The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon Thread, Part X

[Gregor Barksdale]

You know a conversation deserves to be stickied when the last four comments are about its stickied status.

4 including yours, and 2 were by the same person.

The newcomers from HBO will not thank you.

[corbon]

This isn't the Twilight series. Martin does not create drama by making you think something is true only to find out it isn't true after all.

There is only one way I can think of Dany bearing a child. Life can pay for life. She bears a child to term and dies in childbirth.

So you'll be expecting Rhaego to make a re-appearance and end up ruling the world?

Prophecy is unreliable, and apt to be twisted (accidentally or on purpose - see PtwP actually be Dragon rather than Prince) by the humans involved in either prophesying or interpreting.

By the same token, characters are not immutably accurate, or even truthful - not even in their own minds! Sansa has convinced herself that Sandor kissed her, yet we saw the scene in question and he did not (which GRRM confirmed).

There is no reason why a random pronouncement by a vengeful maegi must be true, as opposed to malicious.

Danerys may indeed by barren. Or she may not. We don't have a lot of evidence, just the word of one character. We've already seen characters lie to others, even to themselves.

No reason why this particular character must be telling the truth (or even knows the truth) at this particular time.

GRRM didn't make you think that Dany is barren, he let you think that. There is a difference and he is very, very good at the second.

[Yarl Snow]

http://www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones#/game-of-thrones/about/video/house-targaryen-feature.html/eNrjcmbO0CzLTEnNd8xLzKksyUx2zs8rSa0oUc-PSYEJBSSmp-ol5qYy5zMXsjGyMXIyMrJJJ5aW5BfkJFbalhSVpgIAXbkXOA==

if you watch the targryen trailer or whatever, notice when it comes to GRRM he says Dany and Viserys are the last of their house, i don't know if that is significant but it could a hint to disprove this theory.

About this whole discussion... it is stated as a fact that Jon is Ned's bastard in the books, and so it would be stated the same in the series. This alone says nothing of what really is. We, the perceptive readers, pick up on Ned being vague, his fever dreams and ramblings, and other hints and foreshadowings, and draw conclusions, but the official fact is that Jon is Ned's, and that's how it should be, or it is no secret at all.

What we might expect from the series, and from interviews is much the same. People stating the official fact, and foreshadowings in the actual storyline. I would expect the series to be somewhat more obvious in it's hinting, as TV is a medium that tends to gloss over details.

[bac5665]

Apologies for changing the topic slightly, and if this has already been discussed, again, apologies.

BUT:

I'm doing a re-read for the show/ADWD,and I just read the chapter in ACOK where Jon talks to Bran in the wolf dream. The chapter makes it very clear that, thematically at least, Jon and the Stark kids are a unit. The Wolves are a pack with brothers and sisters. Jon and Bran must be brothers OR the mysticism if the wolfs will come crashing down ad meaningless at some points.

If Jon isn't a sibling of the others, then him having a wolf makes no sense, at least not a wolf sibling, at least assuming that the wolves are supposed to be sent by the old gods or whatever, as all indications seem to point to.

Is this iron clad? No. GRRM could change the rules of magic/fantasy so that Jon doesn't have to be a real brother to get a wolf; in fact, we see that Theon does not get one; Jon explicitly takes one from Theon's Grasp. The obvious implication is that Theon is a foster brother, but not a bother. Jon is a true brother, true son of Ned Stark.

There is still of course lots of evidence for something happening between Lyana and Rhaegar, something I want to find out, as do all fans of the books. But I think the wolf/symbols pretty well make it impossible for Jon to not be a son of Ned, assuming that the wolves are mystical in some way, which they seem to be.

[ravengirl]

Hello everyoneI I am defiantly not as intelligent or as articulate as you lot! :) but I have just finished TGOT. Loved it! About 2 thirds of the way through it, I kept thinking that perhaps Ned was not Jon's father, and the promise that Ned made to his sister Lyanna, could have more to it. Some of Neds comments to Robert bothered me also. I was also interested with Rhaegar and how we are told that he was a rapist etc but apart from that story, everyone seemed to think that he was a good man O_o ? except for Robert. I kept thinking that Jon could perhaps be Rhaegar and Lyanna's son, a product of the rape. I can't remember now if its said that Lyanna was the one raped in the story, but for some reason I always thought it was her, my memories not too great atm, lol actually it never is, but hey, then I thought maybe it wasn't rape at all? Didn't Rhaegar give a flower to Lyanna, and not to his wife? Anyways, I'm a complete newbie at all this. I still need to read all the other books, but I was pleasantly surprised to see this thread and happy to know that I wasn't alone in thinking that maybe Jon was Lyanna and Rhaegar's son. Rather than bore you more, with thoughts from a newbie that has only just started the series. I will say hello and dash off to read The Clash of Kings :)

[Desch]

What we might expect from the series, and from interviews is much the same. People stating the official fact, and foreshadowings in the actual storyline. I would expect the series to be somewhat more obvious in it's hinting, as TV is a medium that tends to gloss over details.

