What is compelling about having Daenerys be someone other than the daughter of Aerys and Rhaella?

[Gilbert Green]

On 7/12/2023 at 8:48 AM, Sandy Clegg said:

This is still a great theory, regardless of its veracity, as it really delves into the nitty gritty of the RR timeline, which is always useful. I think @Gilbert Green you might need to respond with an updated version with bullet points addressing all the things mentioned, as it's gotten very messy now. I hope you have one of those desk jobs that allows you the free time to post all this!  

Thank you for your interest.  I hope, though, to be very busy soon.  Fingers crossed.

One thing I might do is enhance the theory by presenting it in the form or a plausible narrative and/or a timeline.  I am a bit hesitant to do that, as the "fan fiction" charge would inevitably follow.  And of course the more details you commit to the more you are likely to be wrong.  But there is no way to win with some people, so I might as well.

One clue I might cite is the "bed of blood" reference, which seems to imply a mystery child born at the time of the ToJ incident - one of the biggest dangling threads in the series.  Most people would not count this as an R+L=D clue, because they count it as an R+L=J clue.  But counting it as a R+L=J clue makes timeline problems.  You have to place the ToJ incident very close to the sack of KL, leaving Ned with minimal time to lift the siege of Storm's End, and then proceed to the ToJ.  But this does not end the problems, because by placing the lifting of the siege of Storms End very early following the Sack, you are making it impossible to explain how the siege of Storms End lasted a "year" or "almost a year". 

Elio and Linda are maybe aware of these problems, which I guess is why in the World Book they have the siege last "the better part of a year".  This leaves open the possibility of a downward revision (accommodating the standard R+L+J assumptions they believe in) but nonetheless is ambiguous enough that it does not directly contradict the main text.

[Hippocras]

21 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

But counting it as a R+L=J clue makes timeline problems.  You have to place the ToJ incident very close to the sack of KL, leaving Ned with minimal time to lift the siege of Storm's End, and then proceed to the ToJ.  But this does not end the problems, because by placing the lifting of the siege of Storms End very early following the Sack, you are making it impossible to explain how the siege of Storms End lasted a "year" or "almost a year". 

The siege of Storm's End was a siege - as in, people stuck inside a castle with an army camped outside. When Ned went to Storm's End he did not go alone. He brought an army. The siege therefore ended immediately because now the besieging army had an opposing army at its back, and what was left of Stannis's garrison in front, with the war already lost to them because of the death of the King, his heir, and his heir's heir. In other words not only were there armies on both sides of them, they also no longer had a strong reason to fight.

So yes, the siege ended basically the moment Ned arrived. It lasted a year before that because during that year, that army DID have reasons to fight (their king was alive, as were Aegon and Rhaenys), and they did NOT have an opposing army at their backs. That is precisely how GRRM described it.

In other words, I don't see the timeline problem with the official version. I do see a timeline problem with your version.

[Sandy Clegg]

32 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

One thing I might do is enhance the theory by presenting it in the form or a plausible narrative and/or a timeline.  I am a bit hesitant to do that, as the "fan fiction" charge would inevitably follow.  And of course the more details you commit to the more you are likely to be wrong.  But there is no way to win with some people, so I might as well.

Exactly. I don't even know if this got proposed before years ago but ... look at it this way: theories exist anyway whether or not we write about them. We just dig up what's already there in potential, and maybe get to be the first to let them see light. But due to the fact of these books existence + the number of people theorising .... EVERY theory will one day be thought of. Especially with the wait between books.

So yeah, might as well add it to the list of official theories and see if it grows or dies on the vine. 

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, Hippocras said:

The siege of Storm's End was a siege - as in, people stuck inside a castle with an army camped outside. When Ned went to Storm's End he did not go alone. He brought an army. The siege therefore ended immediately because now the besieging army had an opposing army at its back, and what was left of Stannis's garrison in front, with the war already lost to them because of the death of the King, his heir, and his heir's heir. In other words not only were there armies on both sides of them, they also no longer had a strong reason to fight.

So yes, the siege ended basically the moment Ned arrived. It lasted a year before that because during that year, that army DID have reasons to fight (their king was alive, as were Aegon and Rhaenys), and they did NOT have an opposing army at their backs. That is precisely how GRRM described it.

