Jon Snow's Real Name

[Geddus]

15 hours ago, Vaith said:

I don't think Jon has a Targaryen name. Rhaegar may have been planning to give him a name, and probably, he was thinking he would be a girl called Visenya. To me, Rhaegar was someone who thought he could make the prophecies come true, which is why he needed the third child. Rhaenys, Aegon... what could it be but Visenya?

If Rhaegar wanted to recreate the Conqueror and his wives, wouldn't he have called his firstborn Visenya? Rhaenys was the younger sister and I'm sure Rhaegar knew that.

If Jon has a Targaryen name I think it's Aemon, it makes sense to me. Aegon, on the other hand, seems really stupid and I hope GRRM doesn't go there.

[Vaith]

1 minute ago, Geddus said:

If Rhaegar wanted to recreate the Conqueror and his wives, wouldn't he have called his firstborn Visenya? Rhaenys was the younger sister and I'm sure Rhaegar knew that.

If Jon has a Targaryen name I think it's Aemon, it makes sense to me. Aegon, on the other hand, seems really stupid and I hope GRRM doesn't go there.

I think there could be a reasonable explanation for the births needing to be in reverse order, in some sort of cryptic prophecy sense. I don't think it's a mere coincidence that the fixation of three children seems to come from "three heads have the dragon." I don't think he'd name his kids Rhaenys and Aegon just casually, and there seems to be no male name that fits the space.

But any name that's not Aegon is going to be a lot better than that, anyway. It'd be as silly as the two brothers both named "Wat" from the Sworn Sword. There are no middle names in Westeros, so it's not like you could realistically differentiate Elia's Aegon from Lyanna's.

[Ygrain]

3 hours ago, Vaith said:

I think omission of it is almost as telling as an explicit mention of it, in this case.

So, if I understand correctly, no official document confirming that the Targs are allowed incestual marriages and/or forbidden poygamous marriages exists.

3 hours ago, Vaith said:

There are no incidents of polygamy after Maegor in House Targaryen, so Rhaegar would be going on a precedent unused for over 230 years.

Polygamy was not common among his Valyrian ancestors, either, so the argumentation of time lapse is not really fitting.

3 hours ago, Vaith said:

Jaehaerys also turned rather wroth when Saera proposed to take three husbands, like Maegor and his wives. And since only incest is mentioned in the Fire & Blood passages, it seems like a polygamy exception was never baked into the Faith like incest.

The mere fact that Saera proposed it, or that Daemon asked to marry Rhaenyra even though he had a wife, shows that although it was against the custom, there was no binding law established, or else such propositions would never be voiced. 

3 hours ago, Vaith said:

According to a SSM, https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/2997 polygamy became unlikely after the dragons died. While Jorah proposes Dany to take husbands, she is a dragonlord unlike Rhaegar, and is miles away from the Faith’s judgement. 

The SSM doesn't say it's unlikely. It only says that without dragons, you will most likely meet quite some opposition. Doesn't mean Rhaegar couldn't have tried it and hoped to get away with it.

[Lord Varys]

The Doctrine of Exceptionalism is designed to make Targaryen incest a tenet of the Faith, not polygamy.

One could imagine princes thinking with their cocks using it as an excuse or pretext to take additional wives but that's not what it was made for. And if they want to cite obscure cases they could just as well cite Aenar or Aegon I or Maegor without ever bringing the Doctrine of Exceptionalism up - since that was actually never explicitly used to enable a Targaryen to take more than one wife.

Even before Jaehaerys I polygamy was not a family tradition or custom of the Targaryens. If something was never part of your tradition and obviously fell out of practice then it is rather difficult to revive it, never mind who you are. Even more so since there were a number of instances where polygamy could actually have helped to smooth or settle things.

Care for some examples?

1. Saera could have married her three lovers during the reign of Jaehaerys I ;-).

2. Viserys I could have taken another wife while Aemma yet lived to ensure the succession by fathering a son.

3. Prince Daemon could have taken Rhaenyra as his second wife against the will of his royal brother while he was still married to Rhea Royce.

4. Rhaenyra could have made Harwin Strong her second husband in addition to Laenor Velaryon.

5. Rhaenyra could have taken Prince Daemon as her third consort in addition to Laenor Velaryon and Harwin Strong after the death of Laena Velaryon (there would have been no reason to kill Laenor for that).

