Jump to content
CassieSol919

Jon Snow's Real Name

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Why should be assume Rhaegar would want his second son to be named after his first son in case that this son died?

2

Real quick...

Who is suggesting that we make this assumption?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Real quick...

Who is suggesting that we make this assumption?

Anyone who assumes Rhaegar and/or Lyanna thought Rhaegar's second son should bear the same name as the first.

It is quite clear that this is not a concept House Targaryen or the nobility of Westeros as such practiced. We don't know the name of many stillborn children, of course, but we do know that Doran Martell's mother did not recycle the names Mors or Olyvar when she finally had a second living son in Oberyn Martell.

We don't know why George didn't have Aerys II have a succession of dying Viserys' until our Viserys III lived, or why Jaehaerys I didn't reuse the Aegon name with his second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth male child, but we know that this is the case. Which is a rather strong indication that recycling names in such a manner was not done in Westeros, possibly because it was seen as distasteful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is a good example of the sort of irrational arguments that too often make it pointless to discuss with you.

The idea that Lyanna would name her son Aegon is based on a combination of:

— the fact that Rhaegar named his first son Aegon because he thought there was no better name for a king, and the fact that Rhaegar thought his son Rhaegar was TPTWP

— the plausible possibility that Lyanna already knew that Rhaegar's son Aegon was dead by the time she birthed and named her own son by Rhaegar

Nobody suggested that Rhaegar named two of his children Aegon, or that Lyanna named her son Aegon knowing/believing that Rhaegar's eldest son was still alive, or that was usual for Targaryens to apply the same name to multiple of their children.

The scenario proposed for Lyanna naming her son Aegon isn't comparable to any other scenario from the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

A lot of people have come to the conclusion that Jaehaerys is a very likely Targ name for Jon without including a twin. It's nice that you've come up with a complicated explanation, but I'm not sure who you're trying to convince with it. If the point is to talk about Jon's name that's fine, but if it's to try and prove a twin based on a name theory...it's off topic.

I don't think it is off-topic at all. At the end of the day, R+L=J is still a theory like R+L=J&M. GRRM has never confirmed that R+L=J in the books.

GRRM has confirmed Jon's mommy to HBO, but who is Jon's daddy and what does he do? Who did Lyanna have sex with? And are twins involved?!

Some people believe that Jon = Lyanna + Arthur Dayne, some believe in N+A=J, B+A=J, TOJ baby swap theories ... etc.

So if everyone in this thread is using a theory to predict Jon's name, why can't the R+L=J&M theory be used too? Why can't the theories I listed above be used too? Fair game.

Off course anyone who tries to bring up L+Arthur=J, N+A=J, B+A=J, or TOJ baby swap theories in any thread would have people racing to rebuttal the argument. It is an internet forum after all.

I have had my fair share of heated internet arguments when I first join this forum less than a year ago (I know, I'm still a baby here!). Early on, I have had a lot of people racing to rebuttal R+L=J&M, "Its R+L=J only! Like it has been for 20 years!" I don't mean to sound condescending in any way, but have you noticed lately when other people bring up the theory that Meera is Jon's twin ... no one is really racing to challenged it anymore, except you?

"R+L=J Only" is without a doubt the front-runner of all TOJ theories among millions of people around the world ... but have they read my R+L=J&M theories? "R+L=J"s Dark Side?

12 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Yes, again with Star Wars. And it's fine that you believe that, but the text thus far does not give any indication of it being likely. The only reason the Dany/Aegon as twin to Jon theories come close to working is because Ned goes to Starfall, and the Daynes are pro-Targ, so he could have given a Targ-looking twin into their care while he kept the Stark looking one

Booooooo to Lemon Tree-ers and baby swappers!!


R+L=J&M off-topic:

Spoiler


12 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Greek mythology is nice but not exactly a main inspiration for this series.

Maybe not Greek mythology, perhaps Roman mythology. Did you know the Roman God of War, Mars, came down to earth and had sex with a Princess Rhea Silvia (why does this name look so familiar??) and she gave birth to royal/godly twins? After a rebellion, the baby twins escaped under the care of others, and at one point was nursed by a she-wolf in a wolf's den.

12 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

And you're still missing the hair. The only Targs with brown hair were born to a lady of house Dondarrion.

Thanks for the Dondarrion shout out. They play a major part to R+L in my version.

It would have been easier if Arya had been a bastard, like their half brother Jon. She even looked like Jon, with the long face and brown hair of the Starks, and nothing of their lady mother in her face or her coloring. {Sansa I AGOT}

Meera Reed was sixteen, a woman grown, but she stood no higher than her brother. All the crannogmen were small, she told Bran once when he asked why she wasn't taller. Brown-haired, green-eyed, and flat as a boy, she walked with a supple grace that Bran could only watch and envy. {Bran I ASOS}

A small, sly people (some say they are small in stature because they intermarried with the children of the forest, but more likely it results from inadequate nourishment, for grains do not flourish amidst the fens and swamps and salt marshes of the Neck, and the crannogmen subsist largely upon a diet of fish, frogs, and lizards), they are quite secretive, preferring to keep to themselves. {TWOIAF}

12 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Also, GRRM has said that every major mystery in the series can be solved based on clues from the first book. Meera is not even mentioned in AGoT. I'm not sure Howland is directly mentioned either in AGoT ...

After that he remembered nothing. They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his. Ned could recall none of it. {Eddard I AGOT} Ned's thoughts while he was in the Winterfell crypts with Robert

Meera is secretly mentioned here, along with Jon: After that Ned remembered Jon Snow. Ned & Howland found Jon still holding Meera's body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken Meera's hand from Jon's. Ned could recall none of it in front King Robert or he will hunt & kill Jon & Meera.

12 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Also, GRRM has said that every major mystery in the series can be solved based on clues from the first book.

I know! And it becomes a fun re-read once we get final story of ADOS! All the hidden double meanings ... like Arya holding her Pointy End Needle with her left hand while she holds a torch in her right hand ... Jon accepting Longclaw (a sword that does not belong to him) with his left hand since his right hand is all bandaged up like a glove ... RHAEGo[L] being the Stallion that Mounts the World (and GRRM cleverly mentions the lost-in-translation between the Dothraki & Common Tongue languages a few paragraphs before) ... MiRRi Maz Duur and her wailing, singing, and dancing with blood magic (Dany, you shouldn't have trusted her like you wouldn't trust a half-train mule!) ... the final sentence in AGOT ... and lots more!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

— the fact that Rhaegar named his first son Aegon because he thought there was no better name for a king, and the fact that Rhaegar thought his son Rhaegar was TPTWP

What has the fact that Rhaegar thought his son was the promised prince to do with the choice of name? In the vision it is quite clear he picked a royal name fit for a king. There is no indication that he thought the promised prince needed a special (royal) name. One can imagine that Rhaegar might have wanted a special name for the promised prince, but one cannot cite his choice of the name for Aegon as evidence that Rhaegar wanted a special name for the promised prince as promised prince since he makes it clear he chose Aegon for his son because he expected him to be king one day.

