Jump to content
Egged

Why Jon's true name might not be a Targaryen name

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I posted it on Reddit so I'm just reposting it.

Quote

"One day, Bran, you will be Robb's bannerman, holding a keep of your own for your brother and your king, and justice will fall to you. When that day comes, you must take no pleasure in the task, but neither must you look away. A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is."

That was when Jon reappeared on the crest of the hill before them.

This riffs on a recent post by u/Ser_Austin_Flowers that Jon will be the Night's King. Go give him a thumbs up as I think it's well deserved!

https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/mt4ffc/is_anyone_else_getting_the_idea_that_jon_will/

Quote

”He was a good man... No. He was a great man. A maester of the Citadel, chained and sworn, and Sworn Brother of the Night's Watch, ever faithful. When he was born they named him for a hero who had died too young, but though he lived a long long time, his own life was no less heroic. No man was wiser, or gentler, or kinder. At the Wall, a dozen lords commander came and went during his years of service, but he was always there to counsel them. He counseled kings as well. He could have been a king himself, but when they offered him the crown he told them they should give it to his younger brother. How many men would do that? He was the blood of the dragon, but now his fire has gone out. He was Aemon Targaryen. And now his watch is ended.”

As Ser_Austin_Flowers noted, that means Jon is the 13th lord commander under Aemon.

I have been saying that the Night's King's story was about the future, not the past.

Tormund Giantsbane = Joramun and his Horn of Winter. They say the horn could wake giants, and bring down the wall. Tormund's "horn" could "wake" a giant (his cock). And Tormund went south of the wall. One of his nicknames is Horn Blower and Breaker of Ice. So as stories are retold they get distorted.

Quote

Although Tormund is said to have slain a giant, he claims to have actually cut open the belly of a sleeping giantess and slept in her for warmth during a winter storm. Tormund claims the giantess, thinking he was a babe, then suckled him for three months in the spring. Tormund also claims to once have drunkenly slept with a bear.

Night's Queen could be Val (she was found north of the wall, dresses all in white) or something else relating to Ygritte or Dany.

Brandon the Breaker is said to have defeated the Night's King, who was his brother, and erased his name from history. Brandon the Breaker = Bran.

Old Nan said the Night's King's name was Brandon Stark.

Jon's real name? Brandon.

Rhaegar wanting to name his child Brandon makes sense as he and Lyanna would feel some guilt for his death, he came to the Red Keep looking for Lyanna. It would have been out of respect. I mean the surname would have been Targaryen anyway, so his name would have been Brandon Targaryen, which is a good way for Rhaegar to show his good faith towards the north after the war.

It makes sense for Ned and Cat to name one of their children Brandon, but Ned could certainly not keep the name Brandon for a bastard, as Brandon was the name of the man Catelyn would have married, the heir of Winterfell.

Everything is lining up for Old Nan's Night's King story to take place.

Let's not forget the Night Fort is being repaired.

If Jon ends up sleeping in Bran's bed, you'll know what's going on ;)

No wonder Bran's Direwolf is named Summer.

Edited by Egged

Share this post


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

Rhaegar wanting to name his child Brandon makes sense as he and Lyanna would feel some guilt for his death

Lyanna would have been more than likely to name Jon Brandon than Rhaegar. Had he lived, Rhaegar would've given Jon a traditional Targaryen name like Daeron or Maekar. Provided that he wasn't expecting Jon to be a girl he could name Visenya. 

Share this post


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

Lyanna would have been more than likely to name Jon Brandon than Rhaegar. Had he lived, Rhaegar would've given Jon a traditional Targaryen name like Daeron or Maekar. Provided that he wasn't expecting Jon to be a girl he could name Visenya. 

We don't know that because we really don't know Rhaegar's line of thinking. Naming Jon Brandon Targaryen would send a good message to the north after the war, if Rhaegar believed he could come forward with Lyanna and his son. It is likely that if he planned to rule, he would have wanted to appease the north and the Starks.

So he would at least have a good reason to. The surname would be Targaryen anyway. Ice and Fire. Brandon Targaryen. The prince that was promised. The pact of Ice & Fire.

Edited by Egged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/18/2021 at 4:14 PM, Egged said:

Rhaegar wanting to name his child Brandon makes sense as he and Lyanna would feel some guilt for his death, he came to the Red Keep looking for Lyanna. It would have been out of respect.

If Lyanna had named his infant son Brandon, there would have been absolutely no reason for Ned to change it.