This is one thing that might be pretty important. At the moment, I (I don't know if I missed some hints from GRRM) nobody knows how, and when the parentage will be revealed. Maybe it will be in ADWD, then there will be no greater problems with this issue. But what if it isn't. I'm pretty sure that R+L=J is true. In the series the hints will have to be more obvious. First with Neds dreams and then especially with the Undying prophecy. I think it would be a real spoiler if the parentage would come out in the series before it happens in the books. This goes further if you believe the series will go on for the whole seven seasons. I really doubt it that GRRM will be finished with ADOS in 7 years. At least it will be really narrow. But that's another thing.

To add something On Topic.

The most crucial point in my ''deduction'' are: The three of the kingsguard present at the ToJ. Why were they present if not for royal blood? I don't know if it is somewhere stated before. Is it certain that there were no other people present at the ToJ? That is hard to believe. Shouldn't there be at least some servants or ''if'' Lyanna was pregnant a midwife (is that the correct term?). Maybe Wylla was there (would explain why she is in on the secret). On the other hand, if Rhaegar did this because of the third dragenhead. Wouldn't he tell someone about it? Maybe even Elia? There should (have been) be more people that know what happened.

Also the story with the Daynes is somewhat murky. I think there is more to that story. Some extra point to why Ashara committed suicide. Her brother was a soldier (and iirc there was no extreme brother-sister love/connection mentioned), she shouldn't be that upset (to kill herself), when she discovers his fate.

[Desch]

There is still of course lots of evidence for something happening between Lyana and Rhaegar, something I want to find out, as do all fans of the books. But I think the wolf/symbols pretty well make it impossible for Jon to not be a son of Ned, assuming that the wolves are mystical in some way, which they seem to be.

I think it doesn't matter. As we know, there are no other Stark children. Benjen has/had no kids, Brandon died before he had any kids. And Lyanna died also (presumably)before she had any kids. But they are/were all Starks and had the connection with the old gods. Why shouldn't Lyannas or Brandons or Benjens kids be any less starkish and connected with the wolves?

I think, it doesnt make any sense if Jon is Lyannas son to be excluded from the ''wolfpack'' because he isn't the son of Ned. On the other hand, he gets an unique wolf for himself that should stand as sign that he is something special (if bastard, or something more is not important).

[Whatever]

GRRM didn't make you think that Dany is barren, he let you think that. There is a difference and he is very, very good at the second.

:agree:

Also the story with the Daynes is somewhat murky. I think there is more to that story. Some extra point to why Ashara committed suicide. Her brother was a soldier (and iirc there was no extreme brother-sister love/connection mentioned), she shouldn't be that upset (to kill herself), when she discovers his fate.

maybe she is the one who told Ned where lyanna and the kingsguards were. she felt guilt

[Dr. Acula]

On the other hand, he gets an unique wolf for himself that should stand as sign that he is something special (if bastard, or something more is not important).

I agree. The fact that Ghost opens his eyes before the others suggests he was born first which would be symbolic of Jon being born before the others too, keeping in line with the R+L time line theory.

[bac5665]

But if Jon is Rhaegar's sun, he's not a stark, He's a targ. The game world is very clear that children are the house of their fathers for just about every major purpose. Every Frey child is a Frey in whole being, not in any way a member of the mother's house. Even Emmon Frey is still clearly kin to the Frey, not Lannisters; GRRM goes out of his may to make Emmon just as ambitious, whiny and weasley.

So Jon getting a wolf is a stark in nature, if not name. That's the key. So his father must have been a Stark. I suppose it doesn't have to be Ned, but I don't see how Jon can have anything but a Stark as a father.

[Dragonfish]

But if Jon is Rhaegar's sun, he's not a stark, He's a targ. The game world is very clear that children are the house of their fathers for just about every major purpose. Every Frey child is a Frey in whole being, not in any way a member of the mother's house. Even Emmon Frey is still clearly kin to the Frey, not Lannisters; GRRM goes out of his may to make Emmon just as ambitious, whiny and weasley.

So Jon getting a wolf is a stark in nature, if not name. That's the key. So his father must have been a Stark. I suppose it doesn't have to be Ned, but I don't see how Jon can have anything but a Stark as a father.

Children are given the names of their fathers because of social convention, not because the identity of their mothers doesn't matter. And seriously, "every Frey child is a Frey in whole being, not in any way a member of the mother's house"? Really? What about Cleos Frey? He's a Frey in name, and therefore ought to be on the Starks' side, and yet he joins up with his mother's family, the Lannisters. Sansa is also described as being more like a Tully than a Stark. And given how willful and confident Lyanna was, I think she'd have a thing or two to say about the importance of the mother. Honestly, I think you go too far in saying that it doesn't matter who the mother is.