An honest assessment of the evidence actually cites the text as given:

Quote

Viserys, was her first thought the next time she paused, but a second glance told her otherwise. The man had her brother’s hair, but he was taller, and his eyes were a dark indigo rather than lilac. “Aegon,” he said to a woman nursing a newborn babe in a great wooden bed. “What better name for a king?”
“Will you make a song for him?” the woman asked.
“He has a song,” the man replied. “He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire.” He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany’s, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. “There must be one more,” he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say. “The dragon has three heads.” He went to the window seat, picked up a harp, and ran his fingers lightly over its silvery strings. Sweet sadness filled the room as man and wife and babe faded like the morning mist, only the music lingering behind to speed her on her way.

It is quite clear up there that Rhaegar would also have named his firstborn son even if he had been convinced the boy wasn't the promised prince. Because he definitely was the son of the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne and thus expected to become king one day.

By comparison, we can be very certain that Lyanna never thought that her son by Rhaegar would be king one day. So why should she want to give him a king's name? That's the question we have to ask ourselves.

9 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

— the plausible possibility that Lyanna already knew that Rhaegar's son Aegon was dead by the time she birthed and named her own son by Rhaegar

Which is exactly what I addressed above when pointing out that no noble family - especially not the Targaryens - reused names of dead children for newly born children. Meaning even if Lyanna knew for a fact that Elia's Aegon was dead (which is not very likely - even if she heard rumors or reports she wouldn't have conclusive proof that the children were actually dead) chances are very that she would just reuse the name of Elia's dead son for her own.

9 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The scenario proposed for Lyanna naming her son Aegon isn't comparable to any other scenario from the past.

Sure it is, because it is just another birth. And the fact that Lyanna actually dumped her son in Ned's lap - who very effectively ensured the boy neither knew whose son he was nor what name he originally had (assuming he has an original name) - rather than making preparations to raise him as a Targaryen in exile or some savior guy in secret. If you are afraid for your child because of who his father and his family are, you are not rubbing said family identity in everybody's face by giving the child a well-known Targaryen name.

This in and of itself is rather strong evidence that Lyanna did either not buy into Rhaegar's mad beliefs or didn't even know about them.

I certainly can buy that Lya would have given the child a Targaryen name Rhaegar wanted it to have - if they talked about that before he left. Then she may have felt a duty to honor his wishes. But those would be names that do not include Aegon for obvious reasons. And I could even see her naming the child after his late father - because Rhaegar was the only Targaryen Lyanna Stark actually an emotional connection with - the house as such she should have loathed and hated, actually. But I've problems seeing her recycling the name of Elia's dead son because she for some reason thought that's what Rhaegar wanted. Because quite frankly, for Lyanna the delusions about 'the promised prince' should have died with Rhaegar on the Trident. It is a prophecy about a prince, and even if Lyanna believed into the prophecy while House Targaryen had not yet lost the war - her son is not born a prince. He is born the child of a dead prince from a dethroned and disgraced house. He is born nobody, basically. And Lyanna herself helped to ensure that he stayed that way.

The overwhelming conclusion of all prophecy nutcases at the end of the Rebellion should have been that it was all a bunch of baloney. And for Lya we don't even have any reason prophecy ever figured into any of her decisions and beliefs. Presupposing she does just so it can make sense she may have named her son Aegon is just not exactly a very rational way to address this question.

And that also extends to the general theory that Lyanna would given her child a Targaryen name at all. She could have decided to give the child a Stark name, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn said:

If Rhaegar goes with prophecy it would be better to name his third child after Eldric Shadowcaser, Neferion or Brandon the Builder.

Brandon was Lyanna's just dead brother and possibly the Last Hero. A name she could choose. But then, Ned would not need to chose another. Not that I think she chose a Targaryen name.

BTW, Eldric Shadowchaser. Has me believe the root problem was not the Others, but the Shadows. R'hllor, the God of Flame and Shadow, the antithesis of the Great Other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

So if everyone in this thread is using a theory to predict Jon's name, why can't the R+L=J&M theory be used too? Why can't the theories I listed above be used too? Fair game.

No one else is using a theory to predict his name. Everyone else is guessing a name based on the presumption of R+L=J being true. 

5 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

I have had my fair share of heated internet arguments when I first join this forum less than a year ago (I know, I'm still a baby here!). Early on, I have had a lot of people racing to rebuttal R+L=J&M, "Its R+L=J only! Like it has been for 20 years!" I don't mean to sound condescending in any way, but have you noticed lately when other people bring up the theory that Meera is Jon's twin ... no one is really racing to challenged it anymore, except you?

 

I've been away from the forums for a long time and I'm not tired of discussing this yet. Have you noticed that Mance = Rhaegar doesn't get discussed a lot anymore? That's because people are tired of pointing out that it's most likely baloney. Why is it any time someone says they "don't mean to sound condescending, but"...they immediately go to being condescending?

5 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

Booooooo to Lemon Tree-ers and baby swappers!!

The lemon tree thing, which I don't really get into much, comes directly from an email exchange someone had with GRRM and he refrained from explaining by saying "but that would be telling." Kind of implies there could be something to Dany's lemon tree recollection. 

There are two baby swaps in the books, one known, one purported by Varys. But what does that have to do with this anyway? Neither of us is claiming Jon was swapped, or his possible twin was swapped either.

5 hours ago, The Map Guy said:


R+L=J&M off-topic:

  Hide contents

 

Maybe not Greek mythology, perhaps Roman mythology. Did you know the Roman God of War, Mars, came down to earth and had sex with a Princess Rhea Silvia (why does this name look so familiar??) and she gave birth to royal/godly twins? After a rebellion, the baby twins escaped under the care of others, and at one point was nursed by a she-wolf in a wolf's den.

 

 

And Roman mythology is not a primary inspiration either. He's actually pretty much stayed away from the well known Greek and Roman tales. There's a bit of Norse and some other lesser known mythologies though.

5 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

R+L=J&M off-topic:

  Hide contents

Thanks for the Dondarrion shout out. They play a major part to R+L in my version.