In other words, I don't see the timeline problem with the official version. I do see a timeline problem with your version.

I never said Ned spent a year lifting the siege of storms end.  What I meant matched what I actually said, that the siege, per the main text, itself lasted a year or almost a year.

If you had ever spent time trying to construct a RR timeline, you might understand the problem I am referring to.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Nevets]

3 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I never said Ned spent a year lifting the siege of storms end.  What I meant matched what I actually said, that the siege, per the main text, itself lasted a year or almost a year.

If you had ever spent time trying to construct a RR timeline, you might understand the problem I am referring to.

Proposed timeline for Robert's Rebellion:

01-282. Lyanna kidnapped.

02-282. Brandon challenges Rhaegar.  Arrested.

05-282. Rickard and Brandon executed.

06-282. Jon Arryn announced rebellion.

07-282.  Ned at Sisters.  Fisherman's daughter.

08-282. Ned calls banners.

08-282.  Battle of Summerhall.  Robert's first battle.

09-282. Battle of Ashford.  Robert heads North, Mace goes to Storms End.

10-282. Siege of Storms End begins.

11-282. Eddard arrives in Riverrun.  Joins with Hoster Tully.

01-283. Battle of the Bells at Stoney Sept.

01-283  Marriage of Eddard and Catelyn immediately after Stoney Sept.  Robb conceived.

07-283. Battle of Trident.

08-283. Sack of King's Landing.

08-283. Siege of Storms End ends two weeks after sack.

09-283. Tower of Joy, Jon born.

10-283.  Robb born.

11-283.  Jon's supposed birthday.

05-284. Daenerys born.

Lyanna known to be kidnapped early 282.  Storms End begins between Ashford and Bells.  Bells occurs 17 years before 300, so could be late 282.  Robb conceived after Bells, known to be born 283.  Jon also born 283.

[Gilbert Green]

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

Proposed timeline for Robert's Rebellion:

01-282. Lyanna kidnapped.

02-282. Brandon challenges Rhaegar.  Arrested.

05-282. Rickard and Brandon executed.

06-282. Jon Arryn announced rebellion.

07-282.  Ned at Sisters.  Fisherman's daughter.

08-282. Ned calls banners.

08-282.  Battle of Summerhall.  Robert's first battle.

09-282. Battle of Ashford.  Robert heads North, Mace goes to Storms End.

10-282. Siege of Storms End begins.

11-282. Eddard arrives in Riverrun.  Joins with Hoster Tully.

01-283. Battle of the Bells at Stoney Sept.

01-283  Marriage of Eddard and Catelyn immediately after Stoney Sept.  Robb conceived.

07-283. Battle of Trident.

08-283. Sack of King's Landing.

08-283. Siege of Storms End ends two weeks after sack.

09-283. Tower of Joy, Jon born.

10-283.  Robb born.

11-283.  Jon's supposed birthday.

05-284. Daenerys born.

Lyanna known to be kidnapped early 282.  Storms End begins between Ashford and Bells.  Bells occurs 17 years before 300, so could be late 282.  Robb conceived after Bells, known to be born 283.  Jon also born 283.

Good work.  However, GRRM says the siege lasted a "year" or "close to a year"; and you have revised that to 10 months to accommodate standard R+L=J.   Had you dispensed with standard R+L=J assumptions, you might have been able to actually follow the text, and have a siege that actually lasted a year, minus a week or two.

Your early timeline is a bit tight, with Rhaegar abducting Lyanna almost the instant he leaves KL.  I guess this gives you more room to put the beginning of the siege early. 

You do not include the Battle of Gulltown, the first battle of Robert's Rebellion.  It would have to be  at least a month before the battle of Summerhall.  So now, by the time of the Sack of KL, Robert's Rebellion has raged for MORE than a year, and not just under a year ("close to a year") as the text implies.  This has happened because, in your attempt to the beginning of the siege of Storms End start early, you have had to push other events back.  And it still only gets you 10 months of siege.

IMHO, it would better match the text if the period from the Battle of Gulltown to the Sack of KL were a year or just shy of it.  But then you would have to further shorten the year-long siege of Storm's End from 10 months to about 9 months.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Nevets]

1 hour ago, Gilbert Green said:

Good work.  However, GRRM says the siege lasted a "year" or "close to a year"; and you have revised that to 10 months to accommodate standard R+L=J.   Had you dispensed with standard R+L=J assumptions, you might have been able to actually follow the text, and have a siege that actually lasted a year, minus a week or two.

