Jon Snow's Real Name

[Megorova]

10 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I find it extremely unlikely Lyanna (whether or not she got caught up in gossip) didn't know her lovers wife & children's names. But anything is possible so let's say she didn't know.

Things like that (not knowing, because of not wanting to know) do happen in real life. When exactly were they supposed to talk about his family - before sex, or after sex? Or when they were escaping from her family? Or when they were hiding from his family? Or when he was leaving her?

10 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

What would make her more likely to name the baby Aegon rather than Aemon, Daemon, Daeron, Viserys, or any other male Targ name? 

Aegon is the most well known Targaryen name. First Targaryen King. And it was Aegon, to whom King of The North Torrhen Stark gave away his winter crown. Starks were Kings of Winter, and Rhaegar gave to Lyanna a crown of winter roses, and named her Queen (of Love and Beauty). One Aegon Targaryen took away crown of Starks, and the other Aegon Targaryen (Jon, who is half-Stark and half-Targaryen) will make them rulers again, by becoming the King of 7K. He's a Stark too, so by becoming the King, he will make his Stark-relatives a part of a royal family, not just Lords of northern region, whom they became, after Torrhen kneeled to first Aegon. That crown of winter roses, could be a foreshadowing, that Lyanna's son will become King. His mother wore a flower crown, and he will wear a real crown.

[Megorova]

12 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

That is kind of neat though. Some how I never knew the Valaryian word for Dragon & Prince are the same. What is the word? 

Sorry, my mistake, it's not the same word. Those words are similar in that they both are gender neutral. Prince/princess is the same word, like dragon, that is male or female.

The exact word (for Prince/princess) wasn't mentioned in the book.

AFFC, Sam IV - ""No one ever looked for a girl," he said. "It was a prince that was promised, not a princess. Rhaegar, I thought . . . the smoke was from the fire that devoured Summerhall on the day of his birth, the salt from the tears shed for those who died. He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King's Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet. What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise! The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame. The language misled us all for a thousand years. Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke. The dragons prove it." Just talking of her seemed to make him stronger. "I must go to her. I must. Would that I was even ten years younger.""

Though word "dracarys" in the books translates as "dragonfire".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valyrian_languages

"Peterson commented that he considered Martin's choice of dracarys unfortunate because of its (presumably intended) similarity to the Latin word for dragon, draco."

So, probably "dragon" is "draco", while "dragon's" like "dracarys" in dragon's fire, is "draca", and "rys" is flame or fire. That's why all those Targaryen names are ending with "rys", like Daenerys, Aerys, Viserys, they have word "fire" in their names.

Though the word prince/princess in Valyrian wasn't written in the books. And I confused it with the word dragon because of The Mystery Knight. - " "There have always been Targaryens who dreamed of things to come, since long before the Conquest," Bloodraven said, "so we should not be surprised if from time to time a Blackfyre displays the gift as well. Daemon dreamed that a dragon would be born at Whitewalls, and it was. The fool just got the color wrong." Dunk looked at Egg."

- Instead of a real dragon hatching from an egg, Egg "became a prince".

Also, in The Lord of the Rings, name Aragorn is Sindarin, meaning "Revered King", from aran ("king") and (n)gorn ("dreaded, revered"); and the name Arwen means "Noble Maiden", from the Sindarin word ar(a) ("royal, noble") and wen ("maiden").

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Aragorn#Etymology

https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Arwen

If GRRM was using something similar to Tolkien's language, when he made names for his characters, then, maybe, name Aegon means the Prince/or King that was promised. Maybe, like Tolkien's "aran"/king, and "ar(a)"/royal/noble, Martyn's "ae" also means "king/queen" or "prince/princess". And while Tolkien's "gorn" means "dreaded, revered", GRRM's "gon" means "promised, prophesied". So, maybe the name Aegon literally translates as "The prince that was promised", and that's why Rhaegar named his son Aegon, while thinking, that the boy is the Promised Prince.

[Julia H.]

12 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Anyway back to the topic - I don't know how Lyanna would have known that information so what would make her pick Aegon? Also whether or not she wanted to know details about Elia & the kids she definitely knew they existed & therefore had no reason to believe her baby would ever be a prince. 

I guess Aegon is the first name most people in Westeros think of when they have to recall a typical Targaryen name. The less they know about Targaryen history, the more likely it is that they will think of Aegon and only Aegon. (More precisely, there is also the name of the current king, but he wasn't the kind of person you'd want to name your child after.) 

The existence of Elia and Rhaegar's other children doesn't mean that Lyanna's baby will not be a prince if she and Rhaegar are married and Rhaegar intends to make his second marriage generally accepted and his child with Lyanna legitimate. In this case, Lyanna's son will definitely be a prince, just not the crown prince, but a royal prince nevertheless. (Even a bastard son can be legitimized and thus made a prince.) It didn't happen that way, of course, I only want to point out that the mere existence of Elia and her children does not prevent Lyanna's child from being a prince or a princess.  

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

Things like that (not knowing, because of not wanting to know) do happen in real life. When exactly were they supposed to talk about his family - before sex, or after sex? Or when they were escaping from her family? Or when they were hiding from his family? Or when he was leaving her?