6. Jacaerys Velaryon could have married both his cousin Baela and the Sara Snow woman, if she existed.

7. Lucerys Velaryon could have married both his cousin Rhaena and a daughter of Lord Borros Baratheon.

8. Aemond Targaryen could have married both a daughter of Lord Borros Baratheon and Alys Rivers (it seems that the narrative purpose for Aemond not marrying one of Borros' daughter is that Alys Rivers later turns out to be his only wife).

9. Aegon III could have taken other consorts in addition to Queen Jaehaera, meaning that Lord Peake would have had no incentive to actually kill Jaehaera to enable the king to marry the king to Peake's daughter.

10. Aegon III could have picked multiple brides at the great ball, making more girls happy than he did.

11. Prince Viserys could have taken another wife in addition to Larra Rogare, lessening the issues the courtiers had with his Lyseni in-laws.

12. Aegon IV could have made all his mistresses his wives - considering that he apparently loved them all he should have had more incentive to marry them than staying married to the sister he did not love.

13. Aegon V's sons wouldn't have caused any troubles for their father because they could have taken all the women that were supposed to be their first wives as their second wives (excluding, perhaps, Daeron).

14. Aerys II could have taken Joanna Lannister as a second wife prior to her marriage to Lord Tywin.

It is pretty obvious that no sane person in Westerosi history since Maegor ever so much as entertained the possibility of bigamy or polygamy as a serious cause of action. The people making such suggestions after Maegor are the psychopath Saera - and even she was not totally serious there - the ambitious and unnatural Lady Sam of Oldtown who suggested that Aegon III should take more than one wife, and Tyrion jokingly when he dealt with Littlefinger in ACoK.

In that mindset we can more or less say that trying to revive royal polygamy - and only kings really got away with that kind of thing - would be as scandalous in Westeros as it would be in real world countries where monogamy is the only accepted form of marriage.

This doesn't mean Rhaegar did not try to pull it off - only that very few people aside from himself might actually believe in the validity of such a marriage, or the legitimacy of child born from such a 'marriage'. Sort of like only obscure Mormon sects in the US *believe* they are married to their harems while the majority and the marriage laws of the country they live in state that they are not, in fact, married.

17 hours ago, Vaith said:

I don't think Jon has a Targaryen name. Rhaegar may have been planning to give him a name, and probably, he was thinking he would be a girl called Visenya.

In light of the fact that Ser Kevan tells us that Rhaegar wanted sons, plural, implies that he did not want to have a daughter or even more daughters than the daughter he already had. One can doubt that Kevan would have known such things, but it is actually a hint that we got whereas there is no hint that Rhaegar wanted to have another daughter.

In fact, we only know he apparently thought he was destined to produce a third dragon head, and we have reason to believe he thought Aegon was the second head. But was the third dragon head truly his daughter Rhaenys? We don't know. It could have been his brother Viserys or even he himself.

Maester Aemon's ramblings indicate that the female element was completely ignored in Targaryen interpretation of the promised prince prophecy - hence the talk about a prince rather than a princess which seems to be what they got in the end. I'd find it odd if they were so sure that the prince had to be male being completely closed to the possibility that he might be female but rather open to the possibility that two of the three dragon heads would be female.

It is clear that Aegon and his sister-wives also were 'three heads of the dragon' on the Targaryen banner, but Rhaegar was trying to fulfill a prophecy much older than the Conqueror and his sister-wives - and they obviously did not fulfill the prophecy nor were they the three dragon heads the prophecy referred to.

In that sense it would be very odd if Rhaegar were looking to these ancestors as a template since they obviously had nothing to do with the prophecy.

Quote

Would Lyanna Stark have chose some apt Targaryen name on her deathbed? I'm not sure. Perhaps she went with Rhaegar at the start, but after her brother and father dying, and being confined to the ToJ for so long? I don't think so.

Chances are not that bad that the child had no name at all. That would depend when exactly Lyanna died - very quickly after the birth or only some days or weeks thereafter. If the latter were the case she would have likely come up with a name. If not, then she may have had different priorities.

