Jump to content
EvanSol919

Jon Snow's Real Name

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Megorova said:

Did GRRM ever anywhere said, that Star Wars was one of his inspirations for ASOIAF, or is it all (pseudo connections between ASOIAF and SW) are fan-made?

That was a jape :-)

Share this post


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

That's not an answer, that's avoidance. His ultimate survival does not matter for his choice between his two heritages, and we know for fact, because GRRM has said so, that he is going to learn about his true identity. Whether he survives or not, he will have to deal with the fact that Ned Stark was not his father.

He's going to become king the very moment he learns he's Rhaegar's son, like this was the reason Rhaegar (and Lyanna) had him in the first place? The reason why Rhaegar sired him, had nothing to do with ruling. Why should Jon learning his heritage be just about ruling, and not, you know, saving the world?

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

I think you are conflating what Jon might like and what he might have to do. Those are two different things. Did Jon want to become Lord Commander, did he like being one? Hardly. Yet, he took up the duty best he could. Kingship may well be thrust upon him, and he would feel obligated to accept knowing that a unifying force is required.

Jon did not chose to be Lord Commander, but he did to join the Night's Watch. There is no "Night's Watch" that could give him the Seven Kingdoms. And if he does become king - should he just cast his own name aside, the name everybody knows him as? Because people will be like "Oh, he'd be an excellent king, but I don't like the name". The Westerosi will ignore the fact that he took NW vows, but the bastard name is where they'll draw the line?

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

As for the rest of Westeros not meaning a thing to him, that is nonsense. His treatment of the Wildlings has proved that he is able to think in much wider terms and that he takes seriously what he has sworn - to protect the realms of men.

Because all of Westeros is very rational? Why would someone from Dorne or the Vale accept him as king and not pull a Robb Stark and demand their independence? If the North has the right to self-determination, why not the other kingdoms? 

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

This is a completely different perspective, a different kettle of fish. It has nothing to do with Jon's perspective of his heritage and/or duty. 

It is something he'd face if he means to be king.

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Plus, as Rhaegar's son, he is not exactly a Northerner, he's an heir to the Targaryen dynasty, which quite a few were willing to support to the bitter end not so long ago.

He's been raised as a Northern man, and looks like one. Also, how many people will go "Hey, he's Rhaegar's son, he's king!" the moment they'll learn who he is, assuming of course his parentage becomes widely known? The majority of the Westerosi do not see the Targaryens as the legitimate rulers because they were overthroned. If Jon wins the throne by the power of might, he'll be king, but because he won a war. No throne will be handed to him. Only few truly believe the Targaryens to be the rightful kings. When Robert dies and everyone decides which king to back, how many go to Viserys and Daenerys (who are known to be alive in the Free Cities)? Barristan Selmy. All the others either support Joffrey, Stannis, Renly, Balon or Robb, which tells a lot about which house they consider to be the rulers of Westeros.

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Out of the everyone else, Dany is the only other person with reasonable claim to the throne. One or the other may relinquish their claim, or they can marry for the sake of unifying the realm. Unless both of them die, and/or someone else pulls the final world-saving act, then Tyrion or anyone else don't enter the equation at all. 

Dany (and Jon) has a claim only if you believe the Targaryens are the rightful rulers no matter what. A lot don't believe so, like I said. If people support her, it will be because she's got the power (dragons and a powerful army), or personal admiration of her, or because they believe she'll make the world a better place. Once she lands in Westeros and declares herself queen, how many are going to gather to her at once before she's got a victory, just because she's Aerys II's daughter and not for any other reason at all (like inadequacy of all other claimants, and dislike of them)? How many are going to be like "I don't need to know a single thing about her and her policy, she's a Targaryen and that's the only thing that matters"?

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Personal bias, then. The ending, per GRRM, will be bittersweet, so people won't get to eat their cake and keep it, too. There will be a price for what will be achieved. A universal victory may come at the cost of a personal loss. 

Yeah, personal bias, and the feeling that 'bittersweet' should be more about losing those you love and suffering a great deal before you get your happy ending than giving up a part of your identity to become a member of the Cooler, Worthier Family and sit a shiny chair.

