Jump to content
LadyBlackwater

Who is Jon Snow?

Recommended Posts

In the books, Aegon is actually alive and with Jon Connington. In the show, they make it so that Jon Snow is Aegon. Who will he turn out to be in the books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be more accurate to say that in the books there is someone that is supposed to be Aegon, son of Rhaegar and Elia of Dorne.  That would leave us with a question about Jon Snow and his name.  Did Lyanna give him a name?  Would she really even name him Aegon if she knew that Rhaegar's other son Aegon supposedly died in KL?  I can't really see her naming him Aegon, period.  Maybe Aemon?  That would be interesting considering Jon's own relationship with the last Aemon Targaryen.  Or, is possible that Lyanna didn't give him a name, but only explained the 'truth' of his paternity and asked Ned to protect him.  Regardless of the answers to these all the questions, can anyone really see Jon going by another name, whatever the 'truth' may be? 

PS......I've always wondered if Jon's 'genetic' identity is more important to acts he will undertake and will have nothing to do with inheritances and thrones, book wise, of course. 

Share this post


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

In the books, Aegon is actually alive and with Jon Connington. In the show, they make it so that Jon Snow is Aegon. Who will he turn out to be in the books?

Jon isn't supposed to be the Aegon character that Tyrion meets, who is allegedly the son of Rhaegar and Elia. Jon is still the son of Lyanna and Rhaegar, and we don't know what his name is in the books. But they haven't rolled the two characters into one, as far as we know.

Whoever Aegon turns out to be (real or fake), Jon is still Jon, who may discover that he's really Aegon/Aemon/Bilbo Targaryen, but it'll still be a different Aegon than the one smuggled out of Kings Landing and supposedly fostered with JonCon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Lady Fevre Dream said:

I think it would be more accurate to say that in the books there is someone that is supposed to be Aegon, son of Rhaegar and Elia of Dorne.  That would leave us with a question about Jon Snow and his name.  Did Lyanna give him a name?  Would she really even name him Aegon if she knew that Rhaegar's other son Aegon supposedly died in KL?  I can't really see her naming him Aegon, period.  Maybe Aemon?  That would be interesting considering Jon's own relationship with the last Aemon Targaryen.  Or, is possible that Lyanna didn't give him a name, but only explained the 'truth' of his paternity and asked Ned to protect him.  Regardless of the answers to these all the questions, can anyone really see Jon going by another name, whatever the 'truth' may be? 

PS......I've always wondered if Jon's 'genetic' identity is more important to acts he will undertake and will have nothing to do with inheritances and thrones, book wise, of course. 

His genetic identity is still important since it's needed for him to ride a dragon.

Also, I hope if he has a Targ name at all in the books, it's Aemon, though I doubt Jon will use his Targ name anyways.

Edited by Xemi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Xemi said:

His genetic identity is still important since it's needed for him to ride a dragon.

That's still a big maybe, I think. Nettles is not known to have been Targaryen in any sense. Her mother was a prostitute on Dragonstone, and she was of "uncertain birth" -- maybe her father was a travelling Dornishman or Summer Islander given her "brown" appearance. Perhaps she had some dragonseed blood, perhaps she didn't; either way there have not really been any wide-scale experiments on non-Valyrian blooded people outside of the desperation during the Dance.

Anyhow, I think Rhaegar intended to name Jon Visenya (given the Rhaenys and Aegon names, three heads must have the dragon) and did not envision that Jon could be a boy because he had a very tight conception of what the prophecy could be. And if Rhaegar intended there to be a name, well, I do not think Lyanna would have had a good perception of Rhaegar after spending so much time kept in a tower and after Aerys killed her brother and father.

I also do not think Jon will be legitimate. The show's claim that everyone will accept a secret annulment of an existing marriage with children for a secret marriage officiated by a High Septon sneaking off during wartime is dubious. Maybe polygamy would have been attempted, but it probably would not have been considered legal on a wide scale given the secrecy and since Targaryens hadn't married polygamously in over 2 centuries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2019 at 10:16 PM, LadyBlackwater said:

In the books, Aegon is actually alive and with Jon Connington. In the show, they make it so that Jon Snow is Aegon. Who will he turn out to be in the books?

I think it is almost a certainty that he is a fake (Blackfyre).  Too juicy for the show to pass up if he wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also thinking Jon is not a legitimate child of R+L. I don't think he will be a contender for the iron throne in the books, but one of the dragons 3 heads. This is great information for some theories thank you everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, LadyBlackwater said:

I am also thinking Jon is not a legitimate child of R+L. I don't think he will be a contender for the iron throne in the books, but one of the dragons 3 heads. This is great information for some theories thank you everyone!