I'm not saying they sat around discussing details about them but it would be rather odd for her to not even know their names no? 

 

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

Aegon is the most well known Targaryen name...

That makes sense. I could get behind Aegon being Jon's real name more if there wasn't already an Aegon, not only in the same generation but by the same father. It just seems so redundant & un-martin like. 

I do enjoy the symbolism & idea behind one Aegon taking the crown from the North & another giving it back. 

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

Sorry, my mistake, it's not the same word. Those words are similar in that they both are gender neutral. Prince/princess is the same word, like dragon, that is male or female

Right I knew this. 

 

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

GRRM was using something similar to Tolkien's language, when he made names for his characters, then, maybe, name Aegon means the Prince/or King that was promised. Maybe, like Tolkien's "aran"/king, and "ar(a)"/royal/noble, Martyn's "ae" also means "king/queen" or "prince/princess". And while Tolkien's "gorn" means "dreaded, revered", GRRM's "gon" means "promised, prophesied". So, maybe the name Aegon literally translates as "The prince that was promised", and that's why Rhaegar named his son Aegon, while thinking, that the boy is the Promised Prince.

This all sounds good but it is just guess work no? It's definitely possible & would fit nicely but it fits nicely for the Aegon we already have, the one we saw Rhaegar name & tell us it's a name for a King. It doesn't really lend credence to Jon being named Aegon. 

 

34 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

guess Aegon is the first name most people in Westeros think of when they have to recall a typical Targaryen name. The less they know about Targaryen history, the more likely it is that they will think of Aegon and only Aegon. (More precisely, there is also the name of the current king, but he wasn't the kind of person you'd want to name your child after.) 

Agreed but Lyanna was educated. One could assume as well as the Stark children & they know some of the Targ history. That coupled with the fact that Rhaegar already had a son named Aegon makes it very unlikely Lyanna would have chosen this name for her son IMO. 

 

36 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

The existence of Elia and Rhaegar's other children doesn't mean that Lyanna's baby will not be a prince if she and Rhaegar are married and Rhaegar intends to make his second marriage generally accepted and his child with Lyanna legitimate. In this case, Lyanna's son will definitely be a prince, just not the crown prince, but a royal prince nevertheless. (Even a bastard son can be legitimized and thus made a prince.) It didn't happen that way, of course, I only want to point out that the mere existence of Elia and her children does not prevent Lyanna's child from being a prince or a princess

Their existence does mean Lyanna's baby won't be prince barring other steps being taken - Rhaegar setting Elia aside, marrying Lyanna, legitimizing baby, etc. Which could have happened of course we just don't have any information suggesting it did. 

[Julia H.]

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Agreed but Lyanna was educated. One could assume as well as the Stark children & they know some of the Targ history. That coupled with the fact that Rhaegar already had a son named Aegon makes it very unlikely Lyanna would have chosen this name for her son IMO. 

I do wonder whether the education of girls included history. Regardless though, there is no reason why Lyanna couldn't have heard of several Targaryens. If she was educated, however, then she must have known why this name had special importance in the family. Be as it may, it wouldn't be a surprising choice if someone was just looking for a really impressive Targaryen name, and that is basically what I wanted to say when you wondered why not some other Targaryen name out of so many. Now, the existence of the other Aegon is obviously a problem, I agree with that, but J. Stargaryen's theory provides a possible solution for just that problem and suggests a scenario in which this name is more likely than just any random Targaryen name. I do think it's a possibility. (I, personally, prefer the symbolism of another Targaryen name for Jon, but I see nothing impossible in the suggested Aegon scenario, and storywise this name has more symbolism value than most random Targaryen names.)  

Quote

 

Their existence does mean Lyanna's baby won't be prince barring other steps being taken - Rhaegar setting Elia aside, marrying Lyanna, legitimizing baby, etc. Which could have happened of course we just don't have any information suggesting it did. 

You said that due to the existence of Elia and her kids "Lyanna had no reason to believe her baby would ever be a prince" but now you seem to agree that it was possible if Rhaegar was going to take certain steps. We cannot rule out that Rhaegar was going to take steps, so Lyanna may well have had a good reason to expect that her child would be a legitimate part of the royal family and a prince / princess. We don't have information on Rhaegar's plans (except that he was planning "changes" and the strong probability that he was going to set aside the Mad King and become king himself); therefore we can hardly rule out the possibility that Lyanna expected him to take the necessary steps to include her child as a legitimate member of the royal family. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

do wonder whether the education of girls included history. Regardless though, there is no reason why Lyanna couldn't have heard of several Targaryens. If she was educated, however, then she must have known why this name had special importance in the family. Be as it may, it wouldn't be a surprising choice if someone was just looking for a really impressive Targaryen name, and that is basically what I wanted to say when you wondered why not some other Targaryen name out of so many. Now, the existence of the other Aegon is obviously a problem, I agree with that, but J. Stargaryen's theory provides a possible solution for just that problem and suggests a scenario in which this name is more likely than just any random Targaryen name. I do think it's a possibility. (I, personally, prefer the symbolism of another Targaryen name for Jon, but I see nothing impossible in the suggested Aegon scenario, and storywise this name has more symbolism value than most random Targaryen names.)