Your early timeline is a bit tight, with Rhaegar abducting Lyanna almost the instant he leaves KL.  I guess this gives you more room to put the beginning of the siege early. 

You do not include the Battle of Gulltown, the first battle of Robert's Rebellion.  It would have to be  at least a month before the battle of Summerhall.  So now, by the time of the Sack of KL, Robert's Rebellion has raged for MORE than a year, and not just under a year ("close to a year") as the text implies.  This has happened because, in your attempt to the beginning of the siege of Storms End start early, you have had to push other events back.  And it still only gets you 10 months of siege.

IMHO, it would better match the text if the period from the Battle of Gulltown to the Sack of KL were a year or just shy of it.  But then you would have to further shorten the year-long siege of Storm's End from 10 months to about 9 months.

There are multiple issues here.  First, we don't know where Eddard started his counting when he was thinking the war had lasted nearly a year.  Second, "nearly a year" is not at all precise, so there's a lot of leeway with both the length of the war and the siege of Storms End.  And third, George R.R. Martin is bad with the passage of time.  He even said "put away the stopwatch".  No timeline with this author is going to be perfect, or anything close to it.  I've done the best I can, and I'm not going to worry about a month here or there.  The author doesn't seem to.

[Sandy Clegg]

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

He even said "put away the stopwatch".  No timeline with this author is going to be perfect, or anything close to it.

This is why I try to never give input to timeline theories if I can avoid it. George goes out of his way to muddy the waters when it comes to time - even giving the ‘8 or 9” winters line to the one character most likely to be exaggerating for comic effect. That same character - Tyrion - who muses:

‘the map was one thing and the land quite another’

We’ve been discouraged from measuring times and distances too carefully - I think it annoys George to have to get so specific with these perhaps? So he creates a foggy world. However - and I’m kind of addressing a point @Nevets made in another thread sorry for the intrusion  - George does go into detail when it comes to things like symbolism. Look at his food descriptions for example. And that’s where we may see a greater level of specificity.

I get that timeline analysis is everyone’s comfort zone. It’s familiar ground and feels evidential. But when it comes to giving precise measurements - George’s heart clearly isn’t in it. Ask where his heart does lie - and follow those clues instead.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Sandy Clegg

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

There are multiple issues here.  First, we don't know where Eddard started his counting when he was thinking the war had lasted nearly a year.  Second, "nearly a year" is not at all precise, so there's a lot of leeway with both the length of the war and the siege of Storms End.  And third, George R.R. Martin is bad with the passage of time.  He even said "put away the stopwatch".  No timeline with this author is going to be perfect, or anything close to it.  I've done the best I can, and I'm not going to worry about a month here or there.  The author doesn't seem to.

It is, at least theoretically possible that everything you say is true.  But your methodology is suspect.  You reject and/or stretch the evidence because it does not fit your favorite fan theory, rather than questioning the favorite fan theory, because it does not fit the evidence.

No point I raise is meant to be absolute proof of anything.  But if one theory better fits the timeline evidence than another theory, that is, at the very least, a point in its favor.

It is of course infamously true that GRRM is terrible at timelines.  And of course the infamous example of his laughable failure to make a Roberts Rebellion timeline that matches our favorite fan idea.  This is a circular argument.   Maybe, just maybe, the problem is on our end, not his.

GRRM did not just say "nearly a year" in a single context.  He said simply "a year" in one context; and "nearly a year" in another context.  Shaving off a week or two reasonably reconciles these statements, but shaving off 2 months renders the former statement inaccurate.   When you shave off two months you are not so much following the evidence, as you are hammering the square peg of the evidence into the round hole of your favorite theory.  And of course the length of the siege was a critical issue to Stannis and his men, who were starving.  This is not a context when one would ordinarily be too loose about things.

Same with the war raging for close to a year up to the Sack.  Here, we have more leeway for the war to rage for less than a year, but no leeway for it to rage for more than a year.  But you have it raging for 13 months, because otherwise you would have to reduce the year-long siege from 10 months to 9 months.  Again, you are hammering the square peg of the evidence into the round hole of your favorite theory.  And again, this does not absolutely prove that your guesses are not correct, but at the very least it reduces your odds.

