The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part IX

[Whatever]

mmm, i still don't see them together. I actually think dany will end up saving the day against mad & killed for the safe of the realm, by Jorah or Jon. Or maybe she'll sacrifice herself, im still working on the theory :D

[Wind and Words]

I like the idea that Dany will be dead before the series ends, some sacrifice for her "children", perhaps.

GRRM makes a big deal about Dany being "the mother of dragons", and perhaps that's her only part in the prophecy. To "birth" the dragons and raise them till they're old enough, and she's done.

mmm, i still don't see them together. I actually think dany will end up saving the day against mad & killed for the safe of the realm, by Jorah or Jon. Or maybe she'll sacrifice herself, im still working on the theory :D

[Edward the Great]

mmm, i still don't see them together. I actually think dany will end up saving the day against mad & killed for the safe of the realm, by Jorah or Jon. Or maybe she'll sacrifice herself, im still working on the theory :D

So is Martin.

[Whatever]

i hope martin shares my idea then :D

[nim]

Not a chance in Hell, it just wasn't in the Starks nature, incest was something the Targaryens did that other people didn't like, plus they had too much honour to do that

I know that N + L = J isn't really taken that seriously, and I don't think it's the case either, but I don't think Ned's honour as a Stark should be a compelling reason why its not possible. I mean, yea, Ned is a character who was renown for his honour, but he's not cold-as-ice Stannis. I think Ned's honour is more based on keeping his word and promises. He knew that all of Robert's kids were actually Jaime's, and he still didn't tell Robert. He also killed Lady :stunned: (maybe I'm just being petulant on this point), and despite all our speculation, Ned himself says that Jon is his own bastard.

[nevermore]

i dont see why dany has to die, i think a lot of people are letting their hate for her character blind them a bit, i would like it if her dragons die because then no magic in westeros :P but that would be pointless and martin is all about pointness ;). but in regards to dany + jon, i dont think its going to happen because they dont suit. jon will keep his words to the end willingly, i say willingly because i hope a strange twist ends up with jon leading the others and ends up fighting dany for westeros. it would be a martin type finish with atleast 1 of the 2 major players dying who everyone were expecting to live to the end. but N + L = J is preposterous, there has been no major hints at that kind of relationship which there would be, think jaime + cersei, martin explains that they were always together as kids. it just doesn't seem likely a man like with honor would do that. :L

[Edward the Great]

i dont see why dany has to die

The Lord of the Rings precedent. If the story doesn't represent some sort of permanent change in the way the world works, what's the point in telling the story?

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

The Lord of the Rings precedent. If the story doesn't represent some sort of permanent change in the way the world works, what's the point in telling the story?

I imagine that the story's headed to bigger changes than just whether Daenerys (or House Targaryen) continues on. I wouldn't be surprised to see the seasons back in order at the end of ADOS, for example; or the end of magic in all its forms; or a militant and intolerant Faith in place of the (relative) tolerance of Westeros pre-AGOT. All of those would affect the setting much more than Daenerys living or dying.

[nevermore]

The Lord of the Rings precedent. If the story doesn't represent some sort of permanent change in the way the world works, what's the point in telling the story?

so if dany doesn't die the story would be pointless? so if dany hasn't died in the series i can ask you if you found the series pointless would you say yes? besides the world was already changed during the story, the targaryen rule was usurped so it could just as easily revert back and that in it self was the whole point. Also a story has meaning by itself think '1984' where they told the stupidest story ending and it is still a classic book.

[Lord of Autumn's End]

The Lord of the Rings precedent. If the story doesn't represent some sort of permanent change in the way the world works, what's the point in telling the story?

While there's obviously got to be some sort of change made by the story, it doesn't necessarily mean that Dany must die. That said, it may well happen, as either Jon, Tyrion or Dany (or more than one) are likely to die given the story's apparent 'bittersweet' ending, but its quite possible for House Targaryen to reclaim the Throne, but after having ditched the whole in-breeding insanity practice. We'll have to wait and see of course.

I imagine that the story's headed to bigger changes than just whether Daenerys (or House Targaryen) continues on. I wouldn't be surprised to see the seasons back in order at the end of ADOS, for example; or the end of magic in all its forms; or a militant and intolerant Faith in place of the (relative) tolerance of Westeros pre-AGOT. All of those would affect the setting much more than Daenerys living or dying.

I'm assuming that part of the ending will involve laying the groundwork for the Westerosi age of enlightenment, given that the Maester's are apparently trying to get rid of the presence of magic. I could be completely wrong however.

[Whatever]

I don't think the maesters will achieve their goal. I don't know why, i have this feeling.

I've always seen ASOIAF being quite opposite to TLOTR, and i don't think they'll have the same ending (world without magic)

[XtremeOne1]

I don't see Jon ending up with Dany. That would be WAY to forced and fanficy. Both are already accused of having too much Mary Sue/Gary Stu like qualities, I think this would just sort of be tipping point....I see Dany going off to be with her dragons. I don't see her ruling the kingdom or even wanting to once she has it.