Oh for sure. I don't think it's impossible, I just think it's unlikely & honestly I don't like it. I just think he should have his own name & can't see George naming him Aegon when we already have one. Unless he has some good reason for doing so that is explained later. Then I might not be so against it. 

 

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I do wonder whether the education of girls included history. Regardless though, there is no reason why Lyanna couldn't have heard of several Targaryens. If she was educated, however, then she must have known why this name had special importance in the family. Be as it may, it wouldn't be a surprising choice if someone was just looking for a really impressive Targaryen name, and that is basically what I wanted to say when you wondered why not some other Targaryen name out of so many. Now, the existence of the other Aegon is obviously a problem, I agree with that, but J. Stargaryen's theory provides a possible solution for just that problem and suggests a scenario in which this name is more likely than just any random Targaryen name. I do think it's a possibility. (I, personally, prefer the symbolism of another Targaryen name for Jon, but I see nothing impossible in the suggested Aegon scenario, and storywise this name has more symbolism value than most random Targaryen names.)  

Quote

 

Their existence does mean Lyanna's baby won't be prince barring other steps being taken - Rhaegar setting Elia aside, marrying Lyanna, legitimizing baby, etc. Which could have happened of course we just don't have any information suggesting it did. 

You said that due to the existence of Elia and her kids "Lyanna had no reason to believe her baby would ever be a prince" but now you seem to agree that it was possible if Rhaegar was going to take certain steps. We cannot rule out that Rhaegar was going to take steps, so Lyanna may well have had a good reason to expect that her child would be a legitimate part of the royal family and a prince / princess. We don't have information on Rhaegar's plans (except that he was planning "changes" and the strong probability that he was going to set aside the Mad King and become king himself); therefore we can hardly rule out the possibility that Lyanna expected him to take the necessary steps to include her child as a legitimate member of the royal family

I was attempting to say the same thing both times. Sorry for the confusion. To clarify:

As it stands (from what we know) Lyanna's baby could not be a prince due to the existence of Elia & her children. 

There are steps Rhaegar could have taken that potentially would have given Jon prince/heir rights but we have not been told about them. Either because they didn't happen or because they did but we haven't found out about them yet. 

We definitely cannot rule it out. There is so much we don't know about R&L that almost anything is possible. In an effort to narrow down the 'what if's' I'm trying to go off of what we do know to make my assumption. Which is very little honestly.

We don't technically know Jon's parents are Rhaegar & Lyanna but since it's very likely (IMO) and it narrows things down for the purpose of this thread I'm taking that as a 'known' or at least a 'very likely' 

We know Rhaegar had a wife named Elia and two children, one boy, one girl - the boy being named Aegon. 

We know Aegon is a prominent Targ name but certainly not the only Targ name

We don't know how much if any Lyanna knew about the sack of KL or the prophecy or about Elia & the kids but I'm going to assume she knew at least their names because I think that's a reasonable assumption. 

We do know it isn't within the norms of Westeros to name a child the same name as a dead or alive sibling. 

So in summary what I am saying is - it is definitely possible but with the information we have at hand, I think it's very unlikely. 

[Lord Varys]

On 7/17/2019 at 3:16 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

I think Rhaegar was expecting a girl for his third dragon head and didn't bother choosing a boy's name. So when he died, followed shortly by Elia and her children, Lyanna was left to choose the name on her own. If I'm right that Rhaegar didn't pick out a boy's name for Lyanna's child, then Aegon is the only boy's name he ever chose for a son.

There is no textual evidence indicating that Rhaegar Targaryen ever wanted a daughter or saw his daughter Rhaenys as one of the dragon heads. There is only textual evidence that he wanted to have sons, plural.

There is also no textual evidence and no (good) reason to believe Rhaegar wanted to recreate Aegon and his sister-wives. Nothing indicates that those dragon heads were believed to be a guy and two women. Why not only three guys? The fact that nobody ever contemplated the idea that the so-called promised prince could be female (which apparently isn't exactly an esoteric interpretation considering that the Valyrian word for 'dragon' apparently doesn't identify a particular gender) does suggests that the guys didn't think women were involved or played a role in this manly savior prophecy thing.

And while it is possible that the Conqueror sort of deluded himself into believing he and his sister-wives were fulfilling the prophecy it is also possible their choice of heraldry is just a vague reference to that prophecy, not something they took all that seriously.

There happen to be a lot of male Targaryen dragon heads to be around at the time Prince Aegon was born. There is King Aerys II himself, of course, who might be discounted as dragon head because he is supposed to be part of the generation who brings forth the promised prince, then there is Rhaegar himself, and his brother Viserys. We can ignore Rhaenys and Rhaegar's mother Rhaella and still get a scenario where Rhaegar feels has to produce another dragon head - namely if he thought either he or his brother Viserys was the first dragon head, followed by his son Aegon as the second.

