Jump to content
CassieSol919

Jon Snow's Real Name

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

And how is something possibly becoming mainstream effecting the merits of an argument ;-)?

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

No, I actually look at the novels and how the novels usually portray news traveling from one end of Westeros to another. Even rather detailed official reports from, say, the Wall are not exactly taken at face value by the people reading them. But reports and rumors that are spread not mainly via maesters sending ravens to other maesters are much less reliable.

There is no reason to expect that Lyanna received a letter via raven from an eye witness of the presentation of the royal corpses to King Robert, for instance. And even such a report would not necessarily have convinced Lyanna Stark. I mean, she could have believed in the prophecy of the promised prince so much that she would have simply deny the possibility that Elia's son was dead, no?

But chances simply are not that high that Elia know - presupposing or assuming she knows is, at this point, just not warranted in light of what we know about how news travel in this world.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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

See above.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

Well, what little we know about Ned's talk with Lyanna implies the woman was already dying there. Ned does not recall a long-winded conversation about the murder of children in the sources we have - he recalls an afraid, dying sister, one who could die in peace after he made his promise. That doesn't imply a long and detailed conversation, and thus it is not warranted to assume that such a conversation took place - especially not to explain something else.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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

Then we could actually assume that Ned would have lied - just as he lied to Robert on his deathbed to ease his passing. Not sure why Lya should care about those children all that much. She never saw Prince Aegon as far as we know, and whether Rhaenys had accompanied Elia and Rhaegar to Harrenhal we don't know.

Again, there is no reason to believe that Lya's fear for her child is based on knowledge about the fate of Rhaegar's children. Cersei doesn't need Stannis to, say, kill Joffrey to know he would also kill Myrcella and Tommen (and she herself). She just has to know something about Stannis.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

Or not. But even if you were right about all that, this doesn't really have to affect or influence the name she chose for her child.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

Well, perhaps the boy was named Jon Targaryen after all ;-). After Jon Connington, say. Or Ned actually chose a name for the child he decided was to be his son, honoring a man he thought to be honored - Jon Arryn. Then the change of name would have to do nothing with Jon's original name but only with Ned's wishes to have a son named Jon.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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?"

But it is just faulty reasoning to assume that the person who reverenced one half of the intertwined thing - the royal name - was given to the intertwined things because they are intertwined and not because why he says he chooses that name - which is that the child would one day be king.

The fact that Rhaegar himself was named 'Rhaegar' and not 'Aegon' also suggests that House Targaryen did not expect that the promised prince to get/bear the name of the Conqueror. Doesn't mean Rhaegar would have shared the opinion of his parents (or whoever chose his name), of course, but there is another promised prince candidate who wasn't named Aegon. And that certainly does not indicate anyone had an obsession that he would be named Aegon.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

If she knew that, she would also have known that he chose the name Aegon because he expected the boy to be king - something Rhaegar/Lyanna would not have expected their child would become since Rhaegar already had an heir, and something Lyanna most definitely didn't think any child of Rhaegar's would become since House Targaryen had already been overthrown by that time.

Lyanna wouldn't have known that Rhaegar chose the name Aegon for a boy he also believed was the promised prince because he was the promised prince - because the text already confirmed that this is not the case.

The idea that Rhaegar thought the promised prince should be named Aegon is nonsense. It contradicts the text.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

No, that's just nonsense. Rhaegar looking at Dany is an indication she is connected to this prophecy - either because her song is the Song of Ice and Fire, and she is the promised princess, or because she is the third head of the dragon. It has nothing to do with Rhaegar's own thoughts but with how the vision is connected to Daenerys herself.

The old idea that Rhaegar gave a damn about the Conqueror and his sister-wives when he named his children never had any basis. If he wanted to do that, his oldest daughter would have been Visenya, not Rhaenys. The idea that Rhaegar cared about having daughters also seems to be utterly without any textual basis, especially since ADwD strongly implied Rhaegar wanted sons, plural. Not to mention that nothing indicates the promised prince is in any way connected to Aegon and his sister-wives. It is much older than they, and Rhaegar - who read the prophecy - did know that.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

Yeah, I guess that's also the reason why Ned dumped Jon Snow at the Wall, right?

And the STAB alliance? There is no textual evidence for that thing, either.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

Yeah, but that goes for any other name, too, right ;-)?