Also my dislike of the fact that so many people tend to think of kingship as a reward for Jon being noble and good and likable, rather than a serious duty. And if Jon becomes king, I want him to be so because the author believes he can truly lead people, not because he happens to be a Targaryen, a family that no longer even rules Westeros and is (currently) of little importance to Jon.

Edited by Alyssa of House Arryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

You're forgetting a quote right from Ned's PoV: fever had taken her strength. In other words, she had been suffering from some kind of infection, and a profound one, if it had weakened her so much that she was only able to whisper. 

Ah yes, I did forget about the fever, so we do indeed have a 50:50 chance on how fast she died (as the fever could be a symptom of a complication beside blood loose and/or could have risen so fast she was indeed not able to make a decision about a name for her baby boy), but this doesn't suspend any of the objections @Alyssa of House Arryn made: that Lyanna might not be able to or not focussing on such mundane things at all: her child is in grave danger, his name completely unimportant with 80% of both his families dead as far as she knows. She doesn't know if Ned would want to keep her child save, she doesn't know if Robert would buy the story of Ned's bastard or a found child, if not other people would start inquiring and getting her son in danger etc.pp.

And all this with a "feverish mind", with or without a major blood loose, her mind wandering in circles and most likely quite off most of the time. So even with the fever I still think she was focussing on her child's safety, not his name. Because, if she would be able to think about his name, Alyssa's point would apply: She would choose a neutral name, not a Valyrien one, as such a name would endanger her child even further.

It's time we get the next book, and with it maybe some new hints as to what has happened back then... and the story finally moving forward :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Morte said:

Ah yes, I did forget about the fever, so we do indeed have a 50:50 chance on how fast she died (as the fever could be a symptom of a complication beside blood loose

Not "could". Is. Fever is the body's defence mechanism against infectious agents. Lyanna contracted some infection, and since we know that she had given birth ("bed of blood"), the connection is quite obvious. 

3 hours ago, Morte said:

 but this doesn't suspend any of the objections @Alyssa of House Arryn made: that Lyanna might not be able to or not focussing on such mundane things at all: her child is in grave danger, his name completely unimportant with 80% of both his families dead as far as she knows. She doesn't know if Ned would want to keep her child save, she doesn't know if Robert would buy the story of Ned's bastard or a found child, if not other people would start inquiring and getting her son in danger etc.pp.

And all this with a "feverish mind", with or without a major blood loose, her mind wandering in circles and most likely quite off most of the time. So even with the fever I still think she was focussing on her child's safety, not his name.

Er... and how does any of these prevent Lyanna from referring to her son by his name? Like, " keep my son safe, my baby XY, they would kill him..." You're making it sound as if saying her son's name was several hours' feat.

3 hours ago, Morte said:

Because, if she would be able to think about his name, Alyssa's point would apply: She would choose a neutral name, not a Valyrien one, as such a name would endanger her child even further.

Sorry but this is solely an opinion, with zero tectual basis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alyssa of House Arryn said:

He's going to become king the very moment he learns he's Rhaegar's son, like this was the reason Rhaegar (and Lyanna) had him in the first place? The reason why Rhaegar sired him, had nothing to do with ruling. Why should Jon learning his heritage be just about ruling, and not, you know, saving the world?

Jon did not chose to be Lord Commander, but he did to join the Night's Watch. There is no "Night's Watch" that could give him the Seven Kingdoms. And if he does become king - should he just cast his own name aside, the name everybody knows him as? Because people will be like "Oh, he'd be an excellent king, but I don't like the name". The Westerosi will ignore the fact that he took NW vows, but the bastard name is where they'll draw the line?

Because all of Westeros is very rational? Why would someone from Dorne or the Vale accept him as king and not pull a Robb Stark and demand their independence? If the North has the right to self-determination, why not the other kingdoms? 

It is something he'd face if he means to be king.