I'd say that if two dragon heads were seen to be possibly or definitely female then it is rather unbelievable that nobody thought this might go for the promised prince, too.

On 7/17/2019 at 3:42 PM, LynnS said:

Holy old hell!  Nothing less true could be said about Lord Varys.  He's one of the few people on the forum who demonstrates an outstanding command of the subject matter.  There are a few others, but not many.  That's nothing I'd sniff at under any circumstance. 

Thanks for the flowers. Please also confirm that I'm not paying you to write things as flattering as this ;-).

In general:

We are discussing hypothetical scenarios. Either you don't understand Occam's Razor or you don't want to apply it. George would have to think in a rather convoluted way and he would have to needlessly make things more complicated for himself if he wanted 'Aegon' to be Jon Snow's real name in the series he has written. There were a lot of steps along the road where he could have made things easier without giving the name away.

The idea that he creates a scenario where the name Aegon is essentially the least likely (Targaryen) name of Jon Snow only to come up with a convoluted story to explain away this problem is not very likely. That's not how he operates usually - he only explains away things post hoc when he wrote ridiculous nonsense like arrows hitting and killing men at the top of 700 feet high ice wall.

And if we enter into symbolic discussion then we basically talk about personal preferences - which is irrelevant when you care about what kind of arguments the text as such offers us as likely possibilities for Jon's hypothetical Targaryen names. Because, quite frankly, I can make a case that Jon Snow is another Aerys Targaryen. After all, it is the prototypical Targaryen royal name in the sense it is royal Targaryen name we get the most in the novels (nobody talks much about Aegons in the books), just as Aerys II is the dead king that's most often referenced. A Jon Snow claiming the throne as King Aerys III Targaryen would also reinforce the symbolic number of three which is actually connected to House Targaryen (three-headed dragon, three dragon heads, all the threesomes revolving around Dany, etc.).

Whereas people babbling on about the symbolic meaning of seven is not exactly something that's particularly strong in relation to House Targaryen. Despite the fact that the Seven are the gods of the Andals, the number seven doesn't really come up often in meaningful contexts. Instead this seems to be a rather abstract symbolism reflected in seven-sided buildings, seven oils, etc.

Also, a possibly sane Aerys III following mad Aerys II would also be a powerful symbol, not to mention that, if Jon were the promised prince or one of the dragon heads, he should actually have a posthumous conflict or interaction with the paternal grandfather whose seed spilled in his sister-wife's womb was apparently necessary to create him (if we follow the prophecy of the dwarf woman). In the Targaryen context Jon Snow has as much a tainted or problematic ancestry as Daenerys - it is just rarely discussed or brought up because pretty much nobody in the books knows about that at this point.

As for Aegon being a popular Targaryen name - there were just five kings with the name of Aegon, and there were no living Aegon Targaryens throughout the life of Lyanna Stark. The Targaryen names she would have been confronted with outside of history classes would have been Aerys, Rhaegar, Viserys, Rhaella, Rhaenys, Aegon, Jaehaerys, Shaera, and Daeron. The names of the generation of Maekar and his older children seem to be pretty far removed.

But it seems very unlikely that if Rhaegar knew Lya was pregnant - and they were still on speaking terms at that time - that he wouldn't have suggested or talked with her about names for their child. And that would include both names for a boy and a girl. Whether he wanted a traditional name or not is completely unclear. Daeron II's sons and grandsons have, in part, rather weirdo names as well (Rhaegel, Maekar, Valarr, Matarys) as does Rhaegar himself (a name that has yet to pop up somewhere else in the family tree).

We see how love and affection can shape certain names - Duncan for Egg's oldest son, for instance, or Joffrey for Laenor Velaryon's youngest son, so the fact that Lyanna may have been Rhaegar's true love certainly should also figure into that.

[JNR]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Because, quite frankly, I can make a case that Jon Snow is another Aerys Targaryen.

I can make a case that Rhaegar and Lyanna never spent ten seconds together at any time in the Rebellion. 

It's really remarkable what fans have persuaded themselves is a canonical fact, as opposed to an airy fantasy spun by their collective and conspiring imaginations.

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Thanks for the flowers. Please also confirm that I'm not paying you to write things as flattering as this ;-).

Confirmed.  No collusion here.  And I meant what I said.   

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Also, a possibly sane Aerys III following mad Aerys II would also be a powerful symbol, not to mention that, if Jon were the promised prince or one of the dragon heads,  Jon were the promised prince or one of the dragon heads, he should actually have a posthumous conflict or interaction with the paternal grandfather whose seed spilled in his sister-wife's womb was apparently necessary to create him (if we follow the prophecy of the dwarf woman)umous conflict or interaction with the paternal grandfather whose seed spilled in his sister-wife's womb was apparently necessary to create him (if we follow the prophecy of the dwarf woman). In the Targaryen context Jon Snow has as much a tainted or problematic ancestry as Daenerys - it is just rarely discussed or brought up because pretty much nobody in the books knows about that at this point

Will you clarify the bolded for me? I'm not following & am curious

1 hour ago, JNR said:

I can make a case that Rhaegar and Lyanna never spent ten seconds together at any time in the Rebellion. 

