The R+L=J thread, part XI

[Volderon]

Oh I get it. It doesn't matter how old the kids are? I just figured since Viserys was his brother it would fall to him (which it did) because all Rhaegar's kids were slain...which means there MUST be a kid at that tower. Viserys means nothing if one of his kids is alive.

It'd be like the kingsguard protecting Stannis when Robert died.

[SerArthurHeath]

In fact, Rhaegar's children would come before Viserys in the line of succession : so Aegon VI before a Viserys III (is he a third ? Can't remember). For example, if Joffrey and Tommen had been Robert's true sons, the throne would have passed on to them before Stannis and Renly.

That's different because Robert is actually king, whilst Rhaegar never was, surely? I'm asking because I'm not sure

[Raventhal]

I need to ask something that's always bothered me. Wouldn't the heir be Viserys since he was the Kings son? It wouldn't have been Rhaegar's son Aegon before Viserys, atleast that's what I think?

Now of course because there are not alot of Targs Jon would be the heir assuming he's not a bastard, but during the Trident it would still be Viserys I'm thinking...

I am not sure. I guess if Rhaegar had lived longer than Areys then Aegon would be heir. Essentially the line goes Areys then Rhaegar, then Aegon, then Viserys. I think once Rhaegar died before being crowned his line is passed and goes to the next oldest brother which was Viserys. That means it passed Aegon. I am not sure how the line of succession works though.

[Dragonfish]

Here's a related question: would succession have fallen to Rhaegar's daughter before it fell to Viserys, or would it have been the other way around? According to the wiki, all possible male claimants are in front of all possible female claimants in the line of succession. Is this accurate?

[Galen M]

I am not sure. I guess if Rhaegar had lived longer than Areys then Aegon would be heir. Essentially the line goes Areys then Rhaegar, then Aegon, then Viserys. I think once Rhaegar died before being crowned his line is passed and goes to the next oldest brother which was Viserys. That means it passed Aegon. I am not sure how the line of succession works though.

It doesn't matter who was crowned or not. At the beginning of the Rebellion, Aerys was king, the line of succession was as follows:

1. Rhaegar

2. Aegon

3. Jon, if legitimate

4. Viserys

5. Rhaenys

6. Danaerys

7. Rhaella

8. Robert

9. Stannis

10. Renly

Beyond that: Dornish claimants

[Alcatur]

As to line of succesion, intersting question would emerge:

assmuing that R+L=J and that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, still Jon would be born after death of Aerys. Thus would he be the heir to the crown, when Viserys is technically already king before Jon is born?

[Galen M]

As to line of succesion, intersting question would emerge:

assmuing that R+L=J and that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, still Jon would be born after death of Aerys. Thus would he be the heir to the crown, when Viserys is technically already king before Jon is born?

I believe in Great Britain they waited nine months before officially crowning a new king if the old queen was still fertile. However, I could see Viserys putting up a fight against giving his crown to Jon, if it weren't for the rebellion. Though, remember Viserys was what? 9 at the time? Either of them would have needed a strong hand/regent, again assuming Robert's rebellion fell through.

[Popgun]

I believe in Great Britain they waited nine months before officially crowning a new king if the old queen was still fertile. However, I could see Viserys putting up a fight against giving his crown to Jon, if it weren't for the rebellion. Though, remember Viserys was what? 9 at the time? Either of them would have needed a strong hand/regent, again assuming Robert's rebellion fell through.

Its pretty much the same. Like imagine Charles and William died for some reason.... then Elizabeth died. There would be all sorts of claiments since Harry's dad is actually Norm Hewitt. People would demand the throne go to Charles younger bro

[Galen M]

Its pretty much the same. Like imagine Charles and William died for some reason.... then Elizabeth died. There would be all sorts of claiments since Harry's dad is actually Norm Hewitt. People would demand the throne go to Charles younger bro

The British monarchy has one of the most documented lines of succession today. In addition there are appointed officers whose sole purpose is to maintain that line of succession and understand every legal loophole. There will be no confusion, no claimants. Elizabeth is Queen in her own right. Charles is the heir, then Willaim, then Harry. They will wait nine months before coronating Harry as King, in case Kate Middleton is pregnant.

Who the hell is Norm Hewitt? Prince Charles was Harry's father. You assume that E+W=J because a few people have said so, but you ignore that Charles + Diana = Harry, in spite of the fact that every authority says so, including birth certificates and countless kids and drunks (which is the only evidence for EWJ).

Please stop trolling, it is getting very lame.

[zmflavius]

Its pretty much the same. Like imagine Charles and William died for some reason.... then Elizabeth died. There would be all sorts of claiments since Harry's dad is actually Norm Hewitt. People would demand the throne go to Charles younger bro

Actually, since Prince Harry's royalty is derived through his father, Prince Charles, then he would be heir.

[Jon Blackfyre]

Norm Hewitt played rugby for the All Blacks in the 90's. Unless Popgun is talking about another Norm Hewitt, because that is the only one I know of off hand.