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

When I talk about in-universe probability then this is short-hand for 'the probability that George, writing characters as real people, would create a scenario that's at odds with other established facts/practices', i.e., for instance, names not getting recycled among siblings if a child dies lowers the probability that George suddenly does that.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

LOL, there is one precedent for that in Rhaegar's own family the second Daemon Blackfyre was named after the first, his own father. There is no precedent for a child getting the name of his dead older brother - nowhere in all of the ASoIaF literature.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

See above. The author established rules for his fictional world and for how things do happen in this world. And since he actually strives to keep things consistent he is not likely to fundamentally break with such things.

For instance, the more magic we see the more we learn what kind of magic works in this world. This doesn't mean we can predict exactly what kind of magic is to be expected in the future, but we can, at this point, exclude that people are suddenly going to practice Hogwarts magic, say.

But my point never was to say Jon Snow cannot be another Aegon. I just say it is one of the least likely possibilities.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

LOL, no. The fact that a person may be seen as a Targaryen prince is no reason at all that said child would get a Targaryen name. Targaryen children can and do have non-Targaryen names. And Lyanna's child clearly is not born a Targaryen prince. The Targaryens had been overthrown, and the child's father was already dead. Daemon Blackfyre claimed to be a king, but his sons never were princes either, were they?

The issue with Lyanna simply is: Did she give a crap about her child being the son of a Targaryen prince? You say she did or must have - and you have no evidence for that at all.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

Well, Jaehaerys I firstborn son was also an Aegon, a child that died shortly after birth. Did he reuse that name when his second son was born? No. Did Aerys' reuse the names he had used for dead sons? No. So why you do think it is likely that Lyanna of all people would want to do that?

Not to mention that dead Rhaegar no longer had anything his son could inherit. Rhaegar's son by Lyanna was heir of nothing when he was born.

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

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.

You cannot just interpret Rhaegar-Elia the same was as Rhaegar-Lyanna. Rhaegar didn't love Elia, but he did (supposedly) love Lyanna. And love does affect people to some degree, meaning Lyanna could have wielded more influence - power even - than Elia ever had over Rhaegar. Influence and power that could also have extended to the names of their children.

We also don't know whether Rhaegar chose the name for Rhaenys. Could have been a suggestion by Elia, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 7:56 AM, Lord Varys said:

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.

I think the not reusing dead babies’ names in Westeros is the strongest argument against Aegon as his birth name. That being said, I don’t think it’s completely implausible Lyanna could’ve found out about Elia and co. since Ned still had to travel from KL to Storm’s End to Dorne and there were still certainly loyalists out there. I do think it’s unlikely, though. I mostly don’t like ‘Aegon’ as his name since it seems like a cop out. We already have another Aegon after all.

I always thought it’d be hilarious if Jon was named Duncan, but as more plausible names go I prefer Daeron. The arguments for Aemon are strong, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And how is something possibly becoming mainstream effecting the merits of an argument ;-)?

:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And how is something possibly becoming mainstream effecting the merits of an argument ;-)?

You said you didn't think the theory, in general, was all that bad, but that my arguments, specifically, were. I was saying that my arguments by and large are the mainstream arguments of the theory. So, unless you think some obscure version of this theory is the one that is not all that bad, I'm calling bullshit on your criticism of my arguments in particular.

Just wanted to clear that up quick. I'll take another look at your post later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with @Lord Varys here. There is just no reason to believe Lyanna or Rhaegar would have named their child Aegon, whether or not Lyanna knew about the fate of Elia's children. 

-There is no precedence suggesting names are reused when an older child dies

- There is nothing to suggest Rhaegar thought the name "Aegon" had to be the name for tPtwP. The fact that he says it is a name for a King doesn't mean or even suggest another son by Rhaegar (who would never be King) would need the same name. Lya either knew Aegon was dead & therefore knew the Targaryens had been overthrown - in which case she knew Jon would not be King or she didn't know the Targaryens had been overthrown, thought Aegon was still alive, & therefore knew Jon would never be King

- It's an odd practice to name children the same name whether or not one dies

- Really the only reasons I can see for Jon to have had a Targaryen name at all is to add drama to the story. I think he must've had a Targaryen name though because I don't think Lyanna would have named him Jon - that is a Ned thing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

There is just no reason to believe Lyanna or Rhaegar would have named their child Aegon <snip>

 