It's really remarkable what fans have persuaded themselves is a canonical fact, as opposed to an airy fantasy spun by their collective and conspiring imaginations.

Are you knocking on R+L=J, Jon being named Aegon, or Jon being named Aerys? 

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Will you clarify the bolded for me? I'm not following & am curious

Ah, well, I just meant that Jon Snow as Aerys II's grandson should, once he realizes that this is the case, also have rather severe issues to come to terms with the fact that his paternal grandfather was a raving lunatic who also killed his maternal grandfather and uncle.

But this is usually not something many people consider when they speculate about the Jon Snow's role as a Targaryen or the issues that could arise when he tries to deal with that.

If he was actually named Aerys Targaryen himself - if that was his Targaryen identity - then George certainly could frame and work much better with this internal conflict than he could if he was an Aemon, a Jaehaerys, a Daeron, a Rhaegar, and (especially) an Aegon.

In fact, now that I'm writing this out I would actually like and look forward to the narrative potential Jon could have as an Aerys Targaryen but I still don't think that's particularly likely (although the idea has less internal problems than the Aegon idea).

I mean, if Jon were to ever fully adopt his Targaryen identity - which he is not unlikely to do - then this would be a much more powerful symbolic move if he did it by saying 'I am Aerys Targaryen!' than if he used any other Targaryen name, because no Targaryen name is so full of meaning as Aerys Targaryen - and considering all the negative associations it would be a powerful move to take the name and try to make something positive out of it.

The name Aegon, on the other hand, is pretty much devoid of meaning considering it was the name of good and bad and mediocre kings. Aemon certainly could evoke the Dragonknight and Daeron Jon's own childhood hero the Young Dragon, but the name could then not help to symbolize or underline Jon's own internal conflict with his Targaryen identity. He should have no problem to embrace any of the 'good Targaryen names'.

And what I wrote about Aerys would of course also go for Maegor - although it would be also pretty unlikely that Lyanna would have given her son the name of a king nicknamed 'the Cruel'. But then - it was the name of one of the greatest Targaryen warrior-kings, and certainly a name to put fear in the hearts of the boy's enemies. If Lyanna believed her son would have to fight for his life it would make sense for her to give him that name.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Ah, well, I just meant that Jon Snow as Aerys II's grandson should, once he realizes that this is the case, also have rather severe issues to come to terms with the fact that his paternal grandfather was a raving lunatic who also killed his maternal grandfather and uncle.

But this is usually not something many people consider when they speculate about the Jon Snow's role as a Targaryen or the issues that could arise when he tries to deal with that.

If he was actually named Aerys Targaryen himself - if that was his Targaryen identity - then George certainly could frame and work much better with this internal conflict than he could if he was an Aemon, a Jaehaerys, a Daeron, a Rhaegar, and (especially) an Aegon.

In fact, now that I'm writing this out I would actually like and look forward to the narrative potential Jon could have as an Aerys Targaryen but I still don't think that's particularly likely (although the idea has less internal problems than the Aegon idea).

I mean, if Jon were to ever fully adopt his Targaryen identity - which he is not unlikely to do - then this would be a much more powerful symbolic move if he did it by saying 'I am Aerys Targaryen!' than if he used any other Targaryen name, because no Targaryen name is so full of meaning as Aerys Targaryen - and considering all the negative associations it would be a powerful move to take the name and try to make something positive out of it.

The name Aegon, on the other hand, is pretty much devoid of meaning considering it was the name of good and bad and mediocre kings. Aemon certainly could evoke the Dragonknight and Daeron Jon's own childhood hero the Young Dragon, but the name could then not help to symbolize or underline Jon's own internal conflict with his Targaryen identity. He should have no problem to embrace any of the 'good Targaryen names'.

And what I wrote about Aerys would of course also go for Maegor - although it would be also pretty unlikely that Lyanna would have given her son the name of a king nicknamed 'the Cruel'. But then - it was the name of one of the greatest Targaryen warrior-kings, and certainly a name to put fear in the hearts of the boy's enemies. If Lyanna believed her son would have to fight for his life it would make sense for her to give him that name.

I see! You're right I don't think many people have thought about that - I know I haven't. That would certainly create a conflict within Jon & lead to some very interesting internal dialogue! 

I would enjoy Jon being named Aerys as well. It opens a big can of worms for him aside from not being Ned's son. Very interesting. Thanks for expanding! 

[Julia H.]

12 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Oh for sure. I don't think it's impossible, I just think it's unlikely & honestly I don't like it. I just think he should have his own name & can't see George naming him Aegon when we already have one. Unless he has some good reason for doing so that is explained later. Then I might not be so against it. 

I do think / hope if any other name comes up in connection with Jon, it will be for a good reason - as I said before, reasons of symbolism seem to be the best reasons that I can think of. And he definitely has his own name - Jon Snow. It is part of his destiny, and I can't really see him change it to any fancy name (Stark perhaps, but nothing else).   

12 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

As it stands (from what we know) Lyanna's baby could not be a prince due to the existence of Elia & her children. 

