so can’t really develop my answers by quoting you. That said, I am always surprised by the “Rhaegar wanted Lyanna to name her son Aegon” argument. I mean, Rhaegar died before his first born Aegon did, so it just does not make any sense IMHO. Granted, if Lyanna knew about the fate of the little Aegon before she gave birth to Jon, then this  could be her choice, knowing how important it was in her beloved eyes, but I still find it unlikely (see above). Actually, what would make also sense then, would be to name her son “Rhaegar”....

:cheers: and, understand the difficulties of quoting from a mobile device. The gods know it doesn't always work smoothly on a lap- or desktop even.

I don't think Rhaegar wanted Lyanna to name her son Aegon. I think Rhaegar wanted his son and heir called Aegon, which is why he chose that name for Elia's son. There's a distinction there. It wasn't up to Rhaegar at that time. So Lyanna fulfilled Rhaegar's wishes the best way she knew how. Lyanna's newborn was now Rhaegar's son and heir. What name had Rhaegar chosen for his son and heir? To clarify further, the way I see things it's the only male name he ever chose for his children.

The Rhaegar jr. stuff seems to be pulled out of real life as opposed to the text. There's hardly any juniors in the entire series and none in the Targaryen and Stark histories that I know of. (Did I miss some in F&B?)

1 minute ago, three-eyed monkey said:

That was my position, I thought it made sense as part of the R+L=J reveal. But I'm swayed to Aegon by this quote:

"Aegon," he said to a woman nursing a newborn babe in a great wooden bed. "What better name for a king?"

And how it ties into this quote from Mance:

"Free folk don't follow names..."

Trope ---> subversion.

 

Interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

And how it ties into this quote from Mance:

"Free folk don't follow names..."

Trope ---> subversion.

Though majority of people in 7K are not freefolk, and being half-Targaryen thru his father, gives Jon right to sit on Iron Throne, not to become the King-Beyond-The-Wall, so he's going to be King of those people, not King of freefolk. So it's not a subversion, more like it's a well placed red herring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

Though majority of people in 7K are not freefolk

But they will be. Free folk. That's the goal.

 

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

not to become the King-Beyond-The-Wall

There will be no Wall.

 

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

So it's not a subversion, more like it's a well placed red herring.

The Iron Throne is the red herring.

Jon discovering he is the king and sitting on the throne is a standard trope. Rejecting it is the subversion of that trope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

There will be no Wall.

:):agree:

There's a perfect way for Jon to quit Night's Watch, without breaking any vows. That is, if the Wall will fall, and there will be no need to guard the path from there to here, preventing the Others or wildlings to come thru, because once the Wall will fall, it will all become here. No Wall = no Night's Watch.

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The Iron Throne is the red herring.

Dany will be disappointed.

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Jon discovering he is the king and sitting on the throne is a standard trope. Rejecting it is the subversion of that trope.

Though, if he will find out, who he really is, and lead people of 7K against the Others, and then will die in the war, then he won't be sitting on Iron Throne, or ruling over those people in times of peace. So his death afterwards, when he will be done with his role of Messiah, also fits, as subversion of that "Cinderella" trope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Megorova said:

Dany will be disappointed.

She will, ultimately, but I meant it from a narrative point of view.

7 hours ago, Megorova said:

Though, if he will find out, who he really is, and lead people of 7K against the Others, and then will die in the war, then he won't be sitting on Iron Throne, or ruling over those people in times of peace. So his death afterwards, when he will be done with his role of Messiah, also fits, as subversion of that "Cinderella" trope. 

I'm sure Jon will discover his heritage, as per standard hidden prince trope, but I believe the point of this story is that it doesn't matter. If Jon leads the fight against the Others, as I think we both agree he will, it is because he is "the man" not because he is King Aegon Targaryen, seventh of his name. Titles, vows, oaths, prophecy, they're all just words and words are wind. This is a story about actions, standing up and being counted, owning who you are, doing the right thing, regardless of whether you're highborn, lowborn, bastard or king.

I agree Jon will be king, but based on merit and circumstance, not his lineage. I also agree that Jon will die in the end and will not be ruling over people in times of peace, which suggests to me that he'll be the King of Winter, metaphorically at the very least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that moron is coming back to life.  Not as a human anyway.  He will be back as a direwolf.  And that was very silly of the show to name him Aegon.  What most likely happened is he stays dead in the books or becomes a direwolf.  They purposely left out Aegon Blackfyre, which is a very important part of the plot, to make room for Jon to come back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@three-eyed monkey @J. Stargaryen

Thanks, guys :blushing:

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'm sure Jon will discover his heritage, as per standard hidden prince trope, but I believe the point of this story is that it doesn't matter. If Jon leads the fight against the Others, as I think we both agree he will, it is because he is "the man" not because he is King Aegon Targaryen, seventh of his name.

I think you're right that Jon will be the leader due to his personal qualities but being Aegon VII could gain him further support from those yet unwilling to open their eyes to the real threat.

Usually, claiming one's heritage is the ultimate end: overcome hardship and become king. However, for Jon, becoming king would be only means to the ultimate end: unite everyone to fight the Others (if fight is what it takes).

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Titles, vows, oaths, prophecy, they're all just words and words are wind.

Not quite. Jon takes his oath to protect the realms of men very seriously. Enough to bring the ultimate sacrifice for it, as a king should. 

 

4 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

I doubt that moron is coming back to life.  Not as a human anyway.  He will be back as a direwolf.  And that was very silly of the show to name him Aegon.  What most likely happened is he stays dead in the books or becomes a direwolf.  They purposely left out Aegon Blackfyre, which is a very important part of the plot, to make room for Jon to come back.

Well... let's look at the books then: we have had two resurrections by R'hllor, and now we have a major character in need of resurrection and a Red priestess with powers peaking due to the magic of the Wall. And we also have the main figure of R'hllorism needing to be reborn, and Jon happening to be shown in the flames at the request "show me Azor Ahai". Hm.

I suggest you start liking Jon ASAP, looks like we're going to see some more Jon in his usual self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Not quite. Jon takes his oath to protect the realms of men very seriously. Enough to bring the ultimate sacrifice for it, as a king should. 

Absolutely. Taking it very seriously equates to action though and that is the point of difference. The words of the oath have been said by many who do not, so saying the oath is not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...