Why is Jon called Jon?

[Azarial]

On 9/29/2020 at 2:50 PM, GoldenGail3 said:

"There must be three heads!" Rhaegar said in the flashback with Elia and her son, Aegon. 

Me thinks he did...

Maybe, but three heads doesn't mean they have to be named after those three. If recreating the original trio was his intent Visenya would be the first name not Rhaenys. He isn't following the pattern, this makes me doubt that he was recreating the original trio.

[GoldenGail3]

On 10/1/2020 at 12:40 PM, Azarial said:

Maybe, but three heads doesn't mean they have to be named after those three. If recreating the original trio was his intent Visenya would be the first name not Rhaenys. He isn't following the pattern, this makes me doubt that he was recreating the original trio.

What else do you think he was doing, naming his second child (and son) by Elia Martell Aegon? Explain it to me, please, in a logical way on why Rhaegar did that and produced to say "there must be one more". Do you think that Rhaegar really wanted another son by another woman when their child would posse an actual real threat to the Martell's and his precious PTWP Aegon? Rhaegar's believes that by hatching the original three (aegon, visenya, and rhaenys) that he might bring back dragons. Having another son would encroach on such plans. I highly doubt Rhaegar meant to have another son by Lyanna, and I'm pretty sure he'd be extremely disappointed by Jon's birth.

[Daeron the Daring]

Well, there is no point of naming a child after his dead brother. Yes, people named their children after their dead brothers, sisters and ancestors, but never ever give the same name to two of their children, even if the first one died.

Just call him Aemon, Daemon, Daeron, Baelon or Jaehaerys, but not Aegon, please. 

"The dragon has three heads" is no proof since Rhaegar's first children was named Rhaenys, and Rhaegar wasn't right after all, so there's no point of believing in this.

[GoldenGail3]

17 hours ago, HerblYY said:

Well, there is no point of naming a child after his dead brother. Yes, people named their children after their dead brothers, sisters and ancestors, but never ever give the same name to two of their children, even if the first one died.

Just call him Aemon, Daemon, Daeron, Baelon or Jaehaerys, but not Aegon, please. 

"The dragon has three heads" is no proof since Rhaegar's first children was named Rhaenys, and Rhaegar wasn't right after all, so there's no point of believing in this.

And Aegon.

[Azarial]

On 10/2/2020 at 1:58 PM, GoldenGail3 said:

What else do you think he was doing, naming his second child (and son) by Elia Martell Aegon? Explain it to me, please, in a logical way on why Rhaegar did that and produced to say "there must be one more". Do you think that Rhaegar really wanted another son by another woman when their child would posse an actual real threat to the Martell's and his precious PTWP Aegon? Rhaegar's believes that by hatching the original three (aegon, visenya, and rhaenys) that he might bring back dragons. Having another son would encroach on such plans. I highly doubt Rhaegar meant to have another son by Lyanna, and I'm pretty sure he'd be extremely disappointed by Jon's birth.

Rhaegar, is the male version of Rhaeny's, Visery's is the male version of Visenya, then we are told all about how Aerys and Rhaella wanted another kid. Remind me what Dany's name is again? If having those two names and wanting a third kid means that there is only one option, explain this.

Not to mention we are shown in a vision, by Dany the person who should have a female version of the name Aegon if using two of those names and trying for a third child truly indicates this pattern, that Rhaegar only named Aegon after the child was born. If he names his kids after they are born, something we are shown in the vision used to support the Visenya claim, where is the proof that he named Jon in advance? I haven't seen any. The only talk of him wanting a third kid outside of this vision is from the Lannisters, mainly Kevin who says he wanted a boy. Do we have proof that Rhaegar didn't mention wanting another son to Tywin?

There is no proof that Rhaegar had a name picked out. It is just speculation. The only indication of what he was doing, is trying to have three kids, there is no proof that the names matter, that the genders matter or that he had a name picked out in advance. Aemon who Rhaegar talked to said he could have been one of the heads if he was younger. If the names matter this couldn't be true. If the names matter for the prophecy then Dany can't be one of the heads, surely you can see the issue with this.

We do have one example of him naming his children after the fact, and it's presented in a way that makes it seem normal implying that he likely named both his other kids after the fact. 

If that's the case then Lyanna named him. Why she would pick Aegon is hinted at in the Dunk and Egg series, maybe she didn't know any other name. Now this makes sense if you add to it she didn't know what other male Targaryen name Rhaegar liked because they never discussed names in advance as Rhaegar said they'd name the kid after they were born. 