Either way, its just more drivel and should be ignored.

As others have said above, if Rhaegar and Lyanna turn out not to be Jon's parents I will come back and humbly admit I was wrong. On the Tower of the Hand site I have another bet going with another member to eat our hats if we are wrong, and I will follow through because I believe it wholeheartedly.

Since the Norm Hewitt reference got me thinking about rugging again, I vow to drink a warm beer out of my boot, video tape it and post a link to that video here if it is proven false during the story and is indisputably so. Meaning some joker saying they disproved it doesn't count, I'm talking in text fact and being able to ask GRRM who Jon's parents are and he says "not Rhaegar and Lyanna"

Popgun, will you take that bet?

[johnnysd]

As far as the claim goes, I have to assume that Jon is R'hollor's chosen and once he gets his hand on the sword Stannis is carrying (not sure how that will happen) it will burn and give off heat like Aemon said the true prophet's sword would. I suppose the destruction of the wall could lead to the elimination of the Night's Watch and release Jon from his oath allowing him to return south to gather an army to then oppose the Others. At this time, I would venture, Dany will have crossed the ocean with support and reclaim the Iron Throne.

I honestly have no idea who the third dragon would be. I'm not even sure of a theory out there that has any fact that add up like Jon potentially does.

I am almost 100% positive that Dany is Azor Ahai reborn.

Funny thing about R+L=J is that it seems so obvious reading the books that I almost think it will turn out to not be true, or have an additional twist that R+E=J and that the baby torn from Elia was a substitute.

[Jon Blackfyre]

I am almost 100% positive that Dany is Azor Ahai reborn.

Funny thing about R+L=J is that it seems so obvious reading the books that I almost think it will turn out to not be true, or have an additional twist that R+E=J and that the baby torn from Elia was a substitute.

Is it reading the books that made it obvious to you, or reading the books and coming on this site and then going back and reading again?

I'll be honest and say I had my doubts about Ned being Jon's father, and was under the impression it could be R+L=J, but until I came on here I wasn't 100%

I think the only reason so many people think it's "obvious" is that we've had about 11 years since ASOS and we've been able to bat the matter back and forth the whole time to put every single scrap of evidence together.

[Jon Blackfyre]

hi, i'm new to the forum and new to the series.

i found the forum actually looking to see if my hunch that jon was ned's dead sister's son was correct. i haven't read the books, and am not reading them now--i hadn't even heard of game of thrones until it started on HBO, and the tv series is all i know.

both of my parents started reading the series though when the show started (dad is on book 3 now, mom is almost done with book 2). sometime after the 1st or 2nd show i think it was, i asked them if jon was the sister's son. i can't really say why exctly i got that impression, it just seemed to make sense: the focus on her sarcophagus in the first show, ned's secrecy, etc.--if someone is willing to acknowledge one's bastard but not the bastard's mother, the only reason would be to protect the mother's honor, right? and in feudal systems, maids don't have any honor to protect; they are just one of the masses of "non-people." i also don't think HBO would waste time introducing the dead sister if she plays no role going forward--there are already too many characters for a tv show. if HBO has kept her and introduced her in the first show as a corpse, then i'd say she'll be pretty important at some point. and since the show hasn't bothered itself with the history of the rebellion at all, so i don't think it is including her just for backstory purposes.

anyway, my mom went nuts and said there was no way that ned had sex with his sister! but i hadn't thought that, i had always assumed he was lying about being the father, since a man having a child out of wedlock is not that big of a deal (compared to a woman having a child out of wedlock). i didn't have any clue who jon's real dad might have been, since i only knew the characters that have been on the show, but i didn't think it could be robert because he obviously is so in love with ned's dead sister that he would have cherished their son, had it been his.

anyway, reading this thread has been really interesting (i read the whole thing, though i only skimmed the last page or so :rolleyes:)

i thought it might be interesting to let you experts in on a tv show newbie's reaction.

ps: after reading the thread, i asked my parents what they thought about the r+l=j theory. my dad said, he didn't know, but figures the maid isn't the mom; but my mom, was only slightly less horrified then when she thought i meant ned and his sister were lovers, because ned's sister was kidnapped and abused by r (maybe this is why other book fans are opposed? they don't like r?).

but then again, the show may not be very accurate, since i also liked visearys (sp?), but i saw that most book fans seem to hate him...he was just funny (on tv, at least--not nice for sure, but then no one seems very nice on the show, other than jon and ned)...anyway, i liked him more than i like his sister, she's boring...

so anyway, that's my tv newbie's take on r+l=j :thumbsup:

Thank you very much for your input, and welcome to the boards!!! I find it very interesting that from watching the show you got the idea Lyanna was Jon's mother, and from the quote from GRRM that D & D guessed Jon's parentage correctly that makes me feel even more confident in the theory than I did before. You mother's reaction is pretty valid, but since you explained you didn't think Ned was his father has she mentioned anything else?