There could be some ambiguity about how long the war has been "raging".  You could count the start of Robert's Rebellion from the time Lord Arryn raised his banners in revolt.  But, plausibly, it had not yet started to "rage".  But the "raging" began, at the very least, with the outbreak of active hostilities at the Battle of Gulltown.

No, you don't have to care about my point.  But I have still made a point.  And by blaming GRRM you have conceded the point rather than refuting it.

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

20 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

This is why I try to never give input to timeline theories if I can avoid it. George goes out of his way to muddy the waters when it comes to time - even giving the ‘8 or 9” winters line to the one character most likely to be exaggerating for comic effect. That same character - Tyrion - who muses:

‘the map was one thing and the land quite another’

We’ve been discouraged from measuring times and distances too carefully - I think it annoys George to have to get so specific with these perhaps? So he creates a foggy world. However - and I’m kind of addressing a point @Nevets made in another thread sorry for the intrusion  - George does go into detail when it comes to things like symbolism. Look at his food descriptions for example. And that’s where we may a greater level of specificity.

I get that timeline analysis is everyone’s comfort zone. It’s familiar ground and feels evidential. But when it comes to giving precise measurements - George’s heart clearly isn’t in it. Ask where his heart does lie - and follow those clues instead.

I suspect GRRM does have his own private timelines that he does not share with us.  But yes he is deliberately fuzzy with the fans.  It is partly for this reason that I prefer not to focus on timeline issues when presenting a theory.

But inevitably comes the accusation that my theory does not fit the timeline.  So I show that my theory does reasonably fit the timeline evidence.  And standard R+L=J does not fit this evidence.

Whereupon adversaries switch gears.  GRRM is bad at timelines. 

Fair enough.  But in that case there can be no timeline objection to the theory I presented.  You can't have it both ways.

[Sandy Clegg]

6 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Whereupon adversaries switch gears

Well, I guess sometimes we should be lucky that people engage in our ideas at all, I guess 

Quote

"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." — Oscar Wilde.

"I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made." — Franklin D. Roosevelt.

I'd take engaged adversaries over apathy any day.

[Hippocras]

13 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I never said Ned spent a year lifting the siege of storms end.  What I meant matched what I actually said, that the siege, per the main text, itself lasted a year or almost a year.

If you had ever spent time trying to construct a RR timeline, you might understand the problem I am referring to.

Events:

1. Early 282 Brandon Stark at Riverrun for betrothal announcement. Duel with Baelish, then finds out about Lyanna's abduction and heads to KL where he is killed with his father, still early in 282.

1. Gulltown taken in early-mid 282. Robert went home after that to Storm's End to call his banners. Some refused, met at Summerhall instead.

2. Battle at Summerhall, mid 282. Stannis left behind to hold Storm's End. Trag loyalists defeated and most Stormlands Houses joined Robert (but not all) and Stannis had a minimal garrison because Robert's forces all went with him.

3. Robert semi-defeated at Ashford, 282. Randyll Tarly's army then went to Storm's End. So the siege began in the late-middle of 282, and Stannis had already been holding the castle for at least a month (during war time with local rebellions but without a full army yet outside the gate).

4. The siege continued through all of the action further North. The sack of KL was about a year after the war began (how is the beginning marked? at Gulltown?) so mid 283 (Close to a year almost certainly means a mean more than a year, not less than a year in this case, given how much travel and warring happened in between). Then Ned went to Storm's End where he and his army lifted the siege in mid-283. The siege lasted "the better part of a year".

5. Ned then went South to find Lyanna in mid-late 283. She was dying when he found her.

6. Meanwhile on Dragonstone, Rhaella had fled KL after the Battle of the Trident and just before the sack of KL, so in mid 283. Dany was officially born after the war ended, early in 284. This does certainly suggest that my belief she was conceived when Rickard was burned (stated earlier on this thread) is erroneous. However it does not really conflict with the timeline of the rebellion. She probably really was born in early 284, after Lyanna was dead. If we are concerned about sacrificial magic and conception, I suppose it would have to have been Rhaegar's "sacrifice" on the Trident that made her conception possible, not the deaths of Brandon and Rickard, but that is my theoretical point of interest, not yours.