It would have been easier if Arya had been a bastard, like their half brother Jon. She even looked like Jon, with the long face and brown hair of the Starks, and nothing of their lady mother in her face or her coloring. {Sansa I AGOT}

Meera Reed was sixteen, a woman grown, but she stood no higher than her brother. All the crannogmen were small, she told Bran once when he asked why she wasn't taller. Brown-haired, green-eyed, and flat as a boy, she walked with a supple grace that Bran could only watch and envy. {Bran I ASOS}

A small, sly people (some say they are small in stature because they intermarried with the children of the forest, but more likely it results from inadequate nourishment, for grains do not flourish amidst the fens and swamps and salt marshes of the Neck, and the crannogmen subsist largely upon a diet of fish, frogs, and lizards), they are quite secretive, preferring to keep to themselves. {TWOIAF}

After that he remembered nothing. They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his. Ned could recall none of it. {Eddard I AGOT} Ned's thoughts while he was in the Winterfell crypts with Robert

Meera is secretly mentioned here, along with Jon: After that Ned remembered Jon Snow. Ned & Howland found Jon still holding Meera's body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken Meera's hand from Jon's. Ned could recall none of it in front King Robert or he will hunt & kill Jon & Meera.

 

 

 

You're welcome. If you look at the approved artwork you'll see that the Starks have dark brown hair. The Reeds have plain brown or light brown. Those are different browns. And Meera doesn't have the long Stark face or any Targaryen features either.

TWOIAF is full of great information, but some of is it purposely false and we don't know which parts those are. It's written by a maester who can only write what he knows, and we don't know how much of what he knows is correct. It's like Sansa with  her un-kiss. GRRM is not going to give us everything--even when the series is finished there will still be things left unsettled, though hopefully that will mostly be on the historical side. And again, the overlord of the crannogmen is going to eat better than the smallfolk of them, as will the lord's children.

Howland, among other(s), found Ned holding Lyanna's body. There is no secret mention there, not even of Jon. Howland took Lyanna's hand from Ned's because Ned was holding his dead sister, in shock from his grief. There is no reason to think otherwise. Any babies would have been afterthoughts, and it's possible that the shock of the whole situation took all of the event from Ned's memory and he had to rely on Howland to remind him what had happened. Ned doesn't have to guard his thoughts in front of Robert. GRRM has to have Ned not thinking about certain things to keep the secrets going until GRRM is ready to reveal them, and shock-induced amnesia is a good way to do that.

Have you ever gone through all the books and complied a list of all the Targaryen symbolism around Meera? Cause I don't remember any, but I'll keep an eye out as I continue with my re-read.

There should be clues, and not "secret mentions" but actual clues. Lyanna's bed of blood is a clue that she had a child. Doesn't say if the child lived or not. Jon having more of the north in him than his brothers is a clue and goes along with the wolf blood that Lyanna and Brandon had. Ned never telling Cat who Jon's mother is is a major clue. I don't recall any clues in the text that might indicate a twin for Jon, nor have I seen any posted. The only so-called clue I've seen for a Jon twin is Alfie Allen's "Star Wars" comment, and that is by no means canon, nor is it likely that GRRM told the biggest secret of the series to the guy who played Theon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn said:

If Rhaegar goes with prophecy it would be better to name his third child after Eldric Shadowcaser, Neferion or Brandon the Builder.

The prophecy holds that a dragon/Targaryen will save mankind, so far as we know. Why would he choose a non-dragon name for a dragon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 10:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

I don't offer my opinions as evidence. I offer my opinions as opinions. And I check whether presented arguments have any merit. Which yours for the most part don't because you are trying to build a castle on sand.

That's a matter of opinion, I guess. More specifically, I would describe your counter-arguments as a mishmash of chaotic alternatives, misunderstandings, and irrelevancies which only exist for the sake of disagreement with this theory.

On 7/8/2019 at 10:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

I actually find a Stark name more likely for Jon Snow than a Targaryen name if Lya made the call. It was her son, and his father's family was essentially as dead as said father was. There is no reason for us to fantasize about Lyanna giving jack shit about House Targaryen or Targaryen names in light of all that. I'm not convinced she named the child Rhaegar, I just find that idea to be more convincing than her to use some traditional Targaryen name or the name of the child whose head was cracked open - and which was born by her rival. Not to mention the additional - and at this point baseless - assumption that Lyanna knew about the fate of Elia's children.

 

Incorrect by any reasonable standard. Perhaps you were motivated by a strong subconscious desire to describe your own writing at the beginning of this paragraph.

The assumption that Lyanna knew about the Sack of King's Landing is based on a few different things. Let's see: We know she definitely had access to the information via Ned. Possibly even before that per the ToJ dialogue. There's also her desperation in extracting the promise from Ned. She was afraid of something until he acceded, at which point "the fear had gone out of his sister's eyes." The surface reading is that Lyanna wanted to be buried in the Winterfell crypts, but it is almost universally accepted that her dying wish was for Ned to protect her child. This behavior, emphasized by the fear in her eyes, is consistent with knowledge of the sack.

Conclusion: She had access to the information and behaved as if she knew it. Based on these factors, I find it hard to assess the likelihood she knew about the sack as anything less than probable.

On 7/8/2019 at 10:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

I said we have no reason to believe Lyanna did give a fig about Rhaegar's prophecy nonsense. This isn't the same as I saying we know that Lyanna didn't believe in Rhaegar's prophecy nonsense - which I didn't because we don't have evidence for that, either. Don't you see the difference here? If we have no reason to believe Lya cared, it would be your job to convince us that she did. You are putting forth a theory so you should have evidence to back it up if you believe it. But you cannot do that without actual textual evidence on the issue - which we lack at this point. 

1

Only if it is a requirement of the theory, which this is not. I have suggested, as a possibility, that Lyanna may have been motivated in some part by her knowledge of Rhaegar's beliefs. I have also suggested that she may have simply decided to give her son the only boys' name she was certain that Rhaegar found suitable. There are a few different reasons, and combinations of reasons, she could have chosen that name, including selfish ones that have nothing to do with Rhaegar's wishes.

Quote

snip—Various arguments as to why Lyanna wouldn't have given her child a Targaryen name.

Counterargument: Lyanna was a Targaryen princess by marriage, and any child of hers by Rhaegar would be a Targaryen prince or princess by birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

That's a matter of opinion, I guess. More specifically, I would describe your counter-arguments as a mishmash of chaotic alternatives, misunderstandings, and irrelevancies which only exist for the sake of disagreement with this theory.

LOL, no. I don't find the theory all that bad, actually. Just your arguments in favor of it. 