He's been raised as a Northern man, and looks like one. Also, how many people will go "Hey, he's Rhaegar's son, he's king!" the moment they'll learn who he is, assuming of course his parentage becomes widely known? The majority of the Westerosi do not see the Targaryens as the legitimate rulers because they were overthroned. If Jon wins the throne by the power of might, he'll be king, but because he won a war. No throne will be handed to him. Only few truly believe the Targaryens to be the rightful kings. When Robert dies and everyone decides which king to back, how many go to Viserys and Daenerys (who are known to be alive in the Free Cities)? Barristan Selmy. All the others either support Joffrey, Stannis, Renly, Balon or Robb, which tells a lot about which house they consider to be the rulers of Westeros.

Dany (and Jon) has a claim only if you believe the Targaryens are the rightful rulers no matter what. A lot don't believe so, like I said. If people support her, it will be because she's got the power (dragons and a powerful army), or personal admiration of her, or because they believe she'll make the world a better place. Once she lands in Westeros and declares herself queen, how many are going to gather to her at once before she's got a victory, just because she's Aerys II's daughter and not for any other reason at all (like inadequacy of all other claimants, and dislike of them)? How many are going to be like "I don't need to know a single thing about her and her policy, she's a Targaryen and that's the only thing that matters"?

Yeah, personal bias, and the feeling that

Also my dislike of the fact that so many people tend to think of kingship as a reward for Jon being noble and good and likable, rather than a serious duty. And if Jon becomes king, I want him to be so because the author believes he can truly lead people, not because he happens to be a Targaryen, a family that no longer even rules Westeros and is (currently) of little importance to Jon.

Sorry, I have a nagging suspicion that your dislike is, eh, clouding your judgement, and you are merely heaping arguments and "arguments" against a scenario that you dislike, without actually taking into consideration what is being said when it doesn't fit your preconception.

I certainly never claimed that I consider kingship as a reward and neither did J.Stargaryen, we both perceive it more like a burden that Jon wouldn't really want, and expressed this in this very thread.

4 hours ago, Alyssa of House Arryn said:

'bittersweet' should be more about losing those you love and suffering a great deal before you get your happy ending than giving up a part of your identity

Sadly, too many heroes are forced by circumstances to no longer be what they were.

4 hours ago, Alyssa of House Arryn said:

to become a member of the Cooler, Worthier Family and sit a shiny chair.

That is your assessment. Jon may not see it like that. At all.

Share this post


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

Not "could". Is. Fever is the body's defence mechanism against infectious agents. Lyanna contracted some infection, and since we know that she had given birth ("bed of blood"), the connection is quite obvious. 

Yes and No. Fever IS a bodies defence mechanism against infections just as it IS a reaction to severe traumata (and to cancer, thrombosis and a bunch of other things). What we know: she is dying. What we don't know: How fast (this is the important part) and from what exactly (means: blood loose primary, infection primary, only infection or even something as interpartum - or postpartum-eclamsia ... it doesn't matter, really. Greg wasn't there, else we would at least know for sure).

43 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Er... and how does any of these prevent Lyanna from referring to her son by his name? Like, " keep my son safe, my baby XY, they would kill him..." You're making it sound as if saying her son's name was several hours' feat.

No, this does depend on how clear of mind she has been and how long she has been dying, which we simply don't know.

44 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Sorry but this is solely an opinion, with zero tectual basis. 

We also have no textual basis for a Valyrian name, we just have ... "Jon", I guess?

We are all only exchanging opinions here, because we are talking about something we have no inside as of now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw a couple of tweets about this thread. One guy saying my first post helped convince him that Jon's real name is Aegon, and another which mentioned @Shmedricko's post from page one, and the passage about Lord Stark taking Prince Aegon back to Winterfell. Nice. Sup tweeps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Sorry but this is solely an opinion, with zero tectual basis.

I feel this entire thread is filled with opinion and no textual basis. It is almost entirely speculation.

Share this post


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

I feel this entire thread is filled with opinion and no textual basis. It is almost entirely speculation.

What page did you start on? Because surely you recognize the difference between using various bits of the text to show the linear causality of my conclusion, as opposed to just arguing, say, that Lyanna wouldn't have chosen a Targaryen name because she was from the North, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Megorova said:

Did GRRM ever anywhere said, that Star Wars was one of his inspirations for ASOIAF, or is it all (pseudo connections between ASOIAF and SW) are fan-made?