The conclusion makes no sense, given the Information you received here. How do you get from fAegon is not Jon (which is given book knowledge), to R+L=/=J?

Edited by T and A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in the books, Aegon is alive and well and traveling with Jon Connington to Griffins Roost. This tells me that Jon Snow will be a different targaryen since, well, seats taken for Aegon. While it is obvious that R+L=Jon Snow, what I'm saying is he may not be legitimate if Rhaegar and Lyanna never married in the books. That's what I was saying. How would Jon Snow be Aegon if Aegon is alive and well at Griffins Roost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LadyBlackwater said:

Because in the books, Aegon is alive and well and traveling with Jon Connington to Griffins Roost. This tells me that Jon Snow will be a different targaryen since, well, seats taken for Aegon. While it is obvious that R+L=Jon Snow, what I'm saying is he may not be legitimate if Rhaegar and Lyanna never married in the books. That's what I was saying. How would Jon Snow be Aegon if Aegon is alive and well at Griffins Roost.

I don't understand what you're saying. Aegon at Griffins Roost is (allegedly) the son of Elia Martell and Rhaegar. Jon is not that same baby. So if the one with JonCon is the real baby Aegon, and Jon's name is also Aegon, then there are two of them and they're half-brothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2019 at 5:38 PM, Vaith said:

That's still a big maybe, I think. Nettles is not known to have been Targaryen in any sense. Her mother was a prostitute on Dragonstone, and she was of "uncertain birth" -- maybe her father was a travelling Dornishman or Summer Islander given her "brown" appearance. Perhaps she had some dragonseed blood, perhaps she didn't; either way there have not really been any wide-scale experiments on non-Valyrian blooded people outside of the desperation during the Dance.

Nettles is called a Dragonseed in AWOIAF.

 

Quote

I also do not think Jon will be legitimate. The show's claim that everyone will accept a secret annulment of an existing marriage with children for a secret marriage officiated by a High Septon sneaking off during wartime is dubious. Maybe polygamy would have been attempted, but it probably would not have been considered legal on a wide scale given the secrecy and since Targaryens hadn't married polygamously in over 2 centuries. 

Oh, you're one of those huh? Well, look on the bright side, you'll be able to stay in denial mode forever since the books will never be finished.

Share this post


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

Nettles is called a Dragonseed in AWOIAF.

She shouldn't be. She's mentioned in a section where some dragonseeds are being recruited, but the text itself never calls her one and it can't really be assumed. 

1 hour ago, Xemi said:

Oh, you're one of those huh? Well, look on the bright side, you'll be able to stay in denial mode forever since the books will never be finished.

If Jon is "legitimate", it certainly won't be in the vein of it being popularly accepted. The High Septon had no reason to annul a consummated marriage with children unless he was a massive Rhaegar fan, and legitimacy sort of rests on these things being acknowledged in the open rather than something only a weirwood seer can see and a document that Gilly discovered. 

And also... I doubt that there won't be a conflict with people either 1. thinking he's a deserter or 2. thinking he is some kind of monster for being undead. Everyone in the show is just super chill with death breaking his vows (except in the case when he used his position as Lord Commander to execute Thorne and Olly after coming back!) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Vaith said:

She shouldn't be. She's mentioned in a section where some dragonseeds are being recruited, but the text itself never calls her one and it can't really be assumed.

Nettles is called a Dragonseed directly, go and check the book.

"SHEEPSTEALER (Nettles): A wild dragon tamed by a dragonseed, vanished
at war’s end."

That's what it says.

 

Quote

If Jon is "legitimate", it certainly won't be in the vein of it being popularly accepted. The High Septon had no reason to annul a consummated marriage with children unless he was a massive Rhaegar fan, and legitimacy sort of rests on these things being acknowledged in the open rather than something only a weirwood seer can see and a document that Gilly discovered. 

Suure, just like half the realm didn't think cersei's children were bastards born of incest because they didn't have black hair. I'm sure Howland Reed's words, Bran's vision's, whatever documents there are about the marriage, and Jon riding a fucking dragon won't convince anyone at all lol.

 

Quote

And also... I doubt that there won't be a conflict with people either 1. thinking he's a deserter or 2. thinking he is some kind of monster for being undead. Everyone in the show is just super chill with death breaking his vows (except in the case when he used his position as Lord Commander to execute Thorne and Olly after coming back!) 

Lannisters, Freys, Boltons, etc break vows left, right and center but I'm sure people will demonize Jon because "I don't believe you died mate". Not like we'll also have Robb's will freeing him of the NW, too. I'm sure you're one of those "R+L=J doesn't matter, it will only be a personal revelation for Jon, he will never get close to the throne and people will never believe him. He will never be a dragon rider. Daenerys is the prince that was promised, Azor Ahai, etc, Jon is just a random schmuck. The iron throne will go to Faegon or Daenerys" yada, yada.