Jon was tired. I need sleep. He had been up half the night poring over maps, writing letters, and making plans with Maester Aemon. Even after stumbling into his narrow bed, rest had not come easily. He knew what he would face today, and found himself tossing restlessly as he brooded on Maester Aemon's final words. "Allow me to give my lord one last piece of counsel," the old man had said, "the same counsel that I once gave my brother when we parted for the last time. He was three-and-thirty when the Great Council chose him to mount the Iron Throne. A man grown with sons of his own, yet in some ways still a boy. Egg had an innocence to him, a sweetness we all loved. Kill the boy within you, I told him the day I took ship for the Wall. It takes a man to rule. An Aegon, not an Egg. Kill the boy and let the man be born." The old man felt Jon's face. "You are half the age that Egg was, and your own burden is a crueler one, I fear. You will have little joy of your command, but I think you have the strength in you to do the things that must be done. Kill the boy, Jon Snow. Winter is almost upon us. Kill the boy and let the man be born." - ADwD, Jon II

Maester Aemon gives Jon the same counsel that he once gave his brother, Aegon V. "Kill the boy within you [...] It takes a man to rule. An Aegon, not an Egg." And then, "Kill the boy, Jon Snow. Winter is almost upon us. Kill the boy and let the man be born."

(Handy key: Boy = Egg, man = Aegon.)

22 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

There is nothing to suggest Rhaegar thought the name "Aegon" had to be the name for tPtwP. The fact that he says it is a name for a King doesn't mean or even suggest another son by Rhaegar (who would never be King) would need the same name. Lya either knew Aegon was dead & therefore knew the Targaryens had been overthrown - in which case she knew Jon would not be King or she didn't know the Targaryens had been overthrown, thought Aegon was still alive, & therefore knew Jon would never be King 

1

I'm not saying that is the case. It wouldn't surprise me if it was, but it's not a necessity for the theory. Honestly, are you reading my posts or just LV's replies? None of what you say in this paragraph is relevant to the theory or my arguments.

Edited by J. Stargaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Likely Luke Strong said:

I think the not reusing dead babies’ names in Westeros is the strongest argument against Aegon as his birth name. That being said, I don’t think it’s completely implausible Lyanna could’ve found out about Elia and co. since Ned still had to travel from KL to Storm’s End to Dorne and there were still certainly loyalists out there. I do think it’s unlikely, though. I mostly don’t like ‘Aegon’ as his name since it seems like a cop out. We already have another Aegon after all.

I always thought it’d be hilarious if Jon was named Duncan, but as more plausible names go I prefer Daeron. The arguments for Aemon are strong, too.

It is not impossible, sure, but pretty improbable - and even more improbable is that such knowledge would have influenced Lyanna's name choice.

The case as given for the Aegon name is as ridiculous as this:

1) Rhaegar told/made Lyanna believe that the promised prince was supposed to be named Aegon. Wrong for a number of reasons.

2) Lyanna believed her son would be the promised prince. Wrong or very unlikely for a number of reasons.

3) Lyanna cared about promised prince stuff and wanted to give her child the same Targaryen name Rhaegar wanted for him or went alone with such a name. No basis or indication in the text.

4) Lyanna didn't find it distasteful/unpleasant to give her son the name of his dead half-brother. Very unlikely.

5) Lyanna knew for a fact/believed strongly enough that Elia's Aegon was dead so that she felt justified to name her son Aegon even if it was distasteful. Unlikely.

Any other Targaryen name scenario obviously suffers none of these problems.

Which is why one should give this idea the treatment it deserves. And that's not me saying that I think it is particularly credible ;-).

1 hour ago, J. Stargaryen said:

You said you didn't think the theory, in general, was all that bad, but that my arguments, specifically, were. I was saying that my arguments by and large are the mainstream arguments of the theory. So, unless you think some obscure version of this theory is the one that is not all that bad, I'm calling bullshit on your criticism of my arguments in particular.

I can give this idea more credit if people just throw out Aegon as an idea. But if you want to build a complex case you have to do better.

1 hour ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Just wanted to clear that up quick. I'll take another look at your post later.

You certainly can, but you don't have to do that for my sake. I think I've said pretty much all I can on the topic.

1 hour ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I'm not saying that is the case. It wouldn't surprise me if it was, but it's not a necessity for the theory. Honestly, are you reading my posts or just LV's replies? None of what you say in this paragraph is relevant to the theory or my arguments.