If the child had a Targaryen name chosen by Lyanna then 'Rhaegar' would be a very likely candidate considering Rhaegar Targaryen was the only Targaryen Lyanna had a close relationship with. And she may have known that he was dead when the child was born. Any other Targaryen name chosen by her makes little sense considering she isn't close to the Targaryens as a house.

If she and Rhaegar had discussed names then Aemon or Jaehaerys would make the most sense, I assume. Rhaegar already had an Aegon, so that name is out. Aemon was the uncle he corresponded with, Jaehaerys his grandfather who also believed in the prophecy.

[Vaith]

13 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

So, if I understand correctly, no official document confirming that the Targs are allowed incestual marriages and/or forbidden poygamous marriages exists.

Polygamy was not common among his Valyrian ancestors, either, so the argumentation of time lapse is not really fitting.

The mere fact that Saera proposed it, or that Daemon asked to marry Rhaenyra even though he had a wife, shows that although it was against the custom, there was no binding law established, or else such propositions would never be voiced. 

The SSM doesn't say it's unlikely. It only says that without dragons, you will most likely meet quite some opposition. Doesn't mean Rhaegar couldn't have tried it and hoped to get away with it.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Doctrine of Exceptionalism is designed to make Targaryen incest a tenet of the Faith, not polygamy.

One could imagine princes thinking with their cocks using it as an excuse or pretext to take additional wives but that's not what it was made for. And if they want to cite obscure cases they could just as well cite Aenar or Aegon I or Maegor without ever bringing the Doctrine of Exceptionalism up - since that was actually never explicitly used to enable a Targaryen to take more than one wife.

Even before Jaehaerys I polygamy was not a family tradition or custom of the Targaryens. If something was never part of your tradition and obviously fell out of practice then it is rather difficult to revive it, never mind who you are. Even more so since there were a number of instances where polygamy could actually have helped to smooth or settle things.

Care for some examples?

[snip]

It is pretty obvious that no sane person in Westerosi history since Maegor ever so much as entertained the possibility of bigamy or polygamy as a serious cause of action. The people making such suggestions after Maegor are the psychopath Saera - and even she was not totally serious there - the ambitious and unnatural Lady Sam of Oldtown who suggested that Aegon III should take more than one wife, and Tyrion jokingly when he dealt with Littlefinger in ACoK.

In that mindset we can more or less say that trying to revive royal polygamy - and only kings really got away with that kind of thing - would be as scandalous in Westeros than it would be in the real world where monogamy is the only accepted form of marriage.

This doesn't mean Rhaegar did not try to pull it off - only that very few people aside from himself might actually believe in the validity of such a marriage, or the legitimacy of child born from such a 'marriage'. Sort of like only obscure Mormon sects in the US *believe* they are married to their harems while the majority and the marriage laws of the country they live in state that they are not, in fact, married.

Think you've summed up my thoughts, Varys. And if one wants to make a comparison to the modern day for context, Rhaegar was as removed from Maegor I as we are to the 1780s/90s. Polygamy was not usual in Valyria either, whereas it seemed typical for incestuous unions to be made among all families there. 

To your list of hypothetical examples, I would also add the list of concrete examples of polygamy in House Targaryen:

1. Aegon I to Visenya and Rhaenys, which ocurred before the Conquest.

1. Maegor to Alys Harroway, which led to his exile to Pentos. Maegor to Tyanna, which happened in exile.

3. Maegor to Rhaena, Jeyne Westerling and Elinor Costayne, which happened only when the Faith had already been seriously angered.

And nothing else in the 230+ years afterward of Targaryen history.

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In light of the fact that Ser Kevan tells us that Rhaegar wanted sons, plural, implies that he did not want to have a daughter or even more daughters than the daughter he already had. One can doubt that Kevan would have known such things, but it is actually a hint that we got whereas there is no hint that Rhaegar wanted to have another daughter.

In fact, we only know he apparently thought he was destined to produce a third dragon head, and we have reason to believe he thought Aegon was the second head. But was the third dragon head truly his daughter Rhaenys? We don't know. It could have been his brother Viserys or even he himself.

Maester Aemon's ramblings indicate that the female element was completely ignored in Targaryen interpretation of the promised prince prophecy - hence the talk about a prince rather than a princess which seems to be what they got in the end. I'd find it odd if they were so sure that the prince had to be male being completely closed to the possibility that he might be female but rather open to the possibility that two of the three dragon heads would be female.