4 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

The assumption that Lyanna knew about the Sack of King's Landing is based on a few different things.

The Sack is not the same as knowing about the fate of the children. I mean, you thick can you be, really? This is not a world where people get news in the internet. I would not bet that Lyanna in the middle of nowhere had good information that the rebels had won and King Aerys II was dead, but this is certainly possible. But details about the Sack as such, details about the fate of Princess Elia and her children? Not a chance. For one, because this was a hideous truth neither Tywin (whose men controlled Maegor's Holdfast and the corpses of the royal family until Robert arrived) nor Robert would have any reason to publicly spread. They would not mention that they had killed innocent women and children in official letters, just as Cersei did not mention the fate of Arya Stark in any of her letters to the Starks. All Robert and Tywin and Ned needed to do after KL was fallen was to spread word that the king was dead and that Robert was the new king.

And rumors based on reports from eyewitnesses attending the presentation of the bodies in the throne room would simply not have reached Lyanna in time - and even if they did, it wouldn't be the kind of knowledge Lyanna could or would rely on. 

George is very cautious of the fact that news travel slowly and become twisted as they are spread. He uses this plot device countless times in the story.

4 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Let's see: We know she definitely had access to the information via Ned.

That is irrelevant considering that she would have chosen a name for her child before that happened. I mean, we agree that the child was already born by the time Ned reached Lyanna, right? At least that's what people usually assume.

Also, Ned's entire personality - his decision to not torture Robert on his deathbed with the truth about Cersei's children, for instance - makes it nearly impossible that the man would actually 'ease' his sister's passing by telling her that Tywin Lannister had brutally killed Elia Martell and her children. I mean, honestly, what the hell would be the point of that?

4 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Possibly even before that per the ToJ dialogue. There's also her desperation in extracting the promise from Ned. She was afraid of something until he acceded, at which point "the fear had gone out of his sister's eyes." The surface reading is that Lyanna wanted to be buried in the Winterfell crypts, but it is almost universally accepted that her dying wish was for Ned to protect her child. This behavior, emphasized by the fear in her eyes, is consistent with knowledge of the sack.

It could be consistent with her knowing about the Sack, but it could also be consistent with her being simply afraid for the life of her child. Robert slaying Rhaegar and making herself king could be enough for her to be afraid. News about Aerys II being killed at the hands of Jaime Lannister, a sworn brother of the Kingsguard (which, as per the fever dream - bad evidence, but still... - could have been known at the tower), and King Robert have convinced her that her child by Rhaegar was in mortal danger.

She does not need to know about the fate of Elia and her children to be afraid.

And again - if she knew about that and if she was afraid for the child's life it should actually motivate to not choose a Targaryen name for the child. Especially not for a child which actually looked like her, not like his father.

4 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Conclusion: She had access to the information and behaved as if she knew it. Based on these factors, I find it hard to assess the likelihood she knew about the sack as anything less than probable.

Well, that's just faulty reasoning.

4 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Only if it is a requirement of the theory, which this is not. I have suggested, as a possibility, that Lyanna may have been motivated in some part by her knowledge of Rhaegar's beliefs.

Which beliefs to you mean here? Rhaegar had no beliefs about giving the promised prince a special name? He named his firstborn son - a future king in his opinion - a king's name. But he never named him Aegon because he thought that was a fitting name for the promised prince. 

4 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I have also suggested that she may have simply decided to give her son the only boys' name she was certain that Rhaegar found suitable.

But that's the thing - Rhaegar would have found another name suitable, wouldn't he, assuming he ever thought about a name for his third child? He already had an Aegon, so no need for another. And since Lyanna's child would not become after House Targaryen had been overthrown there was no need to give that child a king's name. If Lyanna had wanted her child to be a Targaryen raised by Targaryen loyalists to eventually claim the Targaryen throne she wouldn't have given the boy to Ned of all people.

4 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

There are a few different reasons, and combinations of reasons, she could have chosen that name, including selfish ones that have nothing to do with Rhaegar's wishes.

Care to illuminate us about those 'selfish reasons'?

As I laid out above we can also make a case why Lyanna named her child Aerys Targaryen. That's possible, too.

My issue here is simply to actually assess the probability of the various naming ideas. And there I think it is rather obvious that it is reasonably high that Lyanna chose a name she and Rhaegar had talked about earlier (which wouldn't have been either Rhaenys or Aegon, for obvious reasons) if we assume Lyanna still wanted to honor Rhaegar's wishes when she died. In fact, the best hint that the child may actually have had a Targaryen name before it was named Jon Snow is the fact that the new name was Jon. If Lyanna had named it Brandon or Rickard it is less likely that Ned would have felt the need to change the name (although not impossible since he may have intended to reserve such proper Stark names for his own children, not intending to have two sons named Brandon).

On a personal level I can see her honoring Rhaegar himself by giving her child - the only thing of her and Rhaegar that would live - Rhaegar's own name. It is certainly also possible that because of her bond with Rhaegar and her own opinions she may have chosen a Targaryen name she thought Rhaegar may have chosen despite the fact that they never talked about a name. Then she could have chosen a name like Aemon or Jaehaerys or even Daeron because she may have thought that's what Rhaegar would have done on the basis of what they talked about when they were together.

But the idea she would have chosen the name Aegon is just not very likely. She may not have known the other Aegon was dead. Even if she knew (or rather: believed it to be true), people don't recycle names in such a manner.

4 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Counterargument: Lyanna was a Targaryen princess by marriage, and any child of hers by Rhaegar would be a Targaryen prince or princess by birth.

Well, no. The house was destroyed and disgraced when Lyanna's child was born. Jon Snow's own ridiculous existence as Eddard Stark's bastard is proof of that. If Lyanna cared to uphold her own child's 'Targaryen identity' she would have never given it to Ned.

And it is quite clear that wives don't have to give their children the (royal) names of their husbands. Cersei's children all have Lannister names, not Baratheon names, despite the fact that they were raised as Baratheons and named with the knowledge and permission of King Robert. In fact, the idea that Rhaegar would have wanted to choose the name for his child by Lyanna is also, at this point, without basis. He never loved Elia, so he likely treated her differently than Lyanna. Lyanna - who he apparently loved - he might have asked for her opinion for a name for their child.

I mean, you are aware that Lyanna could have also asked Ned for the favor of uniting her child with his uncle Viserys and his grandmother Queen Rhaella on Dragonstone, right? Apparently, that's not what she did. Although I certainly admit that we don't know she did not. Ned's thoughts about the promises he made also involve lies. Could be Lyanna died begging her brother to do his best to make her son king one day - and Ned may have lied when he promised to do that. Or only keeping half his promise - the part about keeping the boy safe and not the part about what she wished for the boy's future.