But you have used this routine when challenged on the idea why anyone would want to name another child of Rhaegar's Aegon. And it certainly is mutually exclusive because Rhaegar wanted his firstborn son to be an Aegon and a king, not his second born. The second born wasn't even the promised prince in his head.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

- It's an odd practice to name children the same name whether or not one dies

Just to be clear: In our world this wasn't uncommon when a lot of children died. People didn't use all that many names in certain periods. However, the Westerosi and the Targaryens in particular don't seem to be doing this. So there is really no reason to assume such a name-recycling would happen under any circumstances.

And nobody every thought the promised prince should have a special name. That's just a fan theory based on essentially nothing but weirdo symbolism, and fans trying to tie the three dragon heads of the prophecy to Aegon I and his sisters - when in fact it is likely going to turn out the heraldic three-headed dragon of House Targaryen is a reference to the ancient prophecy - and Aegon and his sisters mistakenly deluded themselves at one point that they were the three dragon heads of ancient prophecy. Just like Rhaegar did.

In that sense, the prophecy sort of evokes Aegon and his sisters but that's just them ripping of the prophecy, not Rhaegar referencing them.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

- Really the only reasons I can see for Jon to have had a Targaryen name at all is to add drama to the story. I think he must've had a Targaryen name though because I don't think Lyanna would have named him Jon - that is a Ned thing. 

Sure. But as I said - Ned could also have wanted to name the child he made his son Jon - after Jon Arryn. He also named his other son Robb, after Robert. It is not impossible that Ned didn't want his bastard to be a Rickard or Brandon Snow - and thus made him a Jon Snow. We have no real reason to even assume Jon Snow has a Targaryen name. Rhaegar certainly could have wanted to give such a name - but he was not around to actually name his child. So pretty much everything is possible is possible here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Jon was tired. I need sleep. He had been up half the night poring over maps, writing letters, and making plans with Maester Aemon. Even after stumbling into his narrow bed, rest had not come easily. He knew what he would face today, and found himself tossing restlessly as he brooded on Maester Aemon's final words. "Allow me to give my lord one last piece of counsel," the old man had said, "the same counsel that I once gave my brother when we parted for the last time. He was three-and-thirty when the Great Council chose him to mount the Iron Throne. A man grown with sons of his own, yet in some ways still a boy. Egg had an innocence to him, a sweetness we all loved. Kill the boy within you, I told him the day I took ship for the Wall. It takes a man to rule. An Aegon, not an Egg. Kill the boy and let the man be born." The old man felt Jon's face. "You are half the age that Egg was, and your own burden is a crueler one, I fear. You will have little joy of your command, but I think you have the strength in you to do the things that must be done. Kill the boy, Jon Snow. Winter is almost upon us. Kill the boy and let the man be born." - ADwD, Jon II

Maester Aemon gives Jon the same counsel that he once gave his brother, Aegon V. "Kill the boy within you [...] It takes a man to rule. An Aegon, not an Egg." And then, "Kill the boy, Jon Snow. Winter is almost upon us. Kill the boy and let the man be born."

(Handy key: Boy = Egg, man = Aegon.)

I'm not saying that is the case. It wouldn't surprise me if it was, but it's not a necessity for the theory. Honestly, are you reading my posts or just LV's replies? None of what you say in this paragraph is relevant to the theory or my arguments.

I did read all the posts & I understand it isn't a necessity for the theory but it was an argument of yours if I'm not mistaken. I just don't make the same connections you do with this. I was just pointing out the bulleted areas that I thought, if true, would lend credence to Jon being named Aegon & since they are not true indicate he probably wasn't named Aegon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Just to be clear: In our world this wasn't uncommon when a lot of children died. People didn't use all that many names in certain periods. However, the Westerosi and the Targaryens in particular don't seem to be doing this. So there is really no reason to assume such a name-recycling would happen under any circumstances

I understand. I'm not familiar with other periods name picking but was just talking about Targaryen's & Westeros in general. 

 

31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And nobody every thought the promised prince should have a special name. That's just a fan theory based on essentially nothing but weirdo symbolism, and fans trying to tie the three dragon heads of the prophecy to Aegon I and his sisters - when in fact it is likely going to turn out the heraldic three-headed dragon of House Targaryen is a reference to the ancient prophecy - and Aegon and his sisters mistakenly deluded themselves at one point that they were the three dragon heads of ancient prophecy. Just like Rhaegar did.

In that sense, the prophecy sort of evokes Aegon and his sisters but that's just them ripping of the prophecy, not Rhaegar referencing them.

Right. I never really understood the thinking that Rhaegar somehow correlated Aegon & co with the prophecy - but even if he did it doesn't mean he would have to name them the same. 