I think the Visenya theory is based on nothing. If you find another name more likely and have textual proof for it I'm all ears, as I hate his name being Aegon just as much as you do. But I didn't write the books. I did a full re-read to find hints at another name, and to prove that this name was stupid. Sadly the text implies that this is his name more strongly than any other name. Our opinions are irrelevant.

[Azarial]

On 10/2/2020 at 2:39 PM, HerblYY said:

Yes, people named their children after their dead brothers, sisters and ancestors, but never ever give the same name to two of their children, even if the first one died.

 

But we are given examples of two siblings with the same name in their world. The brothers Pate and Pate. Or siblings with similar names Erryk and Arryk. Or all the Walder's and Walda's.

A thing can't be dismissed just because we don't like it, especially if the author has made a point of establishing it as something that does happen. 

[corbon]

2 hours ago, Azarial said:

But we are given examples of two siblings with the same name in their world. The brothers Pate and Pate.

Err, What? There's no such thing.

2 hours ago, Azarial said:

Or siblings with similar names Erryk and Arryk. Or all the Walder's and Walda's.

Similar names are not the same name.

2 hours ago, Azarial said:

A thing can't be dismissed just because we don't like it, especially if the author has made a point of establishing it as something that does happen. 

He hasn't.
Naming two siblings the same name is exactly the kind of thing that can be dismissed, unless it is shown to have happened. No one does that. Period.

[HoodedCrow]

Not many people name their kids after dead siblings now. They did that in the Victorian era, though, ehem, my grandfather was named after a dead sibling and we thought it strange, until you look at the customs.

[Azarial]

4 minutes ago, corbon said:

Err, What? There's no such thing.

Similar names are not the same name.

He hasn't.
Naming two siblings the same name is exactly the kind of thing that can be dismissed, unless it is shown to have happened. No one does that. Period.

It's in Dunk and Egg. I remembered the name wrong but all the same here's the quote:

Quote

 Two of the Wats were brothers. "Guess your mother didn't know no other name," Bennis said, cackling.

Brothers with the same name in Westeros with a comment about the mother not knowing any other name. It's Wats not Pate, my bad. But me misremembering the name doesn't change the reference.

And this:

Quote

"No, it was Lord Stannis," Walder Frey said irritably. "Do you think I can't tell Lord Stannis from Lord Tywin? They're both bungholes who think they're too noble to shit, but never mind about that, I know the difference. Or do you think I'm so old I can't remember? I'm ninety and I remember very well. I remember what to do with a woman too. That wife of mine will give me a son before this time next year, I'll wager. Or a daughter, that can't be helped. Boy or girl, it will be red, wrinkled, and squalling, and like as not she'll want to name it Walder or Walda."

So no it can't be dismissed. If Walder has a son named Walder (and he does Walder Rivers/Bastard Walder), and his new wife has a son and names him Walder then they would be half brothers with the same name. And none of them seem to think this is some huge travesty. Walder finds it likely, not unthinkable. The reason is different, but it still shows that this does/can happen. It's in the text. And both these examples have the mother being the one to want the name.

[corbon]

34 minutes ago, Azarial said:

It's in Dunk and Egg. I remembered the name wrong but all the same here's the quote:

I stand partially corrected due to your error.

Nonetheless, this is literally the exception that proves the rule. Even illiterate peasants make a joke of how stupid the mother was.

In all likelihood the two brothers had different names. Wat is (was, these days) commonly used as a short form variant of Walter (and probably other similar names like Watford etc) as well as its own 'full' name.

What stands for an illiterate and remarked upon as especially stupid peasant does not stand for a noble, let alone the royal House.

Quote

And this:

So no it can't be dismissed. If Walder has a son named Walder (and he does Walder Rivers/Bastard Walder), and his new wife has a son and names him Walder then they would be half brothers with the same name. And none of them seem to think this is some huge travesty. Walder finds it likely, not unthinkable. The reason is different, but it still shows that this does/can happen. It's in the text. And both these examples have the mother being the one to want the name.

While the Frey's are weird, by everyone in Westeros' standards, you still didn't make a point here. The woman might want to name the babe Walder or Walda (in order to curry favour with her husband for her offspring, which are very far down the list of inheritants), that doesn't mean she will be allowed to.
Look through the entire, complicated, extensive Frey family tree descended from the current Lord Walder, with all their Walders and Walda's, 115 or so people, including the bastards, and you will not find a single pair of siblings with the same name.  