AS to Viserys, I will agree with you, on screen he is much more likable than i the books... but seeing him crowned was still awesome and satisfying!

[Galen M]

Is it reading the books that made it obvious to you, or reading the books and coming on this site and then going back and reading again?

I'll be honest and say I had my doubts about Ned being Jon's father, and was under the impression it could be R+L=J, but until I came on here I wasn't 100%

I think the only reason so many people think it's "obvious" is that we've had about 11 years since ASOS and we've been able to bat the matter back and forth the whole time to put every single scrap of evidence together.

people had no trouble rejecting

Snape being good because he loved Lily

even though every little point was hashed out ad nauseum. All the clues were there, and I was even able to figure it out on my first read. People just sometimes tend to miss the forest for the trees.

[Galen M]

Double post

[Buried Treasure]

I have to put my hand up as having laughed aloud at the Norm Hewitt insinuation. Come to think of it Harry is like the Tully-Stark of the Royal family, more ruddy / red-headed than his sibling (and probably inherited from his mothers family).

[Jon Blackfyre]

people had no trouble rejecting

Snape being good because he loved Lily

even though every little point was hashed out ad nauseum. All the clues were there, and I was even able to figure it out on my first read. People just sometimes tend to miss the forest for the trees.

I hear you, I just don't get the idea that R+L=J isn't true because "it's too obvious" That is completely backwards thinking in my mind.

"The author goes through the trouble to drop little hints all over the place pointing towards R+L=J but never comes out and says it, and at the same time gives an in-text alternative, N+W=J, that the population of characters accepts as true. This is just GRRM setting us all up to pull the rug out from underneath us and make us all slap our heads in stupidity when he reveals N+W=L to be true." It seems like so many people that doubt R+L=J are willing to believe that statement than the one below.

"The author goes through the trouble to drop little hints all over the place pointing towards R+L=J but never comes out and says it, and at the same time gives an in-text alternative, N+W=J, that the population of characters accepts as true. This is just GRRM using misdirection to make us question R+L=J until he wants it revealed to not only the readers, but the character population as well." To me it makes much more sense to look at it this way. Why go through all the trouble to make us think that R+L=J is a possibility just to say at the end, "Haha dummies, I tricked you, Wylla was his mom after all, you believed all the clues and hints and intertwined images I left to make you think otherwise! What a bunch of idiots!" Seems rather juvenile to me.

[LadyMary]

Goodness, Yeade... nothing meaningful to write, you say? Well, then I'm glad you saved it all up for this post, because that was some delicious writing. I applaud you. :bowdown:

BTW, this ginormous bombshell of a personal revelation means pretty much nothing thanks to that pesky vow you took when you were fourteen and clueless. Hilarity ensues!

This, well said.

It doesn't mean Jon's oath is rescinded just because he finds out the truth about his parentage but it sure may make a host of other characters want him out of the way or to use him for some purpose that isn't in his best interest. This means Jon has three dead parents instead of one. It means he's not the son of the man he looks up to as a father who raised him, the man whose one black spot turned out not to be an extra-marital dalliance, but a HUGE freakin' lie about everything that Jon believes about himself. Oh yeah, and he may still be a bastard after all that - just a different dead man's bastard. In fact, the only thing Jon has left is the oath he made for himself, of his own free will.

I've never understood objections to cliches on principle. Many use Aragorn as an example of the old, boring hidden heir cliche; honestly, he's always been my favorite LOTR character because his relationships with his foster family are wretchedly complex and his life is a fertile breeding ground for plotbunnies, lol. (Hell, even Tolkien himself considered writing a novella about Aragorn's time as Thorongil and his other great journeys.) I suppose you could say Jon's a character out of the same mold and, IMO, this is not a bad thing.

This too! I like Aragorn and I like Jon. I like essentially heroic characters who are still flawed and having to deal with messy complications, some of which are not of their own making. Jon chose to serve in the only army in the only war that will matter in the end and victory will a whole lot less glamorous than what comes with victory in the game of thrones. Whatever Dany or Stannis or Euron or [insert next claimant for the ugly pointy chair] think is "rightfully" theirs or theirs by conquest will be pointless if a hoard of evil things and their zombie minions start crawling down from the North.

That being said, I hope at the end of the series Jon won't be forced to spend the rest of his life in a cold and darkness because the things that the Night's Watch had to protect against will no longer be a factor. If that means Lordship somewhere, love, marriage, fatherhood or just seafaring with Davos, I'd like it to be what makes him feel like a whole person without regard for noble or royal blood.

[Galen M]

from what i remember, Aragorn didn't want to be king, he only wanted Arwen. Not that I blame him, as I'd gladly risk my life, give up everything I own, and do anything necessary for Liv Tyler. Granted, I'm no Viggo Mortisen, but still.

Maybe Jon will fall in love with Aunt Dany and not care about the throne, just care about her love. After all, Arwen was basically Aragorn's aunt (well, first cousin 30 times removed).

I think we are getting bored with ourselves here, July 12th can't come soon enough...