Additionally, I'm not entirely sure it would make much sense to name their child in Brandon's honor, but at the same time not moving a single finger to de-escalate the conflict. Rhaegar didn't intervene to stop Brandon and Rickard's execution, or appease his father when he asked for Robert and Jon's heads, or pacify the war that was being fought not very far from he Tower of Joy. The casualties at the Battle of Summerhall or the people that starved at Storm's End could have benefited from a timely intervention from Rhaegar.

On top of that, Rhaegar led the armies that faced the rebels at the Trident. He wanted to "change things" after the battle, but first he intended to kill Jon, Robert and Ned. As far as we know, he didn't try to negotiate or make concessions before the confrontation. I don't think this is the behaviour of someone who feels particularly guilty about the death of Brandon.

As someone obsessed with prophecies and lore, if Rhaegar had decided a name for his future infant that would have been Visenya or Viserys (after siring a Rhaenys and an Aegon).

Edited by The hairy bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

If Lyanna had named his infant son Brandon, there would have been absolutely no reason for Ned to change it.

 

Lyanna didn't name her son anything. Because she died. 

If she had lived long enough to name him anything, it sure wouldn't have been a Targaryen name, because she wasn't a complete idiot. On her death bed, she asked her brother to protect her son. She wasn't going to put a target on his back, for crying out loud!

Are people seriously still talking about this crap? Jon's "true name" is Jon. The only name he ever got. Ned named him. There's nothing more to it. What name Rhaegar or Lyanna would have given him is irrelevant.

My mom first planned to give me a different name, then she changed her mind because my dad didn't like the name, and she came up with a different one she really liked. The first one is not my "true name".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

Lyanna didn't name her son anything. Because she died. 

If she had lived long enough to name him anything, it sure wouldn't have been a Targaryen name, because she wasn't a complete idiot. On her death bed, she asked her brother to protect her son. She wasn't going to put a target on his back, for crying out loud!

Naming him, be it Valyrian or Northern, is a possibility. It doesn't put a target on his head if he has a Northern name, but not even a Valyrian one, since the boy doesn't have to wear it. Not to mention that if Jon was born without hair, they probably didn't even know if the baby will have a Valyrian look or not (because it takes a couple of weeks to open its eyes for the first time). Neither that would be a problem, since not only the Targaryens have the Valyrian look in Westeros. Ned could've just said that he fucked a valyrian-looking whore and that's it.

And we have examples of women dying 6 months after childbirth, but still because of it (Alyssa Targaryen). Queen Rhaella was able to name Daenerys, because she only died a couple MINUTES after givin birth.

As far as we know, days or weeks might have passed since the birth of Jon when Ned finally arrived and Lyanna died. But she only needed minutes to do such a thing, not even hours. 

41 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

What name Rhaegar or Lyanna would have given him is irrelevant.

My mom first planned to give me a different name, then she changed her mind because my dad didn't like the name, and she came up with a different one she really liked. The first one is not my "true name".

It's not about what name Rhaegar or Lyanna would've given him. Lyanna, after all, had a good change to name his son, and might have respected what they together tought of with Rhaegar in case of a boy, if they ever tought of any name (be it Valyrian or not). But even then, Lyanna might have named him, as we don't know if she had time to do so or not. And if she did, it's surely not Jon. George confirmed the name Jon was given by Ned, noone else.

And I do agree with you that still talking about this is absolutely pointless. The thread before this regarding Jon's 'true' name was recently used. It's not if it annoys you for 6 or 7 years, because not everybody was here back then, but again, you're right because this was recently discussed, and people can easily find those threads if they're interested in it. Still, I don't see why this is so annoying (altough I too consider it crackpot).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Naming him, be it Valyrian or Northern, is a possibility. It doesn't put a target on his head if he has a Northern name, but not even a Valyrian one, since the boy doesn't have to wear it. Not to mention that if Jon was born without hair, they probably didn't even know if the baby will have a Valyrian look or not (because it takes a couple of weeks to open its eyes for the first time). Neither that would be a problem, since not only the Targaryens have the Valyrian look in Westeros. Ned could've just said that he fucked a valyrian-looking whore and that's it.

 

Giving him a Targaryen name would clearly be arousing suspicion. Not when a Frey does it to suck up to the current king, but when Ned Stark turns out with a baby he brought after burying his sister, a baby he tells everyone has a Targaryen name?! I'd love to hear that explanation!

If she had given him a Northern or just neutral Westerosi name, there would be no reason for Ned to change it. He respected his sister.

If she was an idiot and asked him to name him Aemon or something, he would be smart enough to ignore it. But she was not an idiot.

In summary, Lyanna didn't name Jon.

ETA: The hair discussion is irrelevant to the name discussion.