Yes, it can be dismissed.

[Daeron the Daring]

10 hours ago, Azarial said:

It's in Dunk and Egg. I remembered the name wrong but all the same here's the quote:

Brothers with the same name in Westeros with a comment about the mother not knowing any other name. It's Wats not Pate, my bad. But me misremembering the name doesn't change the reference.

And this:

So no it can't be dismissed. If Walder has a son named Walder (and he does Walder Rivers/Bastard Walder), and his new wife has a son and names him Walder then they would be half brothers with the same name. And none of them seem to think this is some huge travesty. Walder finds it likely, not unthinkable. The reason is different, but it still shows that this does/can happen. It's in the text. And both these examples have the mother being the one to want the name.

Can we just not compare House Frey to House Targaryen? There even was a Rhaegar among the Freys, and several Walders because people tought that Lord Walder would like this.

And of course, giving brothers the same name made people mocking on them. That's why it's not that common.

[ShimShim]

I wonder if Lyanna actually ever named her son. I think she just left it up to Ned after she made him promise to protect the child. And if she did, I don't think she would have chosen a blatantly targ name, since Ned came to get Lyanna after the fall of the Targs(Ned left after the sack of KL if im not mixing up my timelines). I think she would have given him a Northern name, heck she could have even named him Jon since there was a King of the North named Jon, who built the wolfs den, so i imagine he might have been one of the more well known or remembered kings.

[Azarial]

On 10/5/2020 at 1:21 PM, corbon said:

I stand partially corrected due to your error.

Nonetheless, this is literally the exception that proves the rule. Even illiterate peasants make a joke of how stupid the mother was.

In all likelihood the two brothers had different names. Wat is (was, these days) commonly used as a short form variant of Walter (and probably other similar names like Watford etc) as well as its own 'full' name.

What stands for an illiterate and remarked upon as especially stupid peasant does not stand for a noble, let alone the royal House.

We aren't shown that the names are different this is an assumption, and them being the same has our attention drawn to it. I'm just saying there could be an authorial reason for this very odd choice. Even if their names are nicknames, they are still given the same nickname and our attention is still drawn to it and linked to the mother.

On 10/5/2020 at 1:21 PM, corbon said:

While the Frey's are weird, by everyone in Westeros' standards, you still didn't make a point here. The woman might want to name the babe Walder or Walda (in order to curry favour with her husband for her offspring, which are very far down the list of inheritants), that doesn't mean she will be allowed to.
Look through the entire, complicated, extensive Frey family tree descended from the current Lord Walder, with all their Walders and Walda's, 115 or so people, including the bastards, and you will not find a single pair of siblings with the same name.  

Yes, it can be dismissed.

It can't though, because no matter what the name ends up being it shows a mother who desires to name a son of hers the same as a half sibling. And this is worse than the Lyanna Elia scenario as both of them are alive at this point, and the Freys as odd and unlikable as they are, are a part of the nobility and no one finds it odd. We are in the head of Cat one of the most judgmental POV characters in the series and she doesn't find it odd or unthinkable. It would have been in character for her to have a thought about house Frey doing something like this, but it didn't happen. And I find the absence to be an interesting authorial choice.

Then we are given the two reasons by the characters discussing these names: She knows no other name, and to curry favor. So if she knew Rhaegar wanted his son to have a Targaryen name but didn't know what name he would have chosen, but did know that he wanted his eldest son to be named Aegon, and her son was now the oldest son, it's really not that much of stretch to think she would honor her babies father by giving his son a name she knew he liked. And since we aren't told of him mentioning any other name, and are shown him naming his last son after his birth this may be the only name she knew he liked. It lines up to cleanly for me to ignore.

On 10/5/2020 at 11:46 PM, HerblYY said:

Can we just not compare House Frey to House Targaryen? There even was a Rhaegar among the Freys, and several Walders because people tought that Lord Walder would like this.

And of course, giving brothers the same name made people mocking on them. That's why it's not that common.

GRRM places clues all over, if you only look for clues in sections about people and houses you like you will miss a lot of potential foreshadowing for houses and characters you do like. And it's not comparing these houses anyway. It's showing a mother that was born and raised in a different noble house that happened to marry a Frey wanting to name her son a certain way. And if it were made common in world it would be easy for the reader to predict as an option, something GRRM is working hard to avoid given we don't appear to be anywhere near a name reveal, since we don't even have a parentage reveal yet. It just has to be possible in world, even if it is unlikely in world. Once a possibility is there, no matter how remote, he can build the needed reasoning in to make it work. But he knows we all discuss and analyse stuff to death (unlike in early books where he wasn't aware this would happen) so he wouldn't give the clues to early as he's been working to hide things much more as the series and internet discussions both grew.