It is clear that Aegon and his sister-wives also were 'three heads of the dragon' on the Targaryen banner, but Rhaegar was trying to fulfill a prophecy much older than the Conqueror and his sister-wives - and they obviously did not fulfill the prophecy nor were they the three dragon heads the prophecy referred to.

In that sense it would be very odd if Rhaegar were looking to these ancestors as a template since they obviously had nothing to do with the prophecy.

This is more based on gut feeling and my own interpretations of characters than things from the text (although I do not want to dismiss it). Since one can't know fully what the prophecy entailed, I can only guess.

I do think it's probable, however, that Rhaegar thought the first Targaryen monarchs would be appropriate names for the "three heads of the dragon." I can't say why he'd do it in reverse order, but I don't think the names are random in any sense. While Rhaegar would be studying the prophecy with his own biases (believing his children would have to be the ones to fulfil a prophecy, or thinking Aegon would be the prince), due to him presumably knowing High Valyrian could be gender-neutral, and intense study of prophecies -- and female dragonriders being normal in House Targaryen -- I don't think the names are entirely connected. Nor do I think Viserys would discount Rhaenys as a potential head. After all; if any three sane Targaryen males were acceptable in his view, then he could have called it a day with Aegon, Viserys, and himself. 

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Chances are not that bad that the child had no name at all. That would depend when exactly Lyanna died - very quickly after the birth or only some days or weeks thereafter. If the latter were the case she would have likely come up with a name. If not, then she may have had different priorities.

If the child had a Targaryen name chosen by Lyanna then 'Rhaegar' would be a very likely candidate considering Rhaegar Targaryen was the only Targaryen Lyanna had a close relationship with. And she may have known that he was dead when the child was born. Any other Targaryen name chosen by her makes little sense considering she isn't close to the Targaryens as a house.

If she and Rhaegar had discussed names then Aemon or Jaehaerys would make the most sense, I assume. Rhaegar already had an Aegon, so that name is out. Aemon was the uncle he corresponded with, Jaehaerys his grandfather who also believed in the prophecy.

I also think this is likely, but I also think that after the death of her brother and father, she wouldn't exactly be in a spot where she still had enough affection for Rhaegar that a child of hers had to be named in homage to House Targaryen.

[Geddus]

40 minutes ago, Vaith said:

I think there could be a reasonable explanation for the births needing to be in reverse order, in some sort of cryptic prophecy sense. I don't think it's a mere coincidence that the fixation of three children seems to come from "three heads have the dragon." I don't think he'd name his kids Rhaenys and Aegon just casually, and there seems to be no male name that fits the space.

I don't know, sounds kinda contrived to me, I tend to prefer simpler explainations: for example, Rhaenys sounds a lot like Rhaegar (maybe it's the female equivalent?) and Aegon is the Targaryen go-to name for a king.

1 hour ago, Vaith said:

But any name that's not Aegon is going to be a lot better than that, anyway. It'd be as silly as the two brothers both named "Wat" from the Sworn Sword. 

I agree.

[Vaith]

15 minutes ago, Geddus said:

I don't know, sounds kinda contrived to me, I tend to prefer simpler explainations: for example, Rhaenys sounds a lot like Rhaegar (maybe it's the female equivalent?) and Aegon is the Targaryen go-to name for a king.

Quote

"Prince Aegon was Rhaegar's heir by Elia of Dorne," Ser Jorah said. "But if he was this prince that was promised, the promise was broken along with his skull when the Lannisters dashed his head against a wall."
 

"I remember," Dany said sadly. "They murdered Rhaegar's daughter as well, the little princess. Rhaenys, she was named, like Aegon's sister. There was no Visenya, but he said the dragon has three heads. What is the song of ice and fire?" (Daenerys V, ACOK)

If Dany makes the connection, I don't see why the reader shouldn't. 

[Geddus]

23 minutes ago, Vaith said:

If Dany makes the connection, I don't see why the reader shouldn't. 

Because, as I said, the reverse order doesn't sound right to me. We will have to wait and see (maybe).