But as for hair and eyes, no, they probably wouldn't really know for sure what he would look like, since babies don't have the same hair color or eye color as those people would as adults. I have very dark brown hair and eyes but I had blue eyes when I was born (though as I was told, doctors already knew they'd be brown because they were dark blue) and was blonde till about 4-5 years old. Half of my class in school was blond at age 7 and brown haired a few years later. Blonde people (even dark blonde or medium brown haired) would probably have Targaryen looking silver hair as children. (I've certainly seen Swedish tourists who were regular blondes but their kids were silver haired., and those weren't babies but pre-teens.)

Edited by Annara Snow

Share this post


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

Giving him a Targaryen name would clearly be arousing suspicion.

No. Giving one does not. Using it does.

But this I think I've told in my earlier reply, here, if you missed it:

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

It doesn't put a target on his head if he has a Northern name, but not even a Valyrian one would, since the boy wouldn't have to wear it.

In case you didn't understand that I meant there: Ned doesn't have to tell people his real name. It's that simple. I honestly don't see any problem with it.

1 hour ago, Annara Snow said:

If she had given him a Northern or just neutral Westerosi name, there would be no reason for Ned to change it. He respected his sister.

Yes, there could be. Imagine the boy having the name Rickard (after Lyanna's dead father) or Brandon (after Lyanna's dead brother), for example. People would consider naming a bastard after Brandon or Rickard (in this case) a sign of disrespect from Ned to his close relatives who recently just died.

1 hour ago, Annara Snow said:

In summary, Lyanna didn't name Jon.

In summary, we don't know if she named him or not. Don't act like you know what happened, because you don't, and Jon having another name is a likely option(be it Valyrian or not). Hell, even the likelier one. All we know is that Lyanna didn't give Jon the name Jon, and that naming her child would only take minutes.

1 hour ago, Annara Snow said:

ETA: The hair discussion is irrelevant to the name discussion.

I was just trying to make it easier for you. To understand that you don't have to use the boy's real name, and the fact that Jon having a public Valyrian would expose Lyanna's affair and Jon's true identity didn't stop them from naming the child. Because they didn't have to worry about such things, since he might have turned out to be Valyrian looking too, which would also raise questions, but can easily be resolved by simply telling that Ned fucked a whore with Valyrian looks. And such a lie would be as easy as saying/lying that Jon's name is Jon.

I hope I was clear enough this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2021 at 10:14 AM, Egged said:

Jon's real name? Brandon.

Rhaegar wanting to name his child Brandon makes sense as he and Lyanna would feel some guilt for his death, he came to the Red Keep looking for Lyanna. It would have been out of respect. I mean the surname would have been Targaryen anyway, so his name would have been Brandon Targaryen, which is a good way for Rhaegar to show his good faith towards the north after the war.

 

Somehow, I can't see Lyanna giving Jon/Brandon to Ned to raise and protect without telling him his real name. And if that is the case, I can't see Ned naming one of his sons Brandon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon would only have a Targaryen name if Rhaegar had had a say in that ... and that's not bloody likely since he was dead. And since Lya seems to have known he was dead when she died - and also that House Targaryen was dead and finished - she would also not give the child a silly Targaryen name she wanted to protect from Robert.

Hence, chances are not that bad that Jon is the only given name Jon Snow ever had or will have.

Also, the idea that Lya of all people would want to give her child a Targaryen name when the Targaryens killed her father and brother is not all that likely. Rhaegar forcing such a name on Lya's child would make him a shitty rapey guy all over again ... although more in a mental sense.

The idea that Lya was happy when Rhaegar left her and their unborn child to defend the throne of the madman who had murdered her father and brother is also not very likely.

4 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

As someone obsessed with prophecies and lore, if Rhaegar had decided a name for his future infant that would have been Visenya or Viserys (after siring a Rhaenys and an Aegon).

Viserra is much better than Visenya ;-). Visenya is not actually a very popular name with the Targaryens, for obvious reasons. It was the name of one woman suspected to have murdered one of the Targaryen patriarchs and the name of a stillborn monstrosity (who likely would have been named quite different had she lived). Rhaenys (and variations of that name) as well as Aegon are much more popular. Even Rhaegar himself clearly is effectively named after Rhaenys - as are the various folks named Rhaenys, Rhaena, Rhaella, Rhaelle, Rhae, Rhaegel, etc.

And with the Viserys name already in use for Rhaegar's brother it is not likely he would have gone with that one. If we think of the two Aegons during the reign of Viserys I it seems to be considered distasteful if you do that - at least with the Targaryens. Parents don't give their children their own names, either. You may honor a grandparent by using their names, but you don't do that if an uncle or other close relation still has that name.