That's where we disagree. Certain circumstances must be met, but we have no reason to think they were not going to be met. Lyanna's baby could be a prince despite the existence of Elia and her children, and for all we know, Lyanna may have had a strong reason to expect just that. 

Quote

There are steps Rhaegar could have taken that potentially would have given Jon prince/heir rights but we have not been told about them. Either because they didn't happen or because they did but we haven't found out about them yet. 

Neither do we know anything that would preclude such steps being taken or at least being planned. The Kingsguard being left with Lyanna is a possible hint that Rhaegar considered Lyanna and her child parts of his family. We were talking about Lyanna's possible expectations - it is well within the possibilities, it is even  probable that Lyanna expected her child with Rhaegar to be a royal prince / princess. Not the crown prince but a prince or a princess. 

Quote

We definitely cannot rule it out. There is so much we don't know about R&L that almost anything is possible. In an effort to narrow down the 'what if's' I'm trying to go off of what we do know to make my assumption. Which is very little honestly.

We don't technically know Jon's parents are Rhaegar & Lyanna but since it's very likely (IMO) and it narrows things down for the purpose of this thread I'm taking that as a 'known' or at least a 'very likely' 

I think this whole thread is based on that premise. There is nothing to discuss here if you disagree with R+L=J. 

Quote

We know Rhaegar had a wife named Elia and two children, one boy, one girl - the boy being named Aegon. 

We know Aegon is a prominent Targ name but certainly not the only Targ name

We don't know how much if any Lyanna knew about the sack of KL or the prophecy or about Elia & the kids but I'm going to assume she knew at least their names because I think that's a reasonable assumption. 

We do know it isn't within the norms of Westeros to name a child the same name as a dead or alive sibling. 

So in summary what I am saying is - it is definitely possible but with the information we have at hand, I think it's very unlikely. 

That's fine with me. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

do think / hope if any other name comes up in connection with Jon, it will be for a good reason - as I said before, reasons of symbolism seem to be the best reasons that I can think of. And he definitely has his own name - Jon Snow. It is part of his destiny, and I can't really see him change it to any fancy name (Stark perhaps, but nothing else

Agreed

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I think this whole thread is based on that premise. There is nothing to discuss here if you disagree with R+L=J. 

I do agree with R+L=J? 

 

[JNR]

14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Are you knocking on R+L=J, Jon being named Aegon, or Jon being named Aerys?

I'm just pointing out that there is no way, using the canon, to demonstrate where Rhaegar was until he returned ambiguously "from the south"... where Lyanna was at any point in the Rebellion... whether the two intersected at all... and if they did, what the circumstances were.

All we can do is imagine the answers to those questions.

So arguments about Jon's theoretical Targaryen name, founded on the concept that Jon was Rhaegar's heir, are really only founded on the shared imagination of the fans.

[Julia H.]

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

I do agree with R+L=J? 

 

Sorry, I didn't mean you personally, just general "you". I'm really sorry if I sounded that way. 

[Megorova]

22 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm not saying they sat around discussing details about them but it would be rather odd for her to not even know their names no? 

No. I have several real life examples (amongst my acquaintances), where there's one man, two women (wife and not-wife), and both women have children from their man, and not-wife knows about existence of wife and that man's other children, because those men don't hide the fact, that they are married. But all not-wives don't know names or even gender of those other children. Because they don't care, and they don't want to know. And when their men visit them and their illegitimate children, they never talk about their other (legal) family.

Things like that happen even in real life, so I wouldn't be surprised, if Lyanna and Rhaegar never talked about Elia and her children. Why would they even talk about them? They had other more relevant things to do and talk about. Like about their own relationship and plans for the future. I'm not saying, that Lyanna definitely didn't knew absolutely nothing about Rhaegar's family. But it's not odd, if she didn't.

22 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

That makes sense. I could get behind Aegon being Jon's real name more if there wasn't already an Aegon, not only in the same generation but by the same father. It just seems so redundant & un-martin like. 

No, it doesn't.

Look at the situation from this angle - fAegon is a Blackfyre, and a mummer's dragon (mummer is Varys, who is also a Blackfyre). fAegon is a false Messiah, while Jon, the real Aegon, is the Prince that was Promised, and Azor Ahai reborn. fAegon only claims, that he is Rhaegar's son, it doesn't mean, that it's the truth. In my opinion, a lot of ASOIAF's elements are based on the Bible, specifically on the Book of Revelation, and John's vision of the Apocalypse. So, fAegon is ASOIAF's Antichrist, and Jon/Aegon is Jesus Christ. Antichrist's number is 666. This invasion of Golden Company into Westeros is the Sixth Blackfyre Rebellion. fAegon is Aegon VI. And, probably, there's one more 6 hiden somewhere. In ASOIAF, 7 is the blessed number, so Jon is going to be Aegon VII Targaryen, King of 7K. And for him to be the 7th, there has to be the 6th, and that's fAegon. That's why, they both are Aegons.

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

This all sounds good but it is just guess work no? It's definitely possible & would fit nicely but it fits nicely for the Aegon we already have, the one we saw Rhaegar name & tell us it's a name for a King. It doesn't really lend credence to Jon being named Aegon. 