[Whatever]

I don't see Jon ending up with Dany. That would be WAY to forced and fanficy. Both are already accused of having too much Mary Sue/Gary Stu like qualities, I think this would just sort of be tipping point....I see Dany going off to be with her dragons. I don't see her ruling the kingdom or even wanting to once she has it.

Dany flying away in the sunset (and never coming back...) yes, i like that

[AHackeySackOfIceAndFire]

I'm assuming that part of the ending will involve laying the groundwork for the Westerosi age of enlightenment, given that the Maester's are apparently trying to get rid of the presence of magic. I could be completely wrong however.

I don't identify with the analogy. If magic were real and functional in our world, enlightenment philosophers and scientists would have discussed dragons and prophecy along with physics and chemistry.

[George Snow]

I know that N + L = J isn't really taken that seriously, and I don't think it's the case either, but I don't think Ned's honour as a Stark should be a compelling reason why its not possible. I mean, yea, Ned is a character who was renown for his honour, but he's not cold-as-ice Stannis. I think Ned's honour is more based on keeping his word and promises. He knew that all of Robert's kids were actually Jaime's, and he still didn't tell Robert. He also killed Lady :stunned: (maybe I'm just being petulant on this point), and despite all our speculation, Ned himself says that Jon is his own bastard.

Can you actually cite a reference in any of the books where Ned actually says this?

He says things like, "Jon is of his blood." He lets others interpret that Jon is his bastard (The scenes with Robert and Catelyn where they ask about Jon's mother), but as far as I can tell, he never actually says that Jon is his bastard son.

GH

[nim]

Can you actually cite a reference in any of the books where Ned actually says this?

He says things like, "Jon is of his blood." He lets others interpret that Jon is his bastard (The scenes with Robert and Catelyn where they ask about Jon's mother), but as far as I can tell, he never actually says that Jon is his bastard son.

GH

Hm, good point. I don't think Ned ever explicitly says "Jon Snow is my bastard". Although...if Jon isn't actually his son, he's been dishonest to his family and to Jon. If Jon IS his son, then he really has fathered a bastard. Either way, it's sort of a mark against his "honour", and shows that he doesn't have rigid rules in life about what is right and what is wrong (like bedding his own sister, which for the record, I don't actually think is the case :) )

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Hm, good point. I don't think Ned ever explicitly says "Jon Snow is my bastard". Although...if Jon isn't actually his son, he's been dishonest to his family and to Jon. If Jon IS his son, then he really has fathered a bastard. Either way, it's sort of a mark against his "honour", and shows that he doesn't have rigid rules in life about what is right and what is wrong (like bedding his own sister, which for the record, I don't actually think is the case :) )

Wait, what? That logic doesn't follow at all. Lots of people think that lying to protect somebody's life is acceptable, while rather fewer are okay with fucking their immediate family. Incest is forbidden by all the laws of gods and men, while lying is not.

[nim]

Wait, what? That logic doesn't follow at all. Lots of people think that lying to protect somebody's life is acceptable, while rather fewer are okay with fucking their immediate family. Incest is forbidden by all the laws of gods and men, while lying is not.

Obviously, the whole N + L = J theory is twisted, but it's still fun to think of ways that it could be an option. And I don't think that Ned's honour is so sharply defined that it would be the SOLE reason that N + L = J should be ruled out. People who are honourable can still make mistakes. What I love most about all these characters too, is how much they evolve. A lot of characters have undergone a major transformation in who they are, and what they believe in. Who's to say what Ned's story is?? We know so little of his past.

But as this thread is for the discussion of R + L = J, I should probably take my twisted ideas to a more appropriate thread :uhoh:

[SFDanny]

Obviously, the whole N + L = J theory is twisted, but it's still fun to think of ways that it could be an option. And I don't think that Ned's honour is so sharply defined that it would be the SOLE reason that N + L = J should be ruled out. People who are honourable can still make mistakes. What I love most about all these characters too, is how much they evolve. A lot of characters have undergone a major transformation in who they are, and what they believe in. Who's to say what Ned's story is?? We know so little of his past.

But as this thread is for the discussion of R + L = J, I should probably take my twisted ideas to a more appropriate thread :uhoh:

Or at least explain some very difficult, if not impossible, timeline issues that stand in this twisted theory's way. Jon is conceived some four to five months after Lyanna has been "kidnapped" and taken away from any possible contact with Ned. How this "hook up" could have taken place is only just barely possible because, after all, this is still called a "fantasy." Little Green Men from Mars are just as likely candidates for Jon's father as Ned - at least with Lyanna as his mother. :blushing:

[AHackeySackOfIceAndFire]

Bullshit

N + L = J

I was definitely kidding, btw

in case you guys want to stop talking about this

that would be fine