[J. Stargaryen]

On 1/13/2019 at 10:10 AM, JNR said:

I don't think we are.  Notice in the TOJ dream ("in the dream as in life") we get this:

But in Ned's memory of her death we get this:

So if Ned did find her in the TOJ, it appears enough time may have gone by for her voice to decline considerably.   I wouldn't be surprised if they had chats for the better part of a week.

1

Sure. But in that case, there's no question of whether or not she would have told Ned the baby's name. This is only a possible issue in the event that she has few words to spare. Though in that case, I think I've demonstrated sufficient motivation by way of the explanatory power of revealing the baby's name—both for Ned and the reader. Just as Ned would immediately understand at least some of the most important implications of Lyanna telling him the baby's name was Aegon Targaryen, so would you and I if GRRM said the same to us.

On 1/13/2019 at 10:10 AM, JNR said:

That's quite a different subject, though.  By then Jon is well into his teens and his appearance is a settled matter:

No one has ever said Ned and Rhaegar resemble each other.  So there was no risk by then, and nothing for Ned to hide. 

<snip>*

Also, if it was Ned's goal to hide Jon, he did a mighty half-assed job.  Jon was seen by people familiar with Rhaegar including Robert, Jaime, Cersei, etc., so I don't think it was Ned's goal to stop that from happening at all.  I think he knew perfectly well nobody was going to look at Jon and say "My God, it's Rhaegar come again," as Cersei does twice later on re Aurane Waters.

 

My thought on this is basically that Jon probably doesn't look like Rhaegar, but he might if GRRM wants it to be so. If someone down the line sees a resemblance, we can speculate that this is one of the reasons Ned put Jon in the back and appeared uncomfortable during the feast. In other words, I wouldn't use this in advance as evidence that Jon resembled Rhaegar, but it's something to earmark in the event of a future revelation that he does.

Quote

*

I'm saying that Lyanna (assuming RLJ) would have had no way to know that would be the case.  Assuming RLJ, she got mighty damn lucky that Jon looks exactly like a younger version of Ned and nothing like Rhaegar (as far as anyone has ever said -- and there have been entire threads on this site pursuing this topic).

 

My guess is Lyanna probably would have wanted Ned to protect his nephew even if he looked like a Targaryen. And again, I'd guess this is one area where the Daynes came in handy. Violet eyes as well as pale blond and silver hair.

On 1/17/2019 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Only for the eyes. If he had white hair like a Targaryen, it would be harder to explain that.

The Daynes, who originate in the western Red Mountains, would be considered "stony" Dornishmen by Daeron II Targaryen. Their hair has been described as pale blond (Edric), dark (Ashara), and silver with a streak of black (Gerold). Daynes have been observed with dark blue (Edric) or purple eyes (Ashara and Gerold). Despite their purple eyes, according to George R.R. Martin, the Daynes are not of Valyrian descent. - The Wiki

On 1/26/2019 at 12:34 PM, Sophia [email protected] said:

Sir the true is that Jon Snow was not born in tower in the book version there different version the truth is a female baby was born into tower. It is was Dany Targaryen if you read more go to Preston's videos.

Hmmm... Thanks for the recommendation but I will pass.

@Geddus

Quote

 

If Rhaegar wanted to recreate the Conqueror and his wives, wouldn't he have called his firstborn Visenya? Rhaenys was the younger sister and I'm sure Rhaegar knew that.

 

 

I'm sure Rhaegar also knew that all Targaryens descend from Aegon and Rhaenys. Visenya's only offspring being Maegor, who died without issue. That might explain why he would favor the younger sister's name over the elder's. 

---

Apologies all for the late response. 

[Ygrain]

14 hours ago, Vaith said:

Think you've summed up my thoughts, Varys. And if one wants to make a comparison to the modern day for context, Rhaegar was as removed from Maegor I as we are to the 1780s/90s. Polygamy was not usual in Valyria either, whereas it seemed typical for incestuous unions to be made among all families there. 