Yes.

Elia's Aegon is dead. And Young Griff is an imposter. So, besides Jon, there's no other male Targaryen to take that "kingly" name. Rhaego (who is, most likely, alive) already has a name, a real name, given to him by his mother, and is based on Targaryen name Rhaegar. So, there's no need to change his name, though there is a reason to change Jon's name. Because, most likely, that name is a fake one, given to him by Ned.

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

That coupled with the fact that Rhaegar already had a son named Aegon makes it very unlikely Lyanna would have chosen this name for her son IMO. 

If Lyanna had access to information about Rhaegar's family, if she knew what was his son's name, then probably, she also found out later about what happened to Elia and her children. And thus she knew, that Rhaegar doesn't have a son named Aegon, because Elia's Aegon is dead. So, if Lyanna gave birth to "Jon", already after the Sack of KL, then there's no reason for her, not to name her son Aegon. Especially, if she had heard from Rhaegar, that in his opinion, Aegon is the perfect name for a Prince. If he also shared with her his expectations, that her baby is supposed to be a girl, third head of the dragon, in addition to Elia's Aegon and Rhaenys, then, when her baby was born a boy, Lyanna could have seen it as a message from Gods, that because the other two died, Gods made her child to be born as a boy, to replace that first Aegon. So, based on this reasoning, she named him Aegon.

If Lyanna didn't knew names of Rhaegar's children, and thus, was unaware, that he already has a son named Aegon, then there was no reason for her, not to name her own son Aegon, which is the best Targaryen name. If Lyanna knew, what were names of Rhaegar's children, then, probably, she also found out about their death (if she was not against talking with Rhaegar and his people about Elia and her children, then those three Kingsguards informed her about the Sack of 7K, and what happened with Rhaegar's family). If she knew, that Elia's Aegon is dead, then there was no reason for her not to name her own son Aegon.

[Lord Varys]

The idea that George cares much about the symbolic meaning of Jon's hypothetical Targaryen doesn't have much merit in my opinion. George only started to actually care about naming habits and the like when he drew up proper family trees for the Targaryens and Starks for TWoIaF and FaB. But even there it is quite clear that only some Targaryens got stories where there is a proper and understandable explanation why a child got the name it has.

And what the observer notices immediately upon investigating this is that we can make the least sense about the naming habits involving the old names, the names that have been there since AGoT and THK.

There is no explanation given why the Conqueror's sons are named Aenys and Maegor or why Aenys' successors are named Jaehaerys and Alysanne (we can speculate that Aenys is named after Rhaenys or sort of an amalgamation of Aegon and Rhaenys but that's not clear; Maegor might have been named after the Targaryen Lord of Dragonstone Maegon but if that's the case we have no idea why; Alysanne may be named after her mother Alyssa, but that's not stated, either). However, it is quite clear that the three older grandchildren of the Conqueror, the ones only invented for TWoIaF/FaB, Rhaena, Aegon, and Viserys are all named their paternal grandmother, grandfather, and grandaunt. But the twins of Rhaena and Aegon the Uncrowned have rather inexplicable names.

When we go to Jaehaerys' children we get another naming nonsense. His oldest son Aegon is named after the Conqueror and Jaehaerys' oldest brother, but the name Daenerys comes out of nowhere, as does Aemon. Baelon and Gaemon are chosen because they are Dragonstonian names, but there is no explanation given why Jaehaerys and Alysanne care about giving their sons those particular Dragonstonian names. Maegelle seems to be rather evocative of Maegor, which is strange considering their history with their uncle. Alyssa is named after her grandmother, Viserra seems to be named after her paternal uncle, as is the grandson Viserys, but names like Vaegon, Daella, Saera, Valerion, and Gael have no explanations whatsoever. Prince Daemon might be named after the long-lived Daemon Velaryon, of course, but there is no reason given for that, either. Rhaenyra is also a completely new name.

There are explanations for the names of the children of Daemon and Rhaenyra (the twins are named after the father and mother of Daemon and Laena; Rhaenyra's boys get traditional Velaryon names and one is named after Laenor's lover/friend, and her sons by Daemon are named after the Conqueror and her father) but none for the younger children of Alicent and Viserys I. Aegon II's twins are named after the Old King, but the name Maelor comes out of nowhere, etc.

The idea that we have any reason to assume Jon Snow must have a meaningful Targaryen name, that there must be symbolism or importance to all of that. Even if he has a Targaryen name chances are not that bad that this is just some arbitrary name George came up around the time he wrote the Targaryen appendix for AGoT. And if that's the case then it could be a completely new name with no significance to be drawn from comparing it to other names, sort of like the names Maekar and Rhaegar are completely devoid of meaning considering that they have been used, at this point, only once.

If such a name was chosen back then - and George stuck with it (which he doesn't really have to) - then chances are very high that he didn't recycle the name Aegon for that, since the names he later invented strongly underline his tendency to not have parents recycle the names of dead children.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Sorry, I didn't mean you personally, just general "you". I'm really sorry if I sounded that way. 