[TheGreenMan]

I missed the prior threads so I have no idea how much of this has been said.

To start off Ned was a man of honor and the only thing more important to him than his honor was family. This is shown when he forfeits his honor and life for that of his daughter. I can easily see him putting his sister's honor above his own.

On to Lyanna, loved by everyone and probably the catalalyst of both wars. She was known to love blue roses. The blue rose symbolises the unattainable. It's easy to go from there to say that she loved the unattainable. Namely Rhaegar. He was married and she promised to another. I caught a few references that she was with Rhaegar willingly, although I wasn't sure.

This might also explain why best friends Ned and Robert didn't see each other for so long, other than they lived half a continent away and had their own realms to run.

I'm not completely convinced of this, but it does seem to fit. I'm sure I'm missing something and only came up with this theory today so please poke wholes.

[bac5665]

Children are given the names of their fathers because of social convention, not because the identity of their mothers doesn't matter. And seriously, "every Frey child is a Frey in whole being, not in any way a member of the mother's house"? Really? What about Cleos Frey? He's a Frey in name, and therefore ought to be on the Starks' side, and yet he joins up with his mother's family, the Lannisters. Sansa is also described as being more like a Tully than a Stark. And given how willful and confident Lyanna was, I think she'd have a thing or two to say about the importance of the mother. Honestly, I think you go too far in saying that it doesn't matter who the mother is.

I'm talking symbolically, not culturally or socially. Cleos Frey is a very typical Frey, all cowardice and weaselyness. It is clear that he is, symbolically and inherently a Frey, without any hint of Lannister-ness.

By all the conventions of symbolism, Jon is Ned's son. His nature is all Stark, not Targ, and all his protestations that he's a Snow not a Stark are just setting up for him to realize his heritage as a Stark; he can't take Stannis' offer because he can't burn the Old Gods, not because he's a Targ.

And, just to repeat myself, I'm talking about theme and symbolism here, not in world logic/heraldry/genetics. I'm saying that Jon not ending up a Stark breaks all the themes of the books. Maybe it makes sense given the logic of the world, but it defies the conventions of writings. Jon being not Ned's son would be as athematic as it would be for Davos to be listened too by Lord Florent; while the Lord is perfectly capable of being rational, as all men are, the themes of the books don't really allow for Davos to be accepted by the Lords, at least not without some major events that I can't predict. Similarly, Jon is thematically all about finding his place as Ned's son; its as a Wildling that he rejects his heritage, claiming to have been driven from Westerosi society due to his bastardy. That was the lie he had to tell then; but because he was playing a part, not being genuine, the things he said there and things he did will end up being opposite of how he ends up.

All I'm saying is that there are conventions for symbolism, conventions for how these things work. The treatment of the wolves as siblings along with the thematic arc of Jon struggling with his identity lead to the conclusion that the final outcome will be as a sibling; all the wolves reveal the true nature of the Stark they represent. Jon is apart, but a sibling, which is what makes sense as Ned's bastard. It doesn't make sense if he is a Targ.

[Whatever]

By all the conventions of symbolism, Jon is Ned's son. His nature is all Stark, not Targ, and all his protestations that he's a Snow not a Stark are just setting up for him to realize his heritage as a Stark; he can't take Stannis' offer because he can't burn the Old Gods, not because he's a Targ.

So being a targ can't go along with the worshipping of the old gods?

IMHO, Jon saying he is not a stark but a snow is the first step of his growth. He stops trying to be what he is not and he finally starts to become who he really is.

I identify all the old god-direwolf stuff with jon bein a northmen, not with him being a tark, because he is not. I am pretty sure jon will refuse robb's legitimation, as he will refuse to take the name "targ" if he is really rhaegar's son.

i think whoever his parents are, jon is not tied to a house or another but he is just on his own.

[Snow White]

So being a targ can't go along with the worshipping of the old gods?

Didn't they (at least nominally) adopt the New Gods?

[Whatever]

Didn't they (at least nominally) adopt the New Gods?

And so what? Do you think that jon will have to change is faith if he is a targ?

[EvilClosetMonkey]

bac5665, I disagree that all children take after their father's house and are defined by that houses characteristics. As to Jon Snow specifically, in my mind he is Ned Stark's son. But he's not Ned Stark's biological son. Regardless of who gave their genes to make Jon, Ned raised him as his son and that is the more important aspect of being a father as far as I'm concerned. I fully believe R+L=J, but I don't think we'll see Jon becoming king or marrying Dany or flying around on a dragon while dive bombing enemies and dropping Ghost into their midst. Jon is of the North, he has the wolfblood, he has a wolf and he is undoubtedly tied to Ned's biological children in a way deeper than being their cousin. I just don't see how any of that means that Ned is his biological father or that he couldn't possibly be half Targ.