Though GRRM would never admit it, there are hidden Star Wars messages in ASOIAF. I found a couple more, but I don't want to go off topic in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2018 at 1:32 PM, Ygrain said:

Luke Skywalker doesn't start with an A but he does have a fiery sword... sort of.

Anakin does....

On 12/30/2018 at 1:35 PM, Megorova said:

Did GRRM ever anywhere said, that Star Wars was one of his inspirations for ASOIAF, or is it all (pseudo connections between ASOIAF and SW) are fan-made?

Probably. But does it matter? It would be a shame if there was just one correct way to read a book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Anakin does....

That didn't escape my attention, and if AA turns out to be the bad guy who is to eradicate the Seven Kingdoms to restore balance while wielding a red flaming sword, we will know where this came from ;-)

Share this post


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

I feel this entire thread is filled with opinion and no textual basis. It is almost entirely speculation.

Well, of course, but that's largely true of the entire site. 

The canon can't be used to prove Rhaegar and Lyanna ever said two words to each other or ever spent thirty seconds alone together.  We have to imagine that.

But that objective reality will never stop fans from speculating in ever-kookier ways -- that Rhaegar and Lyanna were definitely a couple, that they married, that they had a little baby, and it was Jon, and Jon had an original name before Ned renamed him, and that original name was Targaryen, and that Targaryen name was Aegon...

Eventually, the fans will work out his brand of diapers and the color of his baby crap.  And it will be widely believed -- some will say "proved" -- that it was special Targaryen crap, not just any crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

That didn't escape my attention, and if AA turns out to be the bad guy who is to eradicate the Seven Kingdoms to restore balance while wielding a red flaming sword, we will know where this came from ;-)

Oh yes indeed! Sounds exactly like Mel's sort of guy.

Share this post


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

Well, of course, but that's largely true of the entire site. 

The canon can't be used to prove Rhaegar and Lyanna ever said two words to each other or ever spent thirty seconds alone together.  We have to imagine that.

But that objective reality will never stop fans from speculating in ever-kookier ways -- that Rhaegar and Lyanna were definitely a couple, that they married, that they had a little baby, and it was Jon, and Jon had an original name before Ned renamed him, and that original name was Targaryen, and that Targaryen name was Aegon...

Eventually, the fans will work out his brand of diapers and the color of his baby crap.  And it will be widely believed -- some will say "proved" -- that it was special Targaryen crap, not just any crap.

Happy New Year! :cheers: 

:love::wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Oh yes indeed! Sounds exactly like Mel's sort of guy.

Did you ever hear the tragedy of Azor Ahai the Wise? It's not a story the NW would tell you.

 

12 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Happy New Year! :cheers: 

To the text! :cheers: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2018 at 6:16 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

What page did you start on? Because surely you recognize the difference between using various bits of the text to show the linear causality of my conclusion, as opposed to just arguing, say, that Lyanna wouldn't have chosen a Targaryen name because she was from the North, right?

Firstly, sorry for the late reply. Yes, I read your post on page one and no I don't agree with it or your argument that by quoting bits and pieces of text it automatically qualifies as using textual basis and is a stronger argument than judging on potential character motivations. The problem is the two pieces of text you quote

Quote

"You can call him Lord Snow," Pyp said as he came up to join them. "You don't want to know what his mother calls him." 

and 

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."


both rely on significant conjecture to twist around to the meaning that supports your argument. In the first case, you are arguing that it means his name is important. It could just as easily (and arguably more likely) means it isn't important. That is if the passage means anything at all. 

In the second case you seem to be arguing that Aegon is the name for a king, but Lyanna learns Rhaegar, Aegon and Rhaenys are dead so she names Jon Aegon because he will be king. 

This is your best argument, but it is the kind of symbolism that adds a little bit to an already solid theory, not form the basis of a theory itself. 

I also find this to be stretching far more than the suggestion that "She would choose a neutral name, not a Valyrien one, as such a name would endanger her child even further" which is a perfectly valid argument imo. Symbolism should not carry any more weight than character motivation. You are asking everyone to get on board with the fact that Lyanna, who if she ever believed in Rhaegars exact interpretation of a prophecy, continues to believe in it after these other key pieces of the prophecy have been killed and proven false. 

At the same time you said...