That also seems to be the case for the Starks with the Brandon name. Bran would have likely not be named Brandon if Ned's brother had still been alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Viserra is much better than Visenya ;-).

Of course! But I was referring to the fact that Rhaegar had already fathered an Aegon and a Rhaenys. In Dany's vision at the House of the Undying, he says that "There must be one more" and "The dragon has three heads". Since the three heads of the Targaryen dragon represent Aegon and his sisters, I can see Rhaegar imagining that her next child would be a girl he'd name Visenya,  the negative associations be damned.

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And with the Viserys name already in use for Rhaegar's brother it is not likely he would have gone with that one. If we think of the two Aegons during the reign of Viserys I it seems to be considered distasteful if you do that - at least with the Targaryens. Parents don't give their children their own names, either. You may honor a grandparent by using their names, but you don't do that if an uncle or other close relation still has that name.

At least in House Frey this rule would not apply, with plenty of Walder cousins and uncles around.

It's true that we don't have many cases of repeated names on family members of the same generation* but this may have more to do with GRRM trying to avoid confusions to the readers than an actual in-world taboo.

 

* Besides the Freys, the only other example I've been able to find is a couple of Brandon cousins in the Stark family tree (a son of Willam and a son of Artos). But it's possible that the first Brandon died before the second was born.

Edited by The hairy bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Of course! But I was referring to the fact that Rhaegar had already fathered an Aegon and a Rhaenys. In Dany's vision at the House of the Undying, he says that "There must be one more" and "The dragon has three heads". Since the three heads of the Targaryen dragon represent Aegon and his sisters, I can see Rhaegar imagining that her next child would be a girl he'd name Visenya,  the negative associations be damned.

Yes, I know, I thought along those lines once, too. But I think with what we know about the importance of Rhaenys to the Targaryens ... and the controversity of Visenya, it is actually much more likely that Rhaegar just named his first child Rhaenys because the 'Rhae-'-thing is the most popular traditional Targaryen name thing. And he chose Aegon because it is the traditional Targaryen king name. Rhaegar names his son Aegon, because he thinks he will be king one day, not because he is the promised prince.

The third head could then have pretty much any name, especially since we have no confirmation that Rhaegar actively tried to emulate Aegon and his sister-wives. If that had been a thing wouldn't then have Aerys/Rhaella - who originally thought there son was the promised prince - named Rhaegar 'Aegon' rather than 'Rhaegar'? Or Viserys/Visenya if they also tried to recreate some trinity?

They would have thought the same prophecy stuff as Rhaegar.

4 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

At least in House Frey this rule would not apply, with plenty of Walder cousins and uncles around.

It's true that we don't have many cases of repeated names on family members of the same generation* but this may have more to do with GRRM trying to avoid confusions to the readers than an actual in-world practice.

The Freys seem to be an exception, but if Aegon the Conqueror had had an army of children with his two wives they might have also named their children and grandchildren after the patriarch. But it would have been viewed as odd and distasteful, just as Alicent resented Rhaenyra for creating another Aegon.

4 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

* Besides the Freys, the only other example I've been able to find is a couple of Brandon cousins in the Stark family tree (a son of Willam and a son of Artos). But it's possible that the first Brandon died before the second was born.

Yes, with Brandon it seems to be similar.

But then, Rhaegar could have created another Vis-name for his son. Say, Viserion or Visagon or Visagor or whatnot. He would not have to stick to Viserys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

No. Giving one does not. Using it does.

But this I think I've told in my earlier reply, here, if you missed it:

In case you didn't understand that I meant there: Ned doesn't have to tell people his real name. It's that simple. I honestly don't see any problem with it.

Yes, there could be. Imagine the boy having the name Rickard (after Lyanna's dead father) or Brandon (after Lyanna's dead brother), for example. People would consider naming a bastard after Brandon or Rickard (in this case) a sign of disrespect from Ned to his close relatives who recently just died.

In summary, we don't know if she named him or not. Don't act like you know what happened, because you don't, and Jon having another name is a likely option(be it Valyrian or not). Hell, even the likelier one. All we know is that Lyanna didn't give Jon the name Jon, and that naming her child would only take minutes.

I was just trying to make it easier for you. To understand that you don't have to use the boy's real name, and the fact that Jon having a public Valyrian would expose Lyanna's affair and Jon's true identity didn't stop them from naming the child. Because they didn't have to worry about such things, since he might have turned out to be Valyrian looking too, which would also raise questions, but can easily be resolved by simply telling that Ned fucked a whore with Valyrian looks. And such a lie would be as easy as saying/lying that Jon's name is Jon.