And it's worse than you say it's a Rhaegar and two Aegons, likely due to their Blackfyre associations that were established in the Dunk and Egg series. Lord Walder himself was at Whitewalls as a small snot nosed kid, so like it or not these houses have links that give them a reason to name their kids that way to curry favor with house Targaryen in order to make up for their houses Blackfyre ties.

[corbon]

6 hours ago, Azarial said:

We aren't shown that the names are different this is an assumption, and them being the same has our attention drawn to it. I'm just saying there could be an authorial reason for this very odd choice. Even if their names are nicknames, they are still given the same nickname and our attention is still drawn to it and linked to the mother.

Thats not the main point there though.

Even illiterate peasants mock the woman for her stupidity. 

6 hours ago, Azarial said:

It can't though, because no matter what the name ends up being it shows a mother who desires to name a son of hers the same as a half sibling.

Who about 50-50 might desire that ("as like as not") in the mocking opinion of Lord Walder. Its not actually a thing that she has expressed such desire. Its literally just old Lord Walder mocking his family for their over-obvious favour currying. 
And there is no indication it would be allowed. 

6 hours ago, Azarial said:

and the Freys as odd and unlikable as they are, are a part of the nobility and no one finds it odd. We are in the head of Cat one of the most judgmental POV characters in the series and she doesn't find it odd or unthinkable.

No one finds it as odd because they understand its not a thing. 

 

[Azarial]

19 hours ago, corbon said:

Thats not the main point there though.

Even illiterate peasants mock the woman for her stupidity. 

Who about 50-50 might desire that ("as like as not") in the mocking opinion of Lord Walder. Its not actually a thing that she has expressed such desire. Its literally just old Lord Walder mocking his family for their over-obvious favour currying. 
And there is no indication it would be allowed. 

No one finds it as odd because they understand its not a thing. 

 

This is all interpretation. I only care that the text its self is presented, I could care less if people interpret it the same way as I do.

And since I don't like the name, I simply saw more hints for it than any other name at this point in the series, I'm not about to defend it! lol I want him to have the name Baleor (but spelled the northerner way, that was on purpose) as it honors both of his familial roots, is linked to a person that wasn't king, but should have been because he decided to help defend someone who was unable to defend themselves without him. I like that and think it would be nice thematically, and if GRRM adds lots of clues to that being his name in the next few books I'll be happy. I know you are one of the people really familiar with the books, so if you know of solid hints at another name, other than the common Aemon, Visenya stuff that I took into mind on my re-read (way back when, 3-4 years which is why I only included a fraction of what I found on here, and misremembered a minor characters name) please tell me. I would love to be able to do a re-read with a different name in mind. And haven't done a re-read in 2 years and am due for one. But really don't have a desire to defend my observations, I refuse to even call it a theory, especially since the point being debated is the most minor and irrelevant one anyway. The why is what bugs readers, but isn't needed in advance for a name to be true or false. 

Plus, he's Jon Ned's surrogate son named after Neds surrogate dad. The rest is just window dressing anyway. I wonder if he'll name Gilly's baby Ned? to keep the pattern going. I'd like that too.

[punzerknacker]

On 10/6/2020 at 12:15 PM, ShimShim said:

I think she would have given him a Northern name, heck she could have even named him Jon since there was a King of the North named Jon, who built the wolfs den, so i imagine he might have been one of the more well known or remembered kings.

Although this theory makes sense, GRRM has said that Jon was named by Ned, so obviously after Jon Arryn.

Regarding the point about Lyanna choosing the only Targ name she knew Rhaegar liked, I still find it a little distasteful whether or not she knew the other Aegon was dead. It's bad enough that she's been having an affair with a married man without further insulting Elia by giving her own kid the same name as Elia's son. We don't know what Lyanna thought of Elia and her children though. Was she bitter that they had a better claim than her son? Or did she not care at all whether her child would ever sit the throne? So in the former case she might have named the child Aegon to push his claim, stressing that he's just as good as the other Aegon (alive or dead) and all the ones before him.

[Damon_Tor]

On 3/11/2020 at 6:21 PM, Connor Grey said:

The name ‘Jon’ might also give hint of his real name ‘Aegon’, if you shorten it to ‘Gon’.