Hey, as I said at least you'll be able to keep yapping about how "that's how it'll totally go in the books" since they'll never be finished to disprove your theories.

 

Edited by Xemi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Xemi said:

Nettles is called a Dragonseed directly, go and check the book.

"SHEEPSTEALER (Nettles): A wild dragon tamed by a dragonseed, vanished
at war’s end."

That's what it says.

Cool, proved me wrong there! :) I still don't think it's a universal truth one must have some Valyrian blood, but Nettles was an incorrect example as the appendix shows.

3 minutes ago, Xemi said:

Suure, just like half the realm didn't think cersei's children were bastards born of incest because they didn't have black hair. I'm sure Howland Reed's words, Bran's vision's, whatever documents there are about the marriage, and Jon riding a fucking dragon won't convince anyone at all lol.

But why is the marriage annulled? This kind of implies Rhaegar wanted to set aside his two perfectly healthy legitimate children, going off how annulments seem to have worked.

This is the point I can't wrap my head around. Do you honestly think that nobody noticed that the High Septon ran off to Dorne in the middle of a war and nobody thought that was odd? Or that if he was sending very important documents to the Citadel, it would go entirely unnoticed for 20 years until a half-illiterate wildling managed to discover it? Or if other documents existed with the Faith, they would never think to go over a previous High Septon either? (I mean in the show, the Great Sept is gone anyway). These are rather large issues with this secret having remained as such for as long as it has.

If Reed was alluded to in the show, that would be cool. Right now we only have Bran, and we know for a fact that people in the south are not inclined to believe in the words of greenseers, as the maesters on screen said that Bran's words were likely that of a charlatan.

Ah yes, we all know that you need to be legally legitimate in order to ride a dragon now. Yes, if Jon wants to enforce a shaky legitimacy through threatening to burn people alive, he can. It's just not a proof in itself aside from "accept this or I will roast you alive." 

14 minutes ago, Xemi said:

Lannisters, Freys, Boltons, etc break vows left, right and center but I'm sure people will demonize Jon because "I don't believe you died mate". Not like we'll also have Robb's will freeing him of the NW, too. I'm sure you're one of those "R+L=J doesn't matter, it will only be a personal revelation for Jon, he will never get close to the throne and people will never believe him. He will never be a dragon rider. Daenerys is the prince that was promised, Azor Ahai, etc, Jon is just a random schmuck. The iron throne will go to Faegon or Daenerys" yada, yada.

Hey, as I said at least you'll be able to keep yapping about how "that's how it'll totally go in the books" since they'll never be finished to disprove your theories.

One of the large consistent themes of the series is that the Starks are supposed to be rooted for because they have a code of honour unlike those who are constantly treacherous. To this extent, yeah -- I imagine that we are supposed to hold actual protagonists accountable for such oathbreaking. If Jon is freed from the NW, fine, he just can't have his cake and eat it by executing Olly and Thorne before using a loophole. 

People may believe R+L, it's just that the basis for Jon being legitimate as it exists in the show is on ground shaky enough that I believe it won't happen. It's not an insane choice to doubt a choice made by the show where the explanation for R+L's marriage isn't very credible, in my opinion. 

And no, I am not a huge Daenerys fan, nor an Aegon fan and do not think either of them, or Jon, will rule in the end. But I do think that a legitimate Jon would be the most standard fantasy cliché of the secret legitimate heir of the old dynasty being the one to sit on the throne. And yes, I do think that Jon will actually ride a dragon at some point.

I do think that Jon's conflict should be more internal though, to be honest. Sam's come across as quite a dick in the show by making it all about Jon possibly usurping Dany than helping his friend actually process that Ned is not his real dad, his siblings are not his siblings, etc. -- Jon doesn't even get to tell Dany that they are aunt and nephew, it is just all about who is the heir to the throne. Maybe an equal focus on telling Sansa and Arya the truth would be fitting for him, characterisation wise. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Vaith said:

Or that if he was sending very important documents to the Citadel, it would go entirely unnoticed for 20 years until a half-illiterate wildling managed to discover it?

It was his personal diary, so it was probably amongst a bunch of private papers sent to the Citadel after his death and left to rot away with a bunch of similar old documents (which is why Sam is tasked with copying them) and might never have been opened since he died.