7. Both Lyanna and Ashara died officially in 283, so before Dany was supposedly born. So if we are going to have any theories about Dany being someone other than Aerys and Rhaella's daughter, we have that complication to contend with.

8. Rhaegar's timeline is also important to consider. He died on the Trident, so in early-mid 283. By then he had been on his way to, or actively warring himself for at least a month, probably more like 3. So he was unavailable to father anyone from early in 283. It would have been hard for him to have been the father of a child born in 284.

 

 

  

3 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

But inevitably comes the accusation that my theory does not fit the timeline.  So I show that my theory does reasonably fit the timeline evidence.  And standard R+L=J does not fit this evidence.

 

The standard theory you are so against is that Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, and was born at the Tower of Joy in mid-late 283. Rhaegar therefore fathered him in late 282 or early 283. That does in fact fit with when he was called South by Aerys. He did not join the war until after the Battle of the Bells.

Lyanna was "abducted" not at the Harrenhal tournament but the next year, so in early 282, very close to the time of Brandon's betrothal and duel with Littlefinger (a key point I might add, as Littlefinger had a role in why Brandon did what he did). She was almost certainly headed to Riverrun for her brother's wedding, as was her father.

She then spent somewhere between 8 and 12 months with Rhaegar. Is that enough time for 2 pregnancies, back to back? On the longer end of the spectrum, I suppose so, but, ahem, news flash: chldbirth is very hard on the body. Women aren't usually ready or able to have sex until at least a a month after birth, and usually quite a bit longer. So even if you assume Lyanna got pregnant the moment she was abducted (pregnancies are not usually instantaneous) and that she was physically capable of having intercourse again in the shortest possible time window, you are looking at 10 months bare minimum. The FAAAAAAR more likely scenario is that it just took a few month longer for her to get pregnant.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Hippocras

[Mourning Star]

5 hours ago, Hippocras said:

The FAAAAAAR more likely scenario is that it just took a few month longer for her to get pregnant.

There are a bunch of problems with the comment above but it’s not worth nitpicking everything too much.

Your measurements of time seems pretty off to me, the battle of the bells was about a year after Lyanna’s disappearance (very early 282-283). So I have no idea how you get only 8-12 months with Rhaegar, at least a year would seem closer to the text, and that’s still ending early 283, mid war. Both pregnancies wouldn’t be during that time obviously, only one, and a conception. Rhaegar still has to raise a new army, fight bravely and die before the Sack. You also seem to try and use Rhaella’s child’s birthday to refute a theory about Dany not being that child, which makes no sense at all. The events of the ToJ are probably near the end of 283, given all that happens between the battle of the bells and then. Two pregnancies in two years isn’t problematic.

At a very basic level, Lyanna disappearing a few months after the Tourney of Harrenhall, where she was “crowned the queen of love and beauty” by Rhaegar, where all the smiles died, is almost certainly due to pregnancy.

That said there is a lot we don’t know and plenty of room for speculation.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Mourning Star

[Mourning Star]

18 hours ago, Hippocras said:

When Ned went to Storm's End he did not go alone. He brought an army.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? It would certainly have taken a lot longer to get there if it’s true.

[Gilbert Green]

4 hours ago, Hippocras said:

The standard theory you are so against is that Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, and was born at the Tower of Joy in mid-late 283.

I'm not "so against" any theory.  No theory makes me angry. You are projecting.

I have always said that standard R+L=J is a good theory.  I have always acknowledged that its timeline problems are not absolute proof against it. 

My humble and modest position is merely that timeline issues are worth considering and have some weight as evidence.

I will try to further address timeline issues shortly.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Hippocras]

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

There are a bunch of problems with comment above but it’s not worth nitpicking to much.

Your measurements of time seems pretty off to me, the battle of the bells was about a year after Lyanna’s disappearance (very early 282-283). So I have no idea how you get only 8-12 months with Rhaegar, at least a year would seem closer to the text, and that’s still ending early 283, mid war. Both pregnancies wouldn’t be during that time obviously, only one, and a conception. Rhaegar still has to raise a new army, fight bravely and die before the Sack. You also seem to try and use Rhaella’s child’s birthday to refute a theory about Dany not being that child, which makes no sense at all. The events of the ToJ are probably near the end of 283, given all that happens between the battle of the bells and then. Two pregnancies in two years isn’t problematic.