But I don't actually think that's particularly likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

The prophecy holds that a dragon/Targaryen will save mankind, so far as we know. Why would he choose a non-dragon name for a dragon?

Prophecy doesn't say that dragon/Targaryen will save mankind only if he/she has Valyrian/Volantenese name. If the danger that humanity must be saved is The Second Long Night then it is logical to name him someone who played crucial role in The First Long Night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

No one else is using a theory to predict his name. Everyone else is guessing a name based on the presumption of R+L=J being true.

Isn't that using a theory?

20 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I've been away from the forums for a long time and I'm not tired of discussing this yet.

Oh, you missed out on some funny things ... like a Top Secret committee being formed within the forum lol

20 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Have you noticed that Mance = Rhaegar doesn't get discussed a lot anymore? That's because people are tired of pointing out that it's most likely baloney.

Post #222 & Post #241 of this thread itself.

20 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Why is it any time someone says they "don't mean to sound condescending, but"...they immediately go to being condescending?

For some people its their intentions. It was certainly not mine. When I first typed up that response, I realized it may be offensive in a way I didn't mean ... but it was to get a point quickly instead spending a hour trying explain an off-topic theory. At the same time, there are people here who verbally attack other people on this forum, but they should politely attack the argument instead. I don't sense anything nasty between our exchanges, so cheers. :cheers:

Suggesting that 'no one else is attacking my R+L=J&M theory except you' is not an attack on you personally ... its to point out the consensus of people who actually read my theory ... and the consensus' verdict is ... silence. Which I accept as a compliment since I started out in this forum with nasty people coming at me with pitchforks & torches.

20 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

You're welcome. If you look at the approved artwork you'll see that the Starks have dark brown hair. The Reeds have plain brown or light brown. Those are different browns. And Meera doesn't have the long Stark face or any Targaryen features either.

What is this artwork you are talking about? I haven't seen any art on Meera Reed, except the HBO show.
https://www.salon.com/2015/08/28/the_latest_game_of_thrones_fan_theory_about_jon_snow_is_just_about_insane_enough_to_be_right/

I guess I kinda see the shade a little different in the actors' hair. But at the same time, Meera is suppose to have green eyes and Jon is suppose to have grey eyes here ... and I don't see it. Also in the book, Meera has a hair knot. I wonder why George, who was part of the casting early on in the TV show, choose to untangle TV Meera's knot. 

20 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

TWOIAF is full of great information, but some of is it purposely false and we don't know which parts those are.

So TWOIAF is not as canon as approved artwork? I would still like to see this artwork if its not the HBO version.

20 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

There should be clues, and not "secret mentions" but actual clues.

Jon & Meera are the same age.

Ned & Howland were at TOJ together, and both claim to be the father of each, without each of the kids knowing.

Lyanna died in a bed of blood during childbirth, but she was young and athletic. I know childbirth can be dangerous in those times, but wouldn't giving birth twice be at least twice more dangerous?

20 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Have you ever gone through all the books and complied a list of all the Targaryen symbolism around Meera?

Yes

Here's one from ACOK, Meera's FIRST introduction:

At the foot of the hall, the doors opened and a gust of cold air made the torches flame brighter for an instant. Alebelly led two new guests into the feast. "The Lady Meera of House Reed," the rotund guardsman bellowed over the clamor. [...]

A gust of air cold as ice mixed with the torches' fire ... brought more light. Does the Song of Ice & Fire create a stronger Lightbringing?
I know it sounds extremely weird if someone has never read a R+L=J&M theory ... but out of every character in ASOIAF, is Meera Reed the Princess that was Promised? Will her Song of Ice & Fire play along with music in the vertical silvery strings of Rhaegar's harp? That would be a shocking twist to all ASOIAF readers.

Anyways, we are going way off topic here ... feel free to discuss more in my flagship thread ... the Marvelous R+L=J&M [Part VI] - ADOS Endgame Prediction: The Dark Meera Saga.

Edited by The Map Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

(...)

Suggesting that 'no one else is attacking my R+L=J&M theory except you' is not an attack on you personally ... its to point out the consensus of people who actually read my theory ... and the consensus' verdict is ... silence. Which I accept as a compliment since I started out in this forum with nasty people coming at me with pitchforks & torches.

(...)

:lmao:The silent consensus is that none of your theories is worth arguing for or against. They are usually based on your wishful thinking, usually obsolete (unproven years ago) and are never based on text evidence, but on confirmation biased demonstrations. And yes, I do mean to sound condescending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 6:14 AM, Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn said:

Prophecy doesn't say that dragon/Targaryen will save mankind only if he/she has Valyrian/Volantenese name. If the danger that humanity must be saved is The Second Long Night then it is logical to name him someone who played crucial role in The First Long Night.

I didn't say the dragon had to have a Valyrian name per the prophecy. Yes, in a way that does make perfect sense, however we already know that Rhaegar thought Aegon was TDtwP and he gave him a traditonal Targaryen/Valyrian name. Both of his prior children had typical Targ names. While it's possible he learned something that made him change tactics (like whatever beyond his own feelings dictated that Lyanna be involved) and thus changing naming strategies, I wouldn't say it's a given.

However, Lyanna is a wild card. She might have disregarded Rhaegar's wishes about the name, and she might have known things about the first Long Night that Rhaegar didn't know...like anything Old Nan had to say on the matter. It might all come down to what Lyanna wanted to name the baby, in which case it could be Rickard or Eddard, or even Benjen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

Isn't that using a theory?

I consider it more accepting it as very nearly canon than using it per se. It doesn't involve any major analyzation of naming patterns. Which reminds me, did you see the one that claims Daenerys is Ashara Dayne's daughter because her name sounds like a mashup of Dayne and Aerys? 

23 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

Oh, you missed out on some funny things ... like a Top Secret committee being formed within the forum lol

Darn. That does sound fun. :D

23 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

Post #222 & Post #241 of this thread itself.

Two posts isn't really what I meant. I'm talking two or three threads posted on the subject per day. That particular theory (which is some of the baloney to which I referred) got so ... what's the word? Controversial? Annoying? Un-get-rid-of-able? Whatever the word, Ran got involved and posted that Rhaegar Targaryen is f-ing dead. I think an exclamation point might have been involved. He rarely comments on any theories, because he does have some inside info.

23 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

I don't sense anything nasty between our exchanges, so cheers. :cheers:

Cheers right back. :cheers:

23 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

What is this artwork you are talking about? I haven't seen any art on Meera Reed, except the HBO show.