 

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But as I said - Ned could also have wanted to name the child he made his son Jon - after Jon Arryn. He also named his other son Robb, after Robert. It is not impossible that Ned didn't want his bastard to be a Rickard or Brandon Snow - and thus made him a Jon Snow. We have no real reason to even assume Jon Snow has a Targaryen name. Rhaegar certainly could have wanted to give such a name - but he was not around to actually name his child. So pretty much everything is possible is possible here

Agreed. Anything is possible here. Lyanna could have named him Jon - but I don't think that's the most likely scenario. IMO Lyanna probably wouldn't have named her son Jon, Ned probably wouldn't have changed the babies name if he didn't need to (if it wasn't a Targ name) so one of two things are likely - either the baby wasn't named so Ned named him Jon OR the baby had a Targ name so Ned changed it to Jon. But like you said it is really all guessing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I can give this idea more credit if people just throw out Aegon as an idea. But if you want to build a complex case you have to do better.

So you're saying you prefer completely unsupported ideas. I believe you.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But you have used this routine when challenged on the idea why anyone would want to name another child of Rhaegar's Aegon. And it certainly is mutually exclusive because Rhaegar wanted his firstborn son to be an Aegon and a king, not his second born. The second born wasn't even the promised prince in his head.

1

We've been debating this for years now and you still have, or pretend to have, a beginner's grasp on how the theory works.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I did read all the posts & I understand it isn't a necessity for the theory but it was an argument of yours if I'm not mistaken.

 

I view it as a possibility, but not a necessity. As you know, Rhaegar calls the child Aegon and then asks rhetorically, "What better name for a king?" He then goes on to discuss the child's supposed destiny as the PtwP with the SoIaF.

I agree with anyone who says that Rhaegar thinks Aegon is the best choice for a future king. Based on the limited evidence available, I would also agree with anyone who considered the default assumption to be, that this is at least the primary, and possibly the sole reason the name was chosen. On the other hand, the name simply cannot be disentangled from the destiny Rhaegar believes is in store for the child. So, we should consider the possibility that the default is assumption is wrong. It's based entirely on two whole sentences, after all. Not exactly what I would call written in stone, just all we have so far. But, even if the default assumption is correct, and the name and destiny are more or less coincidence, it's not a deal-breaker for Lyanna naming Jon Aegon. She doesn't have to know why Rhaegar chose the name Aegon for his son and heir, only that he did. Personally, I think there is probably more to it but it is not required that she know specifics.

Of course, it's completely fine if you don't believe the theory to be true, but I just wanted to address a couple of misconceptions.

Share this post


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

So you're saying you prefer completely unsupported ideas. I believe you.

We've been debating this for years now and you still have, or pretend to have, a beginner's grasp on how the theory works.

I view it as a possibility, but not a necessity. As you know, Rhaegar calls the child Aegon and then asks rhetorically, "What better name for a king?" He then goes on to discuss the child's supposed destiny as the PtwP with the SoIaF.

I agree with anyone who says that Rhaegar thinks Aegon is the best choice for a future king. Based on the limited evidence available, I would also agree with anyone who considered the default assumption to be, that this is at least the primary, and possibly the sole reason the name was chosen. On the other hand, the name simply cannot be disentangled from the destiny Rhaegar believes is in store for the child. So, we should consider the possibility that the default is assumption is wrong. It's based entirely on two whole sentences, after all. Not exactly what I would call written in stone, just all we have so far. But, even if the default assumption is correct, and the name and destiny are more or less coincidence, it's not a deal-breaker for Lyanna naming Jon Aegon. She doesn't have to know why Rhaegar chose the name Aegon for his son and heir, only that he did. Personally, I think there is probably more to it but it is not required that she know specifics.

Of course, it's completely fine if you don't believe the theory to be true, but I just wanted to address a couple of misconceptions.

I gotcha. Don't you think though, that if Rhaegar asked Lyanna to name their child Aegon - the same name as his older brother - that Lyanna would have asked why? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I gotcha. Don't you think though, that if Rhaegar asked Lyanna to name their child Aegon - the same name as his older brother - that Lyanna would have asked why? 

Rhaegar definitely never asked her to do that. Had he been around when she surprised him with a son, he would've chosen a different name. Aemon seems like a good bet in that scenario.

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.

Share this post


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

We've been debating this for years now and you still have, or pretend to have, a beginner's grasp on how the theory works.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Rhaegar definitely never asked her to do that. Had he been around when she surprised him with a son, he would've chosen a different name. Aemon seems like a good bet in that scenario.