As for the annulment, whether or not it happens in the books the same way as the show probably won't matter. Elia might have been "set aside" (the way Renly was scheming about Robert setting aside Cersei for Margaery) because she couldn't have any more children, allowing Rhaegar to take a second wife and make the third head of the dragon. We don't know how Elia felt about it, she might have been angry and hurt, but she also might have been resigned to it and even thankful that she didn't have to risk her life in childbirth anymore. If she believed in Rhaegar's prophecy she maybe even supported the second marriage.

And Rhaegar's marriage to Elia being annulled doesn't necessarily mean her children become illegitimate.

 

Edited by Lady of Mercia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lady of Mercia said:

I don't understand what you're saying. Aegon at Griffins Roost is (allegedly) the son of Elia Martell and Rhaegar. Jon is not that same baby. So if the one with JonCon is the real baby Aegon, and Jon's name is also Aegon, then there are two of them and they're half-brothers.

I'm just wondering if in the books Jon Snow will turn out to be an Aegon, or someone else. And what will his mission/purpose be in the books. Maybe he is another Aegon. But if not, what will his name be? Aemon? Something else? If in the books he is not indeed legitimate and R and L didn't have a secret wedding ceremony like they played in the show, he won't have the better claim to the throne. But I believe he has a purpose as one of the dragons 3 heads. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, LadyBlackwater said:

I'm just wondering if in the books Jon Snow will turn out to be an Aegon, or someone else. And what will his mission/purpose be in the books. Maybe he is another Aegon. But if not, what will his name be? Aemon? Something else? If in the books he is not indeed legitimate and R and L didn't have a secret wedding ceremony like they played in the show, he won't have the better claim to the throne. But I believe he has a purpose as one of the dragons 3 heads. Do you have any thoughts on this?

I am ready to take a bet, that in the books he will be named Aegon VII. It fits with Daenerys visions in tHotU. There Rhaegar says to a woman that his name is Aegon, and his is the Song of Ice and Fire. Until now, we allways asumed that he was speaking about Aegon VI to his wife Ellia. But I think this vision is more forshadowing and symbolic and should not be taken literally. After all, the red wedding was also not shown literally but in a symbolic manner. Just like the war of the five kings. I think this little baby baby in the vision symbolizes Jon and the women is Lyana. Of course the story was quite different, since Rhaegar was presumly dead or in war when Jon was born. But as I stated, this vision should not be taken literally. It also never made sense, that the Song of Ice and Fire was a song for Aegon VI. Rhaegar must have known that for sure. With Jon on the other hand, it fits perfectly. I think in this vision we learn the Name of Jon. Aegon VII. His is the Song of Ice and Fire.

 

Edited by T and A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, T and A said:

I am ready to take a bet, that in the books he will be named Aegon VII. It fits with Daenerys visions in tHotU. There Rhaegar says to a woman that his name is Aegon, and his is the Song of Ice and Fire. Until now, we allways asumed that he was speaking about Aegon VI to his wife Ellia. But I think this vision is more forshadowing and symbolic and should not be taken literally. After all, the red wedding was also not shown literally but in a symbolic manner. Just like the war of the five kings. I think this little baby baby in the vision symbolizes Jon and the women is Lyana. Of course the story was quite different, since Rhaegar was presumly dead or in war when Jon was born. But as I stated, this vision should not be taken literally.

 

I love this! What a great theory. I have tossed around with the theory that Jons name would also be Aegon, but I wasn't sure where exactly Jons birth lay in terms of when Elia and her babies were killed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, T and A said:

I am ready to take a bet, that in the books he will be named Aegon VII. It fits with Daenerys visions in tHotU. There Rhaegar says to a woman that his name is Aegon, and his is the Song of Ice and Fire. Until now, we allways asumed that he was speaking about Aegon VI to his wife Ellia. But I think this vision is more forshadowing and symbolic and should not be taken literally. After all, the red wedding was also not shown literally but in a symbolic manner. Just like the war of the five kings. I think this little baby baby in the vision symbolizes Jon and the women is Lyana. Of course the story was quite different, since Rhaegar was presumly dead or in war when Jon was born. But as I stated, this vision should not be taken literally. It also never made sense, that the Song of Ice and Fire was a song for Aegon VI. Rhaegar must have known that for sure. With Jon on the other hand, it fits perfectly. I think in this vision we learn the Name of Jon. Aegon VII. His is the Song of Ice and Fire.

 

Why does the numbering matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Xemi said:

Nettles is called a Dragonseed in AWOIAF.

 

Oh, you're one of those huh? Well, look on the bright side, you'll be able to stay in denial mode forever since the books will never be finished.

A dragonseed? Does that mean she is of the blood of the  dragon lords of Old Valyria somehow? I was thinking that you wouldn't necessarily have to be a Targaryen to ride a dragon, but maybe if your family originated from Old Valyria and the dragon lords that ultimately perished there...

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

×