I guess I kinda see the shade a little different in the actors' hair. But at the same time, Meera is suppose to have green eyes and Jon is suppose to have grey eyes here ... and I don't see it. Also in the book, Meera has a hair knot. I wonder why George, who was part of the casting early on in the TV show, choose to untangle TV Meera's knot.

Aside from TWOIAF, there are the approved games, and the calendars. Fan art can be awesome, but it's not always accurate. If you go to the wiki, the image currently posted on Meera's page is one of the game depictions. Jon Snow always has very dark hair in those. As Arya looks like Jon, like a Stark, she'll have the same dark hair.

He was in on casting, but he probably didn't have hair and makeup approval. If he did, Joffrey and Tommen's hair would have been longer and curly, Daenerys would have had no hair after spending the night in Drogo's pyre, and Oberyn Martell's hair would have been a longer than it was--and the widow's peak he and the Sand Snakes all have would have been in evidence.

23 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

So TWOIAF is not as canon as approved artwork? I would still like to see this artwork if its not the HBO version.

I meant the info about malnutrition amongst the crannogmen might not be canon. The maester dismisses the idea that short stature for them might have something to do with marrying into the CotF, but Meera's descriptions of the bog magic her father does seem to indicate the maester may be wrong. GRRM does like to present an interesting (and sometimes magical) idea and then have the maester writing the account add that it's probably wrong and there's probably a perfectly logical or scientific reason for whatever it is. Remember the Citadel is rather against magic.

23 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

Jon & Meera are the same age.

Ned & Howland were at TOJ together, and both claim to be the father of each, without each of the kids knowing.

Lyanna died in a bed of blood during childbirth, but she was young and athletic. I know childbirth can be dangerous in those times, but wouldn't giving birth twice be at least twice more dangerous?

Other people who are the same age as Jon and Meera: Robb, Bella, Sam, Margaery, Desmera Redwyne, Robert Frey, Lucos Chyttering, and Jeyne Westerling.

I wouldn't bet Meera doesn't know about what happened at the ToJ. She was surprised that Ned never told Bran the story about Harrenhal. Ned didn't speak about certain things specifically because of the danger of anyone figuring out that Jon was Rhaegar's son (which he must think for his actions to make sense)--and the Harrenhal story has clues about that. Howland apparently shares more with his kids. Whether that's a temperament thing or he doesn't think the secrets are dangerous, I couldn't say.

It's actually not twice as dangerous, for the most part. I nearly bled to death with my first child, and I was older than Lyanna and had the benefit of modern medical care. Childbirth is still dangerous.

23 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

Anyways, we are going way off topic here ... feel free to discuss more in my flagship thread ... the Marvelous R+L=J&M [Part VI] - ADOS Endgame Prediction: The Dark Meera Saga.

Okey dokey. I'll check it out. And if you would be so inclined, I invite you to pick apart my theories. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 11:53 AM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Daenerys is Ashara Dayne's daughter because her name sounds like a mashup of Dayne and Aerys? 

Seems like a neat word-play, but the story doesn't have a point if Dany is half Dayne. She already has a little Dayne in Aerys' blood. Besides, I think Arthur would not let that happen. I still think Drogo's version of Dan-Ares is the biggest clue to her name's word-play.

On 7/12/2019 at 11:53 AM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Darn. That does sound fun. :D

Too bad the theory itself got banned. It had some dark secrets not safe for viewing on twitter.

On 7/12/2019 at 11:53 AM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

He was in on casting, but he probably didn't have hair and makeup approval. If he did, Joffrey and Tommen's hair would have been longer and curly, Daenerys would have had no hair after spending the night in Drogo's pyre, and Oberyn Martell's hair would have been a longer than it was--and the widow's peak he and the Sand Snakes all have would have been in evidence.

I understand the logistics of certain hair and make up stuff ... but how hard is it to tie a knot to a girl's hair? It was almost intentional to make Meera's actor look similar to Jon's actor.

I consider a lot of discrepancy between the show and the books as intentional clues to things ... Season 1 to 4 only, and as long as its not an obvious logistical issue. Some things included Jon & Jaime meeting and shaking hands, talking about swords (with the Pointy End Needle being forged in the background), Catelyn talking about how she prayed to the gods to let Jon live when he was a sick baby, Arya Stark & Tywin Lannister surprisingly getting along, talking about Targaryen history and the House Dustin sigil. Even new characters like Locke ... who replaced Vargo Hoat ... in being responsible for chopping of Jaime's hand. I like how Bran (as a hostage Beyond the Wall) got Jaime's revenge when Locke was killed at Craster's Keep.

And the biggest clue that everyone brushed off because it seemed like a meaningless story at the time: the introduction to ORsOn Lannister. Most people didn't understand the significance of it, but I did. Remember ORsOn? Jaime and Tyrion chatting about how their cousin smashed innocent beetles to the music of khuu khuu khuu khuu. Tyrion watched the entire time, not understanding why ORsOn did it, but felt sorry for the beetles. I liked when they mention that ORsOn was killed by a mule's kick, they had a close-up on Jaime. I also liked how they chatted about kin-slaying and there was no word for cousin-slaying (did you know there is a word for nephew-slaying, but no word for niece-slaying?). I also liked how the bells rang out in the end their chat ... and not D&D's bells.

On 7/12/2019 at 11:53 AM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Other people who are the same age as Jon and Meera: Robb, Bella, Sam, Margaery, Desmera Redwyne, Robert Frey, Lucos Chyttering, and Jeyne Westerling.

But only Ned & Howland are confirmed at TOJ.

On 7/12/2019 at 11:53 AM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I nearly bled to death with my first child

Sorry to hear. Glad you are okay. I hope it was worth it. I wouldn't know the pain, my wife did all the work lol.
But back to the point, you had that experience for child birth ... imagine you were pregnant with twins and you had to do it all over again after the first one ... immediately.

In Westeros times, with the lack of modern medicine ... it would be even more dangerous to give birth to twins.

Even in Star Wars, Padme had futuristic medicine, and she still died giving birth to twins!

On 7/12/2019 at 11:53 AM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Okey dokey. I'll check it out. And if you would be so inclined, I invite you to pick apart my theories. :)

Will do, only after my little one sleeps and gives me free time ... which is so hard to come by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 11:54 PM, Jô Maltese said:

:lmao:The silent consensus is that none of your theories is worth arguing for or against. They are usually based on your wishful thinking, usually obsolete (unproven years ago) and are never based on text evidence, but on confirmation biased demonstrations. And yes, I do mean to sound condescending.