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.

Agreed but he already had a son with that name. I guess I understand your line of thinking, I just don't agree. The fact that he already had a son named Aegon makes it less likely, not more IMO, that Lyanna would've picked that name. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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. 

Nothing gets past the spider.

Edited by nyser1
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this topic very interesting and I also find myself sympathizing / agreeing with several opinions here. 

First of all, I totally understand why someone would say his "real" name is Jon Snow (maybe Jon Stark) and nothing else. This is the name he identifies with, and I also find it hard to imagine that he might start calling himself by another name whatever should happen. That, however, does not preclude other ways of Jon being associated with another name. 

Since we know that Jon was named by Ned, the question what he would have been called by his biological parents is absolutely valid. We may not agree on whether we should consider that name his "real" name or not, but that's really up to anyone's personal understanding of what "real" means in this context.

Obviously, there is no solid evidence either way, but that doesn't mean we cannot like a beautifully built up and workable theory. The idea that Jon's biological parents chose or at least were considering a name for him is rather probable. That's what parents normally do. What they agreed on and whether Lyanna made some changes to the original decision (for example, in the scenario where Rhaegar had expected a girl and hadn't thought of a boy's name at all) and whether Lyanna told that name to Ned in the first place (even if she didn't tell him, it doesn't mean she didn't think of one) are open questions. I can imagine that Rhaegar ever only considered a female name, so Lyanna had to make her own decision when Jon was born (her decision being obviously overruled by Ned), but I can also believe that Rhaegar may have thought of both a boy's and a girl's name just in case - coming up with two names for a child is not the height of foresight, nor does it require too much effort, after all. My guess is that if that "original" name ever actually comes up in the story, it will be mainly for symbolic reasons - or maybe to make it easier for Jon to think of what his destiny might have been if it had been in accordance with what a different name might indicate, or maybe to make it easier for the author to write (perhaps in a nice, poetic way) about his feelings. For the above reasons, I confess I'm mainly interested in the symbolic values of the discussed theories or proposed names.

I find great symbolic value in the Aegon theory - seven rubies, seven Aegons to go with the Seven Kingdoms and so on, also the parallel Maester Aemon drew between Egg and Jon (and other parallels that can be drawn between the two of them). The idea that Lyanna named the child after a recently killed sibling by a different mother was a bit shocking at first but, after considering that it would happen in the context of Rhaegar's recent death as well and that she, grieving and bereft, may have decided to do this in honour of Rhaegar's only choice of a male name, albeit it had been for another child, I find such a decision considerably more understandable (by Westerosi standards at least). In that situation, I don't think Lyanna would necessarily have given much thought to the question whether naming the child after a dead sibling would correspond to the Targaryen (or even Westerosi) traditions or not (it would be different if there was a specific taboo against it), I think it would have to be a highly emotional decision in this case.

Now, after giving the child this name or any other Targaryen name, would Lyanna ask Ned to actually call her child by that name? Not necessarily, not if she was begging him to save the child's life (and not to make him somehow, eventually, a Targaryen king, which I regard as much less likely). She may or may not have mentioned the baby's name (also depending on how much time she had and how much communication took place between them), but she could tell Ned the name simply by referring to her baby by that name or she could specifically tell the name to Ned so Ned could tell it to her child one day - even if she understood that, for the time being at least, her child couldn't, in reality, be called by a Targaryen name. (We don't know how well she realized - especially before Ned's appearance - that the Targaryen era had ended for good, that her child's identity would probably have to be hidden for the rest of his life, not just temporarily.)

So Ned gave a name to the baby because he either didn't know what name Lyanna (and Rhaegar) had had in mind or knew that name but considered it totally unsuitable in the given situation. That means, if Lyanna was thinking of a Northern name, she failed to mention it to Ned - unless perhaps the name was Brandon, which Ned might have also wanted to change out of consideration for Cat. (Having your husband's bastard in the house is difficult enough to put up with, it would have seemed rather unnecessarily cruel to name that bastard child after her - recently killed - first love, especially when that name is also the quintessential male name in your husband's family, which your own firstborn son didn't get.) I confess, I don't find much symbolic value in having another, "secret" Northern name for Jon, so I don't think it's likely that he will ever be associated with another Northern name. Unless... unless perhaps he gets associated with Brandon Snow, who wanted to kill a dragon... But forgive me for an especially active imagination today. This is by no means a theory. 