Modern-day context is no use in a society which hardly changes over a thousand years. The whole royal lineage is descended from a polygamous marriage. and keeps breaking one of the strongest taboos in Westeros. Polygamy is apparently not a first-hand solution and never was, but it was possible in the past and has never been banned. All we need is a Targ determined enough to try and pull it through. Rhaegar believed it was up to him to save the world, first himself, then through his son. If he believed that he needed another child to do so (and mind you, in the Westerosi mindset, a child had to be legitimate to count as a prince/dragon), then what options does he have? To set aside a wife that has given him children? Would it even be possible, do we have a precedens for such a move? Wouldn't it anger lots of people, anyway, would they consider his marriage to Lyanna valid? There really doesn't seem to be a good solution for him but with polygamy, he can at least refer to the founder of the dynasty and not rob Elia of her rights. Plus, if you add to it the angle of love and honor, we are told, and shown, that marriage is the only honorable way to sleep with someone. If Rhaegar was indeed the honorable man his contemporaries considered him to be, yet really fell for Lyanna, polygamy then offered him a way to keep his cake and eat it, too. 

In other words: the matter of polygamy is not so much about what the rest of the world thought about it, but if Rhaegar thought he needed it and could believe he had at least the slightest chance to get away with it. It was never expressly forbidden, he was hugely popular and could cite a family precedent in his favour. Why not at least try if he didn't see any other way out?

[Vaith]

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Modern-day context is no use in a society which hardly changes over a thousand years. The whole royal lineage is descended from a polygamous marriage. and keeps breaking one of the strongest taboos in Westeros. Polygamy is apparently not a first-hand solution and never was, but it was possible in the past and has never been banned. All we need is a Targ determined enough to try and pull it through. Rhaegar believed it was up to him to save the world, first himself, then through his son. If he believed that he needed another child to do so (and mind you, in the Westerosi mindset, a child had to be legitimate to count as a prince/dragon), then what options does he have? To set aside a wife that has given him children? Would it even be possible, do we have a precedens for such a move? Wouldn't it anger lots of people, anyway, would they consider his marriage to Lyanna valid? There really doesn't seem to be a good solution for him but with polygamy, he can at least refer to the founder of the dynasty and not rob Elia of her rights. Plus, if you add to it the angle of love and honor, we are told, and shown, that marriage is the only honorable way to sleep with someone. If Rhaegar was indeed the honorable man his contemporaries considered him to be, yet really fell for Lyanna, polygamy then offered him a way to keep his cake and eat it, too. 

In other words: the matter of polygamy is not so much about what the rest of the world thought about it, but if Rhaegar thought he needed it and could believe he had at least the slightest chance to get away with it. It was never expressly forbidden, he was hugely popular and could cite a family precedent in his favour. Why not at least try if he didn't see any other way out?

I’m not saying Rhaegar personally wouldn’t have attempted it, nor that there’s no situation where Jon couldn’t be accepted as legitimate (a massive army or dragon makes you reconsider your position, I imagine). 

It’s just that based on the precedents and history of Westeros, I’m just skeptical that its laws would typically accept polygamy. Not that someone like Rhaegar wouldn’t attempt it.

I did not cite the modern day as societal change, but to show how it would be something dead in popular memory by the 280s, versus Aerys and Rhaella still being a living, incestuous couple.

[JNR]

12 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

But in that case, there's no question of whether or not she would have told Ned the baby's name.

 

The point of (1) naming such a baby a Targ name, then (2) telling Ned what the name was, then (3) fiercely instructing him never, ever to tell anyone what it was or ever use it in any way at any time, seems pretty questionable to me, actually. 

If she just wanted to make a gesture for Rhaegar, she could name the baby whatever Targ name she deemed best, and then simply keep it to herself. 

Telling Ned would accomplish nothing and only introduce the risk that he might somehow give it away down the road.

12 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

My guess is Lyanna probably would have wanted Ned to protect his nephew even if he looked like a Targaryen. And again, I'd guess this is one area where the Daynes came in handy.

I agree she would have wanted to protect it no matter what, if she had a baby.  But if that baby grew into the spitting image of Rhaegar one day, there would be no sweeping it under the rug or pretending any other explanation was the case.

In particular, I doubt Ned would have tried to fob off such a situation by claiming he impregnated Ashara, who would still have been alive at the time Lyanna got Ned's promises from him. 

Ned might take on his dishonor himself -- pretending to be the father of a bastard -- but I really don't think he would deliberately dishonor Ashara in this fashion.  And if he did, he would expect extreme pushback from Ashara and all of House Dayne, none of whom made any promises on Lyanna's deathbed.