Oooooo an openly condescending challenger that read my Endgame theory ... anyone else? or does he stand alone?

I think I have been pretty good at investigating, spotting patterns that people missed out on. I wrote a theory on how ASOIAF would end based on what I have investigated. I cited some sources publicly, but not all of them .... not even close. 

If you feel like my theories are not worth arguing for or against, then I might as well never write anymore. Its too bad, I have unlocked the Benjen/Coldhands wordplay with another type of dimension that was not in Top Secret Theory ... and GRRM even threw in a French reference about it in the books. But it's probably useless anyways since my wordplay skills are bias. I guess it was bias of me that I wanted "Viserion" to mean Visioner and Ser Lion. I know, I know ... "Viserion" most likely has something to do with Tyrion and GRRM will have a good story about it!

I'm sure you are the type of person to write that good story if GRRM personally told you the official meaning of a character's name. You seem like the type of person who would write a time-travel story about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

Oooooo an openly condescending challenger that read my Endgame theory ... anyone else? or does he stand alone?

I think I have been pretty good at investigating, spotting patterns that people missed out on. I wrote a theory on how ASOIAF would end based on what I have investigated. I cited some sources publicly, but not all of them .... not even close. 

If you feel like my theories are not worth arguing for or against, then I might as well never write anymore. Its too bad, I have unlocked the Benjen/Coldhands wordplay with another type of dimension that was not in Top Secret Theory ... and GRRM even threw in a French reference about it in the books. But it's probably useless anyways since my wordplay skills are bias. I guess it was bias of me that I wanted "Viserion" to mean Visioner and Ser Lion. I know, I know ... "Viserion" most likely has something to do with Tyrion and GRRM will have a good story about it!

I'm sure you are the type of person to write that good story if GRRM personally told you the official meaning of a character's name. You seem like the type of person who would write a time-travel story about it.

I haven't read your theory but would just like to say the condescending poster above does not speak for all of us - not even the majority. 

I'm not saying I would or wouldn't buy into the theory just saying that I believe most of us appreciate the hard work that goes into a theory whether we agree with it or not & that is what keeps the forum around. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 10:20 PM, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. I don't find the theory all that bad, actually. Just your arguments in favor of it. 

 

Well, that's just bullshit because my arguments are pretty mainstream. I know because I saw them become mainstream a couple of years ago after I had been making them beginning in 2014. It's possible some of my arguments are more specific than you're used to seeing, but that's probably because I'm more familiar with the evidence than most. Again, having been pointing some of it out for five years now.

Quote

The Sack is not the same as knowing about the fate of the children. I mean, you thick can you be, really? This is not a world where people get news in the internet. I would not bet that Lyanna in the middle of nowhere had good information that the rebels had won and King Aerys II was dead, but this is certainly possible. But details about the Sack as such, details about the fate of Princess Elia and her children? Not a chance. For one, because this was a hideous truth neither Tywin (whose men controlled Maegor's Holdfast and the corpses of the royal family until Robert arrived) nor Robert would have any reason to publicly spread. They would not mention that they had killed innocent women and children in official letters, just as Cersei did not mention the fate of Arya Stark in any of her letters to the Starks. All Robert and Tywin and Ned needed to do after KL was fallen was to spread word that the king was dead and that Robert was the new king.

2

I think you're trying to ask if I can really be that thick. Assuming that is the case, well, I don't know if I can be specifically that thick, but thick enough to assume you'd respond in good faith, and/or have the ability to understand what was very obviously implied in my writing. Without a doubt, it is the fate of Elia, and especially her children, that is relevant to Lyanna at that time.

Quote

And rumors based on reports from eyewitnesses attending the presentation of the bodies in the throne room would simply not have reached Lyanna in time - and even if they did, it wouldn't be the kind of knowledge Lyanna could or would rely on. 

 

You don't know any of this. You're taking what might be a coin flip and deciding that it would have come down on the side that suits you. This is probably your co-favorite tactic to employ. The other being, declaring a character would or would not behave in a way that suits you.

Quote

George is very cautious of the fact that news travel slowly and become twisted as they are spread. He uses this plot device countless times in the story.

1

It only has to travel as fast as Ned, as I've stated.

Quote

That is irrelevant considering that she would have chosen a name for her child before that happened. I mean, we agree that the child was already born by the time Ned reached Lyanna, right? At least that's what people usually assume.

I am not making any assumptions about when Jon was born. In fact, as time has passed I have come to think that Jon may have been born as late as during the fight between Ned and the KG. Probably a little before, but I'm uncertain.

Quote

Also, Ned's entire personality - his decision to not torture Robert on his deathbed with the truth about Cersei's children, for instance - makes it nearly impossible that the man would actually 'ease' his sister's passing by telling her that Tywin Lannister had brutally killed Elia Martell and her children. I mean, honestly, what the hell would be the point of that?

 

What if she asked? If she didn't already know, it makes sense to assume any character in her position would for obvious reasons.

Quote

It could be consistent with her knowing about the Sack, but it could also be consistent with her being simply afraid for the life of her child. Robert slaying Rhaegar and making herself king could be enough for her to be afraid. News about Aerys II being killed at the hands of Jaime Lannister, a sworn brother of the Kingsguard (which, as per the fever dream - bad evidence, but still... - could have been known at the tower), and King Robert have convinced her that her child by Rhaegar was in mortal danger.

She does not need to know about the fate of Elia and her children to be afraid.

 

It could. You are right, however, the emphasis on the fear going out of her eyes after Ned agreed to the promise points us in a more specific direction. Lyanna already knew she was dying, so that's not what she was afraid of since Ned was able to put her at ease before she dies. And, sure, she could have been afraid for the life of her child either way, but the murders of Elia and her children add an infinite amount of urgency to that prior paranoia. After all, before hearing about the sack, by which I mean the slaughter of Rhaegar's wife and children, Lyanna may have had some hope that Robert would spare her child out of love for her or Ned.

Quote

And again - if she knew about that and if she was afraid for the child's life it should actually motivate to not choose a Targaryen name for the child. Especially not for a child which actually looked like her, not like his father.

1

This is just as ridiculous an argument as ever, yet it keeps popping up. First, it's not the Aegon part that even matters in this scenario, it's the of House Targaryen part that counts. Second, why on earth do you people think that the child would have to be called Aegon, or whatever, Targaryen by Ned and company? It's like you people get so caught up in your ridiculous hypotheticals that you forget Ned actually came up with a name to hide the boy's true identity. Because his true identity is as the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna whether or not he has a Targaryen name. The fact that Ned came up with the name Jon Snow, and the lie about his origins, means he was capable of doing so whether or not he had a true name.