The real drawbacks I see for the Aegon theory have nothing to do with probability or feasibility, but with further symbolic associations. To start with, seven Aegon Targaryens may sound impressive, but I still think there are already too many of them. Weirdly, the name Jon Snow is much more unique. More importantly, Aegon is most of all the Dragon for me, the Conqueror. Jon may be his descendant, but I still find it difficult to associate him with conquest - he is a protector, first and foremost, the sword and the shield to protect people, not some conqueror, in fact, the very opposite of a conqueror, in my opinion. He did have Daeron I as his hero early on, but I think he got past that ideal in ADwD and realized that his mission and even his values were different. It was Robb who eventually emulated the Young Dragon - and I don't think either Daeron I or Aegon I would be the right kind of role model for Jon. True, Aegon I united the different kingdoms, but at what cost and with what purpose? After the Conqueror, there were three Aegons who just wouldn't add anything to Jon's arc by symbolic association, in my opinion. Aegon V is the only Aegon who has redeemed the name in my eyes, and he is the Aegon to have the most parallels with Jon, that is true... Am I right in thinking that there haven't been many Aegons since the Conqueror who were given that name without being expected to become a king? Aegon V was one like that, which is quite interesting in this context... Then there is (F)Aegon ... I don't know. The name is far too used, I guess, far to heavy with symbolism. Then again, since it's a really big name in-world, it could be quite dramatic if Jon had the opportunity to refuse this name - either publicly or just in his own thoughts.

Having said all that, I will also say that I find Aemon just as likely and the symbolic associations more appealing in this case than in the case of Aegon. If Rhaegar still considered a male name (just in case), Aemon would be a likely choice, as he would want his second son to help his firstborn son (TPTWP) and there is a sort of tradition of having an Aemon by the side of an Aegon. What is more, he himself apparently held Maester Aemon in great regard.

Symbolically speaking, we know that there have been two important Aemons in ASOIAF history and lore. One of them is Maester Aemon (OK, not really a historical figure yet), who went to the Wall and is associated with ice (the Wall) and wisdom. The other is the Dragonknight, who became Lord Commander (albeit not of the Night's Watch) and is associated with fire (Dragonknight) and courage. Both of them are protector figures rather than conquerors, and the personal qualities they are associated with are the very qualities Jon Snow prays for: "Give me the wisdom to know what must be done and the courage to do it." I quite like the idea of Jon Snow being - symbolically - the "Ice-and-Fire Aemon". It is also a fact that he actually says this on the pages of the book: "I'm Prince Aemon the Dragonknight," Jon would call out... In AGoT, when he leaves Castle Black to join his brother, he thinks he is not Aemon Targaryen, so he won't make the same choice as Maester Aemon did, but eventually he does make the same choice, so could it be that he is more of an "Aemon Targaryen" than he would think?

Edited by Julia H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Agreed but he already had a son with that name. I guess I understand your line of thinking, I just don't agree. The fact that he already had a son named Aegon makes it less likely, not more IMO, that Lyanna would've picked that name. 

 

Aegon is a counterintuitive choice specifically for that reason, so I think we see this much the same way. If Jon=Aegon, I think it's likely GRRM decided Jon's true name was Aegon Targaryen first, and then later decided to give Elia's son the same name in order to discourage people from figuring it out. In other words, he wanted to give the audience a reason to doubt Jon=Aegon. Otherwise, it would be easily guessed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

snip

 

Fantastic post.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The case as given for the Aegon name is as ridiculous as this:

1) Rhaegar told/made Lyanna believe that the promised prince was supposed to be named Aegon. Wrong for a number of reasons.

2) Lyanna believed her son would be the promised prince. Wrong or very unlikely for a number of reasons.

3) Lyanna cared about promised prince stuff and wanted to give her child the same Targaryen name Rhaegar wanted for him or went alone with such a name. No basis or indication in the text.

4) Lyanna didn't find it distasteful/unpleasant to give her son the name of his dead half-brother. Very unlikely.

5) Lyanna knew for a fact/believed strongly enough that Elia's Aegon was dead so that she felt justified to name her son Aegon even if it was distasteful. Unlikely.

 

 

1) A possibility, NOT a requirement.

2) A possibility, NOT a requirement.