Quote

 

NED: Well, but Lyanna, remember: Rhaegar has the world's most recognizable face.  His son may eventually have a very close variation of that same face.  If he turns out to look just like his father in fifteen years or so, that fact will surely get me killed for treason.  And your baby will die as well.  I've just told you Robert's attitude about dragonspawn.

LYANNA: No worries.  You can just pretend you knocked up Ashara Dayne at some point in the war, and claim it was her baby. She's pretty.  Like Rhaegar.

NED: (long, shocked pause)  I can see you're very sick, so I'll pretend you never said that.

 

 

[Frey family reunion]

42 minutes ago, JNR said:

 

The point of (1) naming such a baby a Targ name, then (2) telling Ned what the name was, then (3) fiercely instructing him never, ever to tell anyone what it was or ever use it in any way at any time, seems pretty questionable to me, actually. 

If she just wanted to make a gesture for Rhaegar, she could name the baby whatever Targ name she deemed best, and then simply keep it to herself. 

Telling Ned would accomplish nothing and only introduce the risk that he might somehow give it away down the road.

I agree she would have wanted to protect it no matter what, if she had a baby.  But if that baby grew into the spitting image of Rhaegar one day, there would be no sweeping it under the rug or pretending any other explanation was the case.

In particular, I doubt Ned would have tried to fob off such a situation by claiming he impregnated Ashara, who would still have been alive at the time Lyanna got Ned's promises from him. 

Ned might take on his dishonor himself -- pretending to be the father of a bastard -- but I really don't think he would deliberately dishonor Ashara in this fashion.  And if he did, he would expect extreme pushback from Ashara and all of House Dayne, none of whom made any promises on Lyanna's deathbed.

 

I agree.  And while I think you and I may have different theories on Jon’s father, my thought is that what Eddard knew about Jon’s father made him pretty comfortable that Jon would look very Stark like when he grew up.

[FictionIsntReal]

20 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Sure. But in that case, there's no question of whether or not she would have told Ned the baby's name. This is only a possible issue in the event that she has few words to spare.

 

My understanding had been that children in Westeros have such low life expectancy that they often aren't given a name until after they've lived a certain amount of time, hence "namedays" instead of "birthdays". Might Jon have been so young at that point that he hadn't been named?

[kissdbyfire]

3 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

My understanding had been that children in Westeros have such low life expectancy that they often aren't given a name until after they've lived a certain amount of time, hence "namedays" instead of "birthdays". Might Jon have been so young at that point that he hadn't been named?

That’s common practice among the FF, but we don’t hear about anyone else doing it south of the Wall. 

[FictionIsntReal]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

That’s common practice among the FF, but we don’t hear about anyone else doing it south of the Wall. 

They wait two years, but Westerosi south of the wall still go by namedays instead of birthdays, so I thought perhaps they also wait some length of time (if not the full two years).

[kissdbyfire]

33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

They wait two years, but Westerosi south of the wall still go by namedays instead of birthdays, so I thought perhaps they also wait some length of time (if not the full two years).

It may be an old practice that has died out over the centuries and millennia? But we haven’t heard of a single instance where it’s still in use south of the Wall, or at leat not that I recall. 

[J. Stargaryen]

11 hours ago, JNR said:

 

The point of (1) naming such a baby a Targ name, then (2) telling Ned what the name was, then (3) fiercely instructing him never, ever to tell anyone what it was or ever use it in any way at any time, seems pretty questionable to me, actually.

 

1 and 2 are basically necessary conditions, but 3 is completely unnecessary and nowhere to be found in my theory. So yeah, I'd agree that it seems pretty questionable when you put it like that—but I don't.

I don't know why we'd assume that Lyanna specified how she wanted Ned to raise and protect her son. In fact, I strongly doubt that Lyanna was dictating any terms to Ned after begging him to commit treason. I tend to think the promise was pretty non-specific, and that she just wanted Ned to do whatever it took to protect Jon, and left it up to him to make those decisions as necessary. Although, I have long kept an open mind about the possibility that Ned raised Jon in a way that actually conflicted with Lyanna's wishes, explicitly or otherwise. Here I'm thinking of "blood and broken promises."