I hope I was clear enough this time.

Are you hurting from stretching so much? 

Lyanna didn't "name" Jon because she had no way of doing it other than telling someone she wanted him named X, specifically telling Ned. And Ned wasn't a jerk who would ignore her dying wishes - unless she was an idiot who wanted Ned to give him a Targ name while simultaneously asking Ned to protect him. In which case, her dying wishes would be contradicting each other. 

"People would think it's insulting for Ned to call a bastard Brandon or Rickhard" - oh, so you're saying Ned was, in the eyes of the world, insulting Jon Arryn? That makes so much sense...:rolleyes:

 

I love the condescension. Usually the desperate resort of people who don't know how else to try to win an argument. Let me make it clear to you in very simple terms: your whole discussion about Jon's looks is completely irrelevant to the topic.

Edited by Annara Snow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

As someone obsessed with prophecies and lore, if Rhaegar had decided a name for his future infant that would have been Visenya or Viserys (after siring a Rhaenys and an Aegon).

From the morphological point wouldn’t Viserra by the closest possible female form for Viserys and Visenys, or Visaenys, the male form of Visenya?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

From the morphological point wouldn’t Viserra by the closest possible female form for Viserys and Visenys, or Visaenys, the male form of Visenya?

The idea is that originally Viserys was a version of Visenya, with Aenys' second son being named after Visenya, just as Rhaena had been named after Rhaenys, and Aegon after the Conqueror. Although it certainly possible that Viserys is an older Valyrian named, and Visenya only a female version of that name. We don't know. But so far we haven't heard anything about fellows named Viserys during the Dragonstone era.

But Jaehaerys I later named his daughter Viserra specifically after his elder brother who was slain by Maegor, just as Prince Baelon would have named his son Viserys after his dead uncle. Rhaenyra's Viserys was later named after her father, just as Viserys Plumm was named after him. When Aerys II named his son Viserys then this was just one of many royal names he used. He had already been using Aegon and Daeron and Jaehaerys, etc. on all the dead children he and Rhaella had.

Not to mention that they also like to play around with V-names anyway. There are also Vaella and Vaegon and those folks.

Share this post


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

The idea is that originally Viserys was a version of Visenya, with Aenys' second son being named after Visenya, just as Rhaena had been named after Rhaenys, and Aegon after the Conqueror. Although it certainly possible that Viserys is an older Valyrian named, and Visenya only a female version of that name. We don't know. But so far we haven't heard anything about fellows named Viserys during the Dragonstone era.

But Jaehaerys I later named his daughter Viserra specifically after his elder brother who was slain by Maegor, just as Prince Baelon would have named his son Viserys after his dead uncle. Rhaenyra's Viserys was later named after her father, just as Viserys Plumm was named after him. When Aerys II named his son Viserys then this was just one of many royal names he used. He had already been using Aegon and Daeron and Jaehaerys, etc. on all the dead children he and Rhaella had.

Not to mention that they also like to play around with V-names anyway. There are also Vaella and Vaegon and those folks.

That is an interesting idea that I hadn’t heard before. As I remember from one of GRRM’s interviews, the names he chose are meaningful for the character so I would like to see what some of the Valyrian names mean and how they can descibe the character and their story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

That is an interesting idea that I hadn’t heard before. As I remember from one of GRRM’s interviews, the names he chose are meaningful for the character so I would like to see what some of the Valyrian names mean and how they can descibe the character and their story.

Oh, there are two layers to that, I guess. For the characters of the series this might be the case. But the naming thing was more systematized when George made the family trees for FaB.

You also have that with the Lannister and Stark names. Many Ty- and Ce-names. Joffrey and Tommen being clear Lannister royal names, etc. And for the Starks Arya and Sansa and similar sounding names are very common in the family. Overall, the Targaryen practice to play around with names isn't limited to them. We also get that with the various version of Arya and Sansa and Eddard with the Starks.

The older names still come out of the left field. Aenys makes some sense, as it is just Rhaenys without the 'Rh', but why Visenya named her son Maegor is completely unclear. The same with the names of Daeron II's children and grandchildren. Valarr and Matarys are especially weird names.

And some of the names of Jaehaerys I gave to his children are also quite odd. Why would anyone name his son Valerion? Where is Gael coming from? And so on.

Jaehaerys is fun since it seems to be actually a version of the famous Velaryon name Jacaerys, indicating that Alyssa Velaryon picked the name for her fourth child.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...