3) You're just adding a condition to the faulty argument from #2 with "cared" in place of "believed." I'm unsure if you intended that to be a distinction. But again, what you've constructed is a possibility, NOT a requirement. The basis that any of these possibilities might be true is the series of textual hints that Jon was named Aegon by his mother. The collection of those hints and the underlying logic comprise a theory which is widely recognized by the fandom. Describing these possibilities as having "no basis or indication in the text" is uncharitable as well as wrong. I'm not sure what is to be expected evidence-wise at this point in the story when we still have lots to learn about RLJ.

4) Based on what? What do you know about Lyanna that informs this judgment?

5) When you say it like that... You combined three different elements here: Knowledge of the sack; feeling justified; even if using the name was distasteful. 1) I view this as probable, at least. 2) I don't know if "justified" is the word I'd use. She must have felt it was allowed at least. Possibly there was even some sense of obligation. 3) If she named her son Aegon, I think it's likely she didn't believe it was distasteful or unpleasant. But sure, I suppose I agree with your Unlikely judgment of this uncharitable combination.

Quote

Any other Targaryen name scenario obviously suffers none of these problems.

You make a really good point. Aegon is the only one that stands out as different from the rest. It's the only name we're all pretty sure can be ruled out right away. The only one that has a real obstacle. Which is interesting, because if it didn't, it would almost surely be the most popular choice. With that in mind, it's worth noting that the perceived obstacle looks more like a flimsy pretext to many upon closer inspection.

Edited by J. Stargaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Really the only reasons I can see for Jon to have had a Targaryen name at all is to add drama to the story.

20 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Lya either knew Aegon was dead & therefore knew the Targaryens had been overthrown - in which case she knew Jon would not be King or she didn't know the Targaryens had been overthrown, thought Aegon was still alive, & therefore knew Jon would never be King

If Jon is a Targaryen Prince, then it makes perfect sense, to name him Aegon. Because 'prince' and 'dragon' is the same word in Valyrian language, and in English language word 'Aegon' seems to be based on the word 'dragon', same as Aragorn (secret prince from The Lord of the Rings, who was raised by his (many times great) uncle, same as Jon was raised by Ned), and Arthur Pendragon (another secret prince).

Also, it's possible, very unlikely but possible, that Lyanna didn't knew, what was the name, or even gender of Elia's and Rhaegar's child (children). If Arya is really similar, to what kind of person Lyanna was, then it's possible, that Lyanna had zero interest in gossip column, information about court, and who is who there. She could have been ignorant in that department. And later, when she hooked up with Rhaegar, it's unlikely, that what she was interested in, is to discuss with him his wife and her children. Maybe, she had warned Rhaegar, that she never wants to hear from him anything about his family, because it was upsetting her. And the same thing was said to other people around them, such as those Kingsguards, that were with Lyanna at Dorne. So, they knew that Elia and her children are dead, but Lyanna, based on her own previous request, was left uninformed. Thus, when she gave birth to a boy, to her knowledge, there was no reason, why she shouldn't name her son Aegon. She could have been unaware, that Rhaegar already had a son with that same name. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Megorova said:

If Jon is a Targaryen Prince, then it makes perfect sense, to name him Aegon. Because 'prince' and 'dragon' is the same word in Valyrian language, and in English language word 'Aegon' seems to be based on the word 'dragon', same as Aragorn (secret prince from The Lord of the Rings, who was raised by his (many times great) uncle, same as Jon was raised by Ned), and Arthur Pendragon (another secret prince).

Also, it's possible, very unlikely but possible, that Lyanna didn't knew, what was the name, or even gender of Elia's and Rhaegar's child (children). If Arya is really similar, to what kind of person Lyanna was, then it's possible, that Lyanna had zero interest in gossip column, information about court, and who is who there. She could have been ignorant in that department. And later, when she hooked up with Rhaegar, it's unlikely, that what she was interested in, is to discuss with him his wife and her children. Maybe, she had warned Rhaegar, that she never wants to hear from him anything about his family, because it was upsetting her. And the same thing was said to other people around them, such as those Kingsguards, that were with Lyanna at Dorne. So, they knew that Elia and her children are dead, but Lyanna, based on her own previous request, was left uninformed. Thus, when she gave birth to a boy, to her knowledge, there was no reason, why she shouldn't name her son Aegon. She could have been unaware, that Rhaegar already had a son with that same name. 

Sorry I'm still not buying it. 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. What would make her more likely to name the baby Aegon rather than Aemon, Daemon, Daeron, Viserys, or any other male Targ name? 

I'm assuming she wouldn't have known the link between the name Aegon & Prince/Dragon you stated.

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

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. 

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

×