Quote

Well, that's just faulty reasoning.

 

What, no long-winded response here? The one place where an explanation is actually called for. Just a bare declaration. That's unusual and convenient.

Quote

Which beliefs to you mean here? Rhaegar had no beliefs about giving the promised prince a special name? He named his firstborn son - a future king in his opinion - a king's name. But he never named him Aegon because he thought that was a fitting name for the promised prince. 

1

The two things are intertwined though. Rhaegar believes his son and heir is the PtwP with the SoIaF; Rhaegar chose the name Aegon for his son and heir, asking—"What better name for a king?"

So, the fact is Rhaegar chose the name Aegon for the child he believed to be the PtwP and SoIaF. That's what Lyanna would have known, hypothetically.

Quote

But that's the thing - Rhaegar would have found another name suitable, wouldn't he, assuming he ever thought about a name for his third child? He already had an Aegon, so no need for another. And since Lyanna's child would not become after House Targaryen had been overthrown there was no need to give that child a king's name. If Lyanna had wanted her child to be a Targaryen raised by Targaryen loyalists to eventually claim the Targaryen throne she wouldn't have given the boy to Ned of all people.

1

Yes, a girl's name. The text I point to in support of my argument is Rhaegar appearing to look right at Daenerys in all her violet-eyed, silver-haired Valyrian glory while he says that he must have another child for his third dragon head. That's on top of the intuitive and old argument about him reusing the names of the original three heads of the dragon. Which is a notable piece of evidence regardless of what you think about it.

Ned might actually be the perfect person in this hypothetical. He was a very powerful great lord who possessed the ability to fracture the STAB alliance. If that happens, a Targaryen restoration is not out of the question. It's all very hypothetical, so I'm not invested in the idea, but it can be interesting to think about.

Quote

Care to illuminate us about those 'selfish reasons'?

 

For example, it could be as simple as wanting her son to be named Aegon without considering Rhaegar's wishes. I don't think that's the case, but it's possible.

Quote

As I laid out above we can also make a case why Lyanna named her child Aerys Targaryen. That's possible, too.

My issue here is simply to actually assess the probability of the various naming ideas. And there I think it is rather obvious that it is reasonably high that Lyanna chose a name she and Rhaegar had talked about earlier (which wouldn't have been either Rhaenys or Aegon, for obvious reasons) if we assume Lyanna still wanted to honor Rhaegar's wishes when she died. In fact, the best hint that the child may actually have had a Targaryen name before it was named Jon Snow is the fact that the new name was Jon. If Lyanna had named it Brandon or Rickard it is less likely that Ned would have felt the need to change the name (although not impossible since he may have intended to reserve such proper Stark names for his own children, not intending to have two sons named Brandon).

 

Probability doesn't really exist in literature. Something either is or isn't, the in-universe odds are irrelevant. In actuality, fiction is where we often look to see the highly improbable come true—wouldn't you say? In the event that the probability to which you refer means the odds that the author made X choice, then you're going about that the wrong way as well. Being able to connect several dots in a row is worth more than the ability to make up reasons why some of those dots shouldn't be connected. The best argument I've read that Jon's name is not Aegon is the theory arguing it is Aemon. Don't get me wrong, a person cannot simply claim to have connected a series of dots ignoring gaping holes in their theory. But as we both know, that is not the case with this theory which has a good amount of support among the fandom these days. So, even if you can come up with 8,000 reasons why not, it really only takes one reason why. If it's true it's true.

Which is exactly what I've argued on many occasions, some of them in this thread.

Quote

On a personal level I can see her honoring Rhaegar himself by giving her child - the only thing of her and Rhaegar that would live - Rhaegar's own name. It is certainly also possible that because of her bond with Rhaegar and her own opinions she may have chosen a Targaryen name she thought Rhaegar may have chosen despite the fact that they never talked about a name. Then she could have chosen a name like Aemon or Jaehaerys or even Daeron because she may have thought that's what Rhaegar would have done on the basis of what they talked about when they were together.

But the idea she would have chosen the name Aegon is just not very likely. She may not have known the other Aegon was dead. Even if she knew (or rather: believed it to be true), people don't recycle names in such a manner.

1

Rhaegar Jr. is just a bizarre theory based on nothing. Sure, Lyanna could've chosen a name she thought Rhaegar might have liked, or she could have chosen one she knew he did. You seem to think the former is more likely.

It doesn't have to be "likely" in-universe since that's not a real standard as I explained above. I mean, was it likely or unlikely that Dany would hatch the three dragon eggs gifted to her? In-universe, it was completely improbable but was also simultaneously fairly obvious to many readers that she would.

Quote

Well, no. The house was destroyed and disgraced when Lyanna's child was born. Jon Snow's own ridiculous existence as Eddard Stark's bastard is proof of that. If Lyanna cared to uphold her own child's 'Targaryen identity' she would have never given it to Ned.

 

None of that matters more than the fact that Jon was born a Targaryen prince, and that is all the reason Lyanna needed to give him a traditional Targaryen name. You can pretend otherwise to the detriment of your own credibility all you like. I'm not going to humor this nonsense any further though.

Quote

And it is quite clear that wives don't have to give their children the (royal) names of their husbands. Cersei's children all have Lannister names, not Baratheon names, despite the fact that they were raised as Baratheons and named with the knowledge and permission of King Robert. In fact, the idea that Rhaegar would have wanted to choose the name for his child by Lyanna is also, at this point, without basis. He never loved Elia, so he likely treated her differently than Lyanna. Lyanna - who he apparently loved - he might have asked for her opinion for a name for their child.

 

Lyanna wouldn't necessarily have been naming the child in the way you suggest. She simply could have been applying the name Rhaegar chose for his son and heir, which is what her child now was.

Nope. Way to double down on misunderstanding baseless. The distinction as such does not erase the precedent, and therefore basis, upon which the assumption is made. The assumption may turn out to be faulty, but that does not mean it was baseless, to begin with.

Quote

I mean, you are aware that Lyanna could have also asked Ned for the favor of uniting her child with his uncle Viserys and his grandmother Queen Rhaella on Dragonstone, right? Apparently, that's not what she did. Although I certainly admit that we don't know she did not. Ned's thoughts about the promises he made also involve lies. Could be Lyanna died begging her brother to do his best to make her son king one day - and Ned may have lied when he promised to do that. Or only keeping half his promise - the part about keeping the boy safe and not the part about what she wished for the boy's future.

But I don't actually think that's particularly likely.

 

I'm pretty sure I've also said stuff like this, more or less.

Edited by J. Stargaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×