Quote

The fact that Rhaegar already had named a son Aegon is the exact trick GRRM is using to keep us from realizing that Jon's true name is Aegon Targaryen. If Rhaegar hadn't already named a son Aegon, it would be completely obvious that GRRM intended Jon's true name to be Aegon. Because that is the Targaryen name.

Where is the textual basis to support that? Sometimes GRRM does lay false clues or red herrings. But not for something as exceptionally unimportant as Jon's Targaryen name.

I doubt Rhaegars original names even mean anything since if they did Rhaenys would have probably been named Visenya, with the next child named Rhaenys.

Lets look at some other, imo far stronger, symbolism. 

Quote

When Jon had been a boy at Winterfell, his hero had been the Young Dragon, the boy king who had conquered Dorne at the age of fourteen. Despite his bastard birth, or perhaps because of it, Jon Snow had dreamed of leading men to glory just as King Daeron had, of growing up to be a conqueror. Now he was a man grown and the Wall was his, yet all he had were doubts. He could not even seem to conquer those.

and 

Quote

"I'm Prince Aemon the Dragonknight," Jon would call out, and Robb would shout back, "Well, I'm Florian the Fool." Or Robb would say, "I'm the Young Dragon," and Jon would reply, "I'm Ser Ryam Redwyne."

I actually remembered it as Jon claiming to be the Young Dragon, but in fact that was Robb while Jon claimed to be the Dragonknight which would actually lend weight to the OP's argument. None of this actually involves the same degree of stretching and mental contortion you are asking for. Jon straight up says I'm prince Aemon.

I don't think Jon has a Targaryen name because I don't think his name is important (apart from possibly making Jon Connington grow all warm and fuzzy thinking Rhaegar named Jon after him). But if he does I am now on board with the OP, Aemon. If it turns out I am wrong and you are right feel free to say I told you so, I don't mind that at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a really interesting pattern going on with the name Aemon.

Aemon never becomes king so far in the story. 

Jaehaerys's sons, his firstborn was named Aegon and he died very early on. His second born son Aemon was the one who would have been king, and he died rather tragically, so that was never fulfilled.

Viserys had two sons. His firstborn Aegon because king. His second born, Aemon, took Kingsguard vows and died defending his awful king.

With Maekar's sons, the pattern is somewhat broken here. Aemon comes before Aegon because the grandfather is the one who chose the name Aemon for his grandson. Aegon comes after. But Aemon takes maester vows and when they offer to release him from his vows and take up the crown, which he refuses and then goes ahead and doubles down on the vows when he decides to join the Night's Watch. 

Aegon, the younger brother, becomes king while Aemon, the older brother, goes to the Wall. 

(The eldest of Daemon Blackfyre's twins was named Aegon and his second was named Aemon. I think this is important but for another reason)

Rhaegar named his firstborn son Aegon who in his mind was going to become king. I think it's reasonable to think that Aemon was going to be the name chosen. None of the Aemons in the story ever become kings. So either the pattern will keep or it will break. Like the last two Aemons, Jon also took vows, there's the possibility that he will be offered a crown, like Maester Aemon was. Like all three Aemons, he would have had (or still has) an older brother named Aegon. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2018 at 8:37 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Actually, it’s perfect: Jon Snow, the King of Winter (not the 7K). ;)

My thoughts precisely. Jon is not going to become a Targaryen king on the Iron Throne and to suggest he will ignores the whole story. I doubt there will even be an Iron Throne in the end.

On the speculation about Lyanna naming Jon differently, I believe she must have given that Jon was obviously Ned's choice. In my opinion, Rhaegar would be the natural choice for Lyanna. Dany had only heard tales of her brother and it was good enough for her.

I understand the thematic significance of Aegon, and I accept there is a quote about Aegon's song being the song of ice and fire, but given that Aegon was still alive when Rhaegar left the Tower of Joy, why would he leave instructions with Lyanna to name the new child Aegon, especially when he probably expected a girl who he could name Visenya. Even after hearing about the sack of King's Landing, I'm not sure Lyanna would have wanted to name her child after one of Rhaegar's children with another woman. Naming him after his dead father would just be more natural, I would think

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

×