I've proposed this origin before. If GRRM had the Greek pronunciation for Aegon (Think "aegis") in mind when he first started the books then it would have been pronounced "Ee-jon" not "Ay-gon" and thus the name could be explained. Of course we know that GRRM currently pronounces it "Ay-gon" and that pronunciation is evidenced in the texts by one Aegon being nicknamed "Egg" which only makes sense assuming that pronunciation. That's pretty meta though.

[Frey family reunion]

On 3/12/2020 at 5:17 PM, Connor Grey said:

Well thank you for your thoughts, I must say I’m surprised at the negativity. If I disagree with someone about ideas on work of fiction, my aim wouldn’t be to shut them down or be hostile. I’m new to this forum, and was hoping to have more open-minded, creative conversation. 

Ha, you’re in the wrong place.

[corbon]

On 10/9/2020 at 5:21 AM, Azarial said:

This is all interpretation. I only care that the text its self is presented, I could care less if people interpret it the same way as I do.

Its not just interpretation. You presented a fact that was not. There is no pair of Frey siblings that have the same name and no indication that there will be. 
There are one pair of brother with apparently the same name, but the mocking of their mother for that very thing points to the exact opposite of how you used it. It shows that sibling swith eth same name is not a thing, when you were arguing it as being a thing. 

On 10/9/2020 at 5:21 AM, Azarial said:

I know you are one of the people really familiar with the books, so if you know of solid hints at another name, other than the common Aemon,

I just go with Jon. GRRM said that Ned named him. I don't see any reason we have to invent a dying Lyanna giving him another name, nor Rhaegar who likely died well before he was born and probably hadn't been present with Lyanna for months before the birth instructing her to give him one (and her having the strength to do it, or to tell Ned.

As far as I am concerned, even if Lyanna did name Jon, and died without telling Ned his name, then it is utterly irrelevant. But we have no evidence she did, and reason she may not have.

Thinking about it a bit further, I suppose it could become relevant if there was a Maester present at the birth, which is possible but not indicated or necessary.
And Wylla might know, if he was named. 

On 10/9/2020 at 5:21 AM, Azarial said:

I refuse to even call it a theory, especially since the point being debated is the most minor and irrelevant one anyway.

 So it is. 
Thats my flaw. I see a mistaken claim of fact, I tend to point it out. If someone tries to defend their error instead of admitting it, and I have time, I'm likely to argue them back rather than let a falsehood stand. Too much of our society's ills are caused by falsehoods being accepted as truth. Sometimes that leads to a lot of text about what is effectively a pointless nothing. I'm not perfect. And I make mistakes sometimes too.

On 10/9/2020 at 5:21 AM, Azarial said:

Plus, he's Jon Ned's surrogate son named after Neds surrogate dad. The rest is just window dressing anyway. 

Agreed. 

[Azarial]

On 10/11/2020 at 3:30 PM, corbon said:

Its not just interpretation. You presented a fact that was not. There is no pair of Frey siblings that have the same name and no indication that there will be. 
There are one pair of brother with apparently the same name, but the mocking of their mother for that very thing points to the exact opposite of how you used it. It shows that sibling swith eth same name is not a thing, when you were arguing it as being a thing. 

It is, as it's stated to be likely and people don't react. But, that's alright we'll just agree to disagree. 

 

On 10/11/2020 at 3:30 PM, corbon said:

Thinking about it a bit further, I suppose it could become relevant if there was a Maester present at the birth, which is possible but not indicated or necessary.
And Wylla might know, if he was named. 

I think it's only relevant as it could be potentially related to prophecy, and/or as an indication of Rhaegar and/or Lyanna's thoughts or intentions. I don't think it matters in the Jon would ever go by another name, or desire to be a Targ kind of way. I don't find either of those likely. 

On 10/11/2020 at 3:30 PM, corbon said:

 So it is. 
Thats my flaw. I see a mistaken claim of fact, I tend to point it out. If someone tries to defend their error instead of admitting it, and I have time, I'm likely to argue them back rather than let a falsehood stand. Too much of our society's ills are caused by falsehoods being accepted as truth. Sometimes that leads to a lot of text about what is effectively a pointless nothing. I'm not perfect. And I make mistakes sometimes too.

I agree it's  best to sort fact from opinion on here, and to few can admit when they misremembered something. I do think with us it is a matter of interpretation, as the text is the text so it's an opinion thing, and that's all well and good. 

On 10/11/2020 at 3:30 PM, corbon said:

Agreed.