At a very basic level, Lyanna disappearing a few months after the Tourney of Harrenhall, where she was “crowned the queen of love and beauty” by Rhaegar, where all the smiles died, is almost certainly due to pregnancy.

That said there is a lot we don’t know and plenty of room for speculation.

Lyanna's supposed abduction was in early 282. Rhaegar was fetched by Gerold Hightower to join the war in late 282 or early 283. Right there in the timeline I provided. That means they could not possibly have had more than a year together, and probably a few months less.

 

I think people are forgetting that Lyanna was not abducted right after the Tourney. She was abducted a year later, in 282, on her way to her brother's wedding.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Hippocras

[Mourning Star]

Just now, Hippocras said:

Lyanna's supposed abduction was in early 282. Rhaegar was fetched by Gerold Hightower to join the war in late 282 or early 283. Right there in the timeline I provided. That means they could not possibly have had more than a year together, and probably a few months less.

Lyanna disappeared at the very start of 282.

The battle of the bells was explicitly in 283.

Rhaegar was not sent for until after the battle of the bells, plus news reaching KL and Hightower reaching the ToJ.

They had at least a year together.

[Hippocras]

Just now, Mourning Star said:

Lyanna disappeared at the very start of 282.

The battle of the bells was explicitly in 283.

Rhaegar was not sent for until after the battle of the bells, plus news reaching KL and Hightower reaching the ToJ.

They had at least a year together.

No, Rhaegar was sent for before the Battle of the Bells, he simply took command of the forces after that.

[Mourning Star]

8 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

No, Rhaegar was sent for before the Battle of the Bells, he simply took command of the forces after that.

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Not that it matters, Rhaegar was with Lyanna until after the battle of the bells, so for at least a year.

He floated in heat, in memory. "After dancing griffins lost the Battle of the Bells, Aerys exiled him." Why am I telling this absurd ugly child? "He had finally realized that Robert was no mere outlaw lord to be crushed at whim, but the greatest threat House Targaryen had faced since Daemon Blackfyre. The king reminded Lewyn Martell gracelessly that he held Elia and senthim to take command of the ten thousand Dornishmen coming up the kingsroad. Jon Darry and Barristan Selmy rode to Stoney Sept to rally what they could of griffins' men, and Prince Rhaegar returned from the south and persuaded his father to swallow his pride and summon my father.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Mourning Star

[Hippocras]

19 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Not that it matters, Rhaegar was with Lyanna until after the battle of the bells, so for at least a year.

He floated in heat, in memory. "After dancing griffins lost the Battle of the Bells, Aerys exiled him." Why am I telling this absurd ugly child? "He had finally realized that Robert was no mere outlaw lord to be crushed at whim, but the greatest threat House Targaryen had faced since Daemon Blackfyre. The king reminded Lewyn Martell gracelessly that he held Elia and senthim to take command of the ten thousand Dornishmen coming up the kingsroad. Jon Darry and Barristan Selmy rode to Stoney Sept to rally what they could of griffins' men, and Prince Rhaegar returned from the south and persuaded his father to swallow his pride and summon my father.

Can't find where I read it, but even if I am wrong about late 282 I still gave a range, and early 283 is still within that range. Even if Rhaegar and Lyanna had a full year together, it was not more than that. The timeline is generally fuzzy but there is nothing particularly off about it that requires alternate explanations for Jon's age and identity or Daenaerys's age and identity. The generally accepted version for both is entirely plausible.

I really don't think a 12 month window is enough to consider it a reasonable proposition that Lyanna had 2 pregnancies. Generally children born in consecutive calendar years to the same mother are not actually 12 months apart. And 12 months assumes the mother in question did not breastfeed ever at all, because while lactating, women are infertile. Lyanna was a highborn lady and as such likely to have a wetnurse under normal circumstances, but the circumstances surrounding the birth of her children with Rhaegar were not at all normal. Her location was supposed to be secret. So I doubt she would, under those circumstances, had a wetnurse ready and waiting from the moment the child was born so that she never had to breastfeed at all.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Hippocras