No worries!

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Megorova said:

No. I have several real life examples (amongst my acquaintances), where there's one man, two women (wife and not-wife), and both women have children from their man, and not-wife knows about existence of wife and that man's other children, because those men don't hide the fact, that they are married. But all not-wives don't know names or even gender of those other children. Because they don't care, and they don't want to know. And when their men visit them and their illegitimate children, they never talk about their other (legal) family.

Things like that happen even in real life, so I wouldn't be surprised, if Lyanna and Rhaegar never talked about Elia and her children. Why would they even talk about them? They had other more relevant things to do and talk about. Like about their own relationship and plans for the future. I'm not saying, that Lyanna definitely didn't knew absolutely nothing about Rhaegar's family. But it's not odd, if she didn't.

No, it doesn't.

Look at the situation from this angle - fAegon is a Blackfyre, and a mummer's dragon (mummer is Varys, who is also a Blackfyre). fAegon is a false Messiah, while Jon, the real Aegon, is the Prince that was Promised, and Azor Ahai reborn. fAegon only claims, that he is Rhaegar's son, it doesn't mean, that it's the truth. In my opinion, a lot of ASOIAF's elements are based on the Bible, specifically on the Book of Revelation, and John's vision of the Apocalypse. So, fAegon is ASOIAF's Antichrist, and Jon/Aegon is Jesus Christ. Antichrist's number is 666. This invasion of Golden Company into Westeros is the Sixth Blackfyre Rebellion. fAegon is Aegon VI. And, probably, there's one more 6 hiden somewhere. In ASOIAF, 7 is the blessed number, so Jon is going to be Aegon VII Targaryen, King of 7K. And for him to be the 7th, there has to be the 6th, and that's fAegon. That's why, they both are Aegons.

Yes.

Elia's Aegon is dead. And Young Griff is an imposter. So, besides Jon, there's no other male Targaryen to take that "kingly" name. Rhaego (who is, most likely, alive) already has a name, a real name, given to him by his mother, and is based on Targaryen name Rhaegar. So, there's no need to change his name, though there is a reason to change Jon's name. Because, most likely, that name is a fake one, given to him by Ned.

If Lyanna had access to information about Rhaegar's family, if she knew what was his son's name, then probably, she also found out later about what happened to Elia and her children. And thus she knew, that Rhaegar doesn't have a son named Aegon, because Elia's Aegon is dead. So, if Lyanna gave birth to "Jon", already after the Sack of KL, then there's no reason for her, not to name her son Aegon. Especially, if she had heard from Rhaegar, that in his opinion, Aegon is the perfect name for a Prince. If he also shared with her his expectations, that her baby is supposed to be a girl, third head of the dragon, in addition to Elia's Aegon and Rhaenys, then, when her baby was born a boy, Lyanna could have seen it as a message from Gods, that because the other two died, Gods made her child to be born as a boy, to replace that first Aegon. So, based on this reasoning, she named him Aegon.

If Lyanna didn't knew names of Rhaegar's children, and thus, was unaware, that he already has a son named Aegon, then there was no reason for her, not to name her own son Aegon, which is the best Targaryen name. If Lyanna knew, what were names of Rhaegar's children, then, probably, she also found out about their death (if she was not against talking with Rhaegar and his people about Elia and her children, then those three Kingsguards informed her about the Sack of 7K, and what happened with Rhaegar's family). If she knew, that Elia's Aegon is dead, then there was no reason for her not to name her own son Aegon.

Sorry for quoting all of it, I'm having issues quoting. 

For the first point I'm afraid we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I've known several people that have participated in affairs & all of them knew the names of the other woman &/or kids. So in my neck of the woods it would be very odd for Lyanna to not know. In yours, apparently, it would not be odd so I suppose it will all come down to what George thinks fits. 

Besides any of that we are talking about the Heir to the IT & his wife & children. Most of the realm would know their names. Lyanna some how missed out on hearing any of that? How? 

Point 2. That isn't very convincing. As Lord Varys said (I think) the # 7 isn't very relevant to the Targaryen's & while the symbolism of Jon being Aegon VII is nice I feel confident George could have done this better if he wanted Jon to be the 7th. In fact if fAegon is indeed fake that makes Jon the 6th right? Also if fAegon is fake we would then have Rhaegar's son with Elia named Aegon, fAegon, & then Jon named Aegon. Not even 2 but 3 of them in the same generation, 2 of which are siblings. It's too much. 

Point 3. I'm sorry but you kind of lost me here. What does Rhaego have to do with it? For what it's worth I highly doubt he is alive. I would love it if he was though. 

Again, if fAegon is fake then an Aegon Targaryen VI doesn't exist & so that would make Jon Aegon VI & kills all of your symbolic '7' reasoning. 

Point 4. Knowing Elia & the kids names does not directly correlate in any way with knowing about the sack of KL. Secondly, a child being dead does not take away the reason for not naming another child that. Why would it? 

Lord Varys made quite a good argument for Jon being named Aerys, so Aegon being the 'best' Targaryen name is up for debate also.