[Whatever]

Regardless of who gave their genes to make Jon, Ned raised him as his son and that is the more important aspect of being a father as far as I'm concerned. Jon is of the North, he has the wolfblood, he has a wolf and he is undoubtedly tied to Ned's biological children in a way deeper than being their cousin. I just don't see how any of that means that Ned is his biological father or that he couldn't possibly be half Targ.

:agree:

I fully believe R+L=J, but I don't think we'll see Jon becoming king or marrying Dany or flying around on a dragon while dive bombing enemies and dropping Ghost into their midst.

I half agree here, but i am sure that martin would probably make something like that happen, only to have the possibility to reverse another cliche' (but im still happy to know i am not the only one who doesn't like the idea of jon riding a dragon. Pfff :wacko: )

[Dragonfish]

I'm talking symbolically, not culturally or socially. Cleos Frey is a very typical Frey, all cowardice and weaselyness. It is clear that he is, symbolically and inherently a Frey, without any hint of Lannister-ness.

By all the conventions of symbolism, Jon is Ned's son. His nature is all Stark, not Targ, and all his protestations that he's a Snow not a Stark are just setting up for him to realize his heritage as a Stark; he can't take Stannis' offer because he can't burn the Old Gods, not because he's a Targ.

And, just to repeat myself, I'm talking about theme and symbolism here, not in world logic/heraldry/genetics. I'm saying that Jon not ending up a Stark breaks all the themes of the books. Maybe it makes sense given the logic of the world, but it defies the conventions of writings. Jon being not Ned's son would be as athematic as it would be for Davos to be listened too by Lord Florent; while the Lord is perfectly capable of being rational, as all men are, the themes of the books don't really allow for Davos to be accepted by the Lords, at least not without some major events that I can't predict. Similarly, Jon is thematically all about finding his place as Ned's son; its as a Wildling that he rejects his heritage, claiming to have been driven from Westerosi society due to his bastardy. That was the lie he had to tell then; but because he was playing a part, not being genuine, the things he said there and things he did will end up being opposite of how he ends up.

All I'm saying is that there are conventions for symbolism, conventions for how these things work. The treatment of the wolves as siblings along with the thematic arc of Jon struggling with his identity lead to the conclusion that the final outcome will be as a sibling; all the wolves reveal the true nature of the Stark they represent. Jon is apart, but a sibling, which is what makes sense as Ned's bastard. It doesn't make sense if he is a Targ.

Ok, fine, let's talk in symbolic terms. Let's take Sansa as an example. As I said in my previous post, Sansa seems much more at home in the South, and her attitude and general demeanor belies her Stark name. In other words, though she has the name of a Stark, she doesn't really act like a Stark (which, by the way, contradicts your assertion that one's patriarchal heritage determines one's nature). This is shown symbolically when Sansa's wolf is killed (an interpretation that GRRM has endorsed in a previous interview). Here, then, we have evidence that "Starkness" does not depend wholly on one's genes or names, but on one's actions and attitudes.

Now, let's bring this back to Jon. You will get no disagreement from me that Jon is basically a Stark in everything but name, and we agree that it is for this reason that he gets a wolf. But symbolically, does this necessarily mean that Jon is Ned Stark's biological son? Why can't it simply mean that Jon embodies what a Stark should be, even if he isn't the child of a male Stark? At the end of the day, he's still the child of a Stark, he was still raised by a Stark (and, like EvilClosetMonkey said, this makes Ned Jon's father, even if it isn't biologically so), and he still keeps to the old gods and upholds (as best he can) the values of honor and loyalty that Starks normally aspire to. Thus, symbolically, Jon's wolf shows that he's a Stark where it counts, even if he doesn't have the name. And this fact does not, in the end, contradict R+L=J.

[Ser Duck]

I am re-reading AGoT before the HBO series starts and I must say that a second reading has realy driven home that R+L=J must be true.

The one line that sealed it for me was, and apologies if I'm repeating previous posts.

"He thought of the promises he'd made Lyanna as she lay dying and the price he'd paid to keep them"

Cat has never forgiven him for Jon. I think she may have let it go if he hadn't brought him up in Winterfell, as bastards seem to be de rigueur amongst the high lords. She thinks somthing along the line of 'he was away on a campain and boys will be boys'.But bringing him back to Winterfell and bringing him up as his own really rankled her, so obviously he had promised to do this and paid the price of her anger/scorn/disapointment and no doubt bringing it up in every domestic they had from that day onwards ;)