11 hours ago, JNR said:

If she just wanted to make a gesture for Rhaegar,

 

I don't know that it was just a gesture for Rhaegar. As I've said upthread, having a son named Aegon Targaryen would have been very appealing for a number of reasons. Lack of pportunity and/or motive is not an issue for this theory.

11 hours ago, JNR said:

she could name the baby whatever Targ name she deemed best, and then simply keep it to herself.

Telling Ned would accomplish nothing and only introduce the risk that he might somehow give it away down the road.

 

But this assumes she wanted it kept a secret. We don't know that. Personally, I'm not very confident that is the case. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that Lyanna had hoped for Ned to (one day?) support her son's claim to the throne. While I don't consider the most likely option, I don't rule it out either.

She might have wanted Ned to know the truth. I'll say it again, there's probably no better, more efficient way of explaining what happened than to tell Ned the baby's name. And, you know, that applies to the audience as well. Revealing her child's name will tell you who the father is, and will indicate the nature of the relationship. So, it really does accomplish quite a lot, actually. Both in universe and out.

11 hours ago, JNR said:

I agree she would have wanted to protect it no matter what, if she had a baby.  But if that baby grew into the spitting image of Rhaegar one day, there would be no sweeping it under the rug or pretending any other explanation was the case.

1

Okay, but something like that wouldn't happen overnight, and there are simple ways of dealing with this hypothetical, so I don't really see it as any sort of problem for my theory. Further, it's really just another in a long line of speculative what ifs. It didn't happen.

11 hours ago, JNR said:

In particular, I doubt Ned would have tried to fob off such a situation by claiming he impregnated Ashara, who would still have been alive at the time Lyanna got Ned's promises from him. 

Ned might take on his dishonor himself -- pretending to be the father of a bastard -- but I really don't think he would deliberately dishonor Ashara in this fashion.  And if he did, he would expect extreme pushback from Ashara and all of House Dayne, none of whom made any promises on Lyanna's deathbed.

 

Ned is said to have to visited Starfall after the ToJ, returning Dawn. I thought it was clear that I meant the Daynes would have been in on any such arrangement where they might "come in handy" thanks to their Valyrian-esque features.
 

Quote

NED: Well, but Lyanna, remember: Rhaegar has the world's most recognizable face.  His son may eventually have a very close variation of that same face.  If he turns out to look just like his father in fifteen years or so, that fact will surely get me killed for treason.  And your baby will die as well.  I've just told you Robert's attitude about dragonspawn.

LYANNA: No worries.  You can just pretend you knocked up Ashara Dayne at some point in the war, and claim it was her baby. She's pretty.  Like Rhaegar.

NED: (long, comteplative pause)  You know, that's not a bad idea. I'll visit Starfall under the guise of returning Dawn, and discuss it with her and the Lord Dayne. Arthur was Rhaegar's BFF, and everybody knows I had a thing for her back in HH.

LYANNA: But also, don't be a dumb cunt and watch him grow up to strongly resemble his father for fifteen years. If he's 6 and looks like a cute little Rhaegar, shave his head or dye his hair and send him to Essos or foster him with the Reeds.

3

 

[HexMachina]

8 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

They wait two years, but Westerosi south of the wall still go by namedays instead of birthdays, so I thought perhaps they also wait some length of time (if not the full two years).

There is actually evidence against this idea as many of the stillborn Targ babies or Targ babies that die young have names - Aegon, Visenya, Rhaego etc.

[J. Stargaryen]

19 hours ago, JNR said:

If she just wanted to make a gesture for Rhaegar, she could name the baby whatever Targ name she deemed best, and then simply keep it to herself. 

Telling Ned would accomplish nothing and only introduce the risk that he might somehow give it away down the road.

 

I mean, the risk was pretty well introduced when Ned discovered Lyanna dying of complications from childbirth. So, is the risk that he might give it away down the road any greater because he knows the detail of Jon's name, as opposed to simply the truth of his identity? No, of course not. Those concepts are six, on one hand, half a dozen on the other. Unless you meant to argue that Ned does not know the identity of Jon's father. Otherwise, he knows the baby's identity, which goes hand in hand with its name.

Since Ned managed not to slip up in the actual text, let's not waste time hypothesizing how he might have under practically identical circumstances.