The R+L=J thread, part XII

[SerArthurHeath]

I did actually see a reason for why Ned wouldn't tell Robert if Jon was Lyanna and Robert's son, on TWOP's Unsullied thread

"Maybe he was never sure. Maybe that's another reason he couldn't pull himself away from the investigation. Not the only one, not the main one, but another one."

"Oh my God! That makes sense. I've never understood, "Well then why would Ned hide that from Robert?" because he didn't know for sure, one way or the other...and he was afraid of what Robert might do if it turned out "I never..." with Lyanna?

Oh wow, that would make so much sense. Tell Robert and if it turns out they never had a sexual relationship, Robert's likely to go berserk and order that abomination killed, etc. He couldn't risk it?"

I don't believe it as it doesn't work timewise, but it's a decent reason IMO

[K-dog]

I'm new to the site but I've read the books a few times. In reading posts on this site I have noticed a widespread belief that Robb named Jon his heir. I do not believe this is the case. I believe Robb legitimized Jon. These are two different things. The important thing is that a king can legitimize a bastards birth and that once legitimized, a bastard has the rights to all privileges resulting from that legitimate birth. Therefore, if R+L=J (which I think is painfully obvious to anyone who has read the books more than once) then J would be Rheagar's heir. His claim would be superior to Dany's. When he's still a bastard, it doesn't matter too much who is parents are but when he is legitimate, it matters a lot.

Another interesting thought. I believe everyone recalls the scene where Dany sees Rheagar telling a "woman" that the baby was the "Prince that was Promised." I believe the woman is Lyanna and the Prince is Jon and that was the reason 3 kingsguard were sent to defend them. R knew that Jon was more than just he heir to the throne but that his was the song of ice and fire and he was the prince that was promised. In that scene, the lack of a description of the woman is telling and indicative. If the description of the woman wouldn't have been revealing (i.e. it was Elia and her son Aegon) then GRRM would have described. Because it is part of the mystery, we have no description but are led to assume that it is Elia and Aegon.

[Shienberg]

I'm new to the site but I've read the books a few times. In reading posts on this site I have noticed a widespread belief that Robb named Jon his heir. I do not believe this is the case. I believe Robb legitimized Jon. These are two different things. The important thing is that a king can legitimize a bastards birth and that once legitimized, a bastard has the rights to all privileges resulting from that legitimate birth. Therefore, if R+L=J (which I think is painfully obvious to anyone who has read the books more than once) then J would be Rheagar's heir. His claim would be superior to Dany's. When he's still a bastard, it doesn't matter too much who is parents are but when he is legitimate, it matters a lot.

Another interesting thought. I believe everyone recalls the scene where Dany sees Rheagar telling a "woman" that the baby was the "Prince that was Promised." I believe the woman is Lyanna and the Prince is Jon and that was the reason 3 kingsguard were sent to defend them. R knew that Jon was more than just he heir to the throne but that his was the song of ice and fire and he was the prince that was promised. In that scene, the lack of a description of the woman is telling and indicative. If the description of the woman wouldn't have been revealing (i.e. it was Elia and her son Aegon) then GRRM would have described. Because it is part of the mystery, we have no description but are led to assume that it is Elia and Aegon.

If you don't realize that Robb named Jon the heir to winterfell you should read the books over.

[Dragonfish]

I'm new to the site but I've read the books a few times. In reading posts on this site I have noticed a widespread belief that Robb named Jon his heir. I do not believe this is the case. I believe Robb legitimized Jon. These are two different things. The important thing is that a king can legitimize a bastards birth and that once legitimized, a bastard has the rights to all privileges resulting from that legitimate birth. Therefore, if R+L=J (which I think is painfully obvious to anyone who has read the books more than once) then J would be Rheagar's heir. His claim would be superior to Dany's. When he's still a bastard, it doesn't matter too much who is parents are but when he is legitimate, it matters a lot.

Another interesting thought. I believe everyone recalls the scene where Dany sees Rheagar telling a "woman" that the baby was the "Prince that was Promised." I believe the woman is Lyanna and the Prince is Jon and that was the reason 3 kingsguard were sent to defend them. R knew that Jon was more than just he heir to the throne but that his was the song of ice and fire and he was the prince that was promised. In that scene, the lack of a description of the woman is telling and indicative. If the description of the woman wouldn't have been revealing (i.e. it was Elia and her son Aegon) then GRRM would have described. Because it is part of the mystery, we have no description but are led to assume that it is Elia and Aegon.

First of all, welcome to the board.

A couple points:

1. Robb told Catelyn he intended to legitimize Jon and release him from his vows in order to make him his heir. We don't know if he actually ended up doing that, though. Also, even if he did end up doing that, it only matters if everyone else recognizes Robb as a true king. If they don't, then his legitimizing Jon has no force of law, because only a king can legitimize bastards.

2. The woman in Dany's vision is Elia, not Lyanna. I believe GRRM has confirmed this.

[K-dog]

First of all, welcome to the board.

A couple points:

1. Robb told Catelyn he intended to legitimize Jon and release him from his vows in order to make him his heir. We don't know if he actually ended up doing that, though. Also, even if he did end up doing that, it only matters if everyone else recognizes Robb as a true king. If they don't, then his legitimizing Jon has no force of law, because only a king can legitimize bastards.

2. The woman in Dany's vision is Elia, not Lyanna. I believe GRRM has confirmed this.

Point 1 is exactly my point. There is a dramatic difference between Robb making Jon his heir and Robb legitimizing Jon. For purposes of the North and most of the River country, Jon is not longer a bastard. Robb thought he was making him his heir by legitimizing him but in reality, he could have been making him R's heir.

On Point 2, I'm very curious about that. If GRRM has confirmed it outside the books, then it makes for a situation where R was confused but it is not a truly momentous scene. On the other hand, if the possibility is open, the scene seems more important.

[K-dog]

If you don't realize that Robb named Jon the heir to winterfell you should read the books over.

LOL! Touche for you but I believe you are probably wrong. Reread the pertinent section and put it in the context of how Catelyn responds and what we know about the Blackfyre line. Naming Jon heir does not equal legitimizing in all cases.

[Galen M]

Point 1 is exactly my point. There is a dramatic difference between Robb making Jon his heir and Robb legitimizing Jon. For purposes of the North and most of the River country, Jon is not longer a bastard. Robb thought he was making him his heir by legitimizing him but in reality, he could have been making him R's heir.

On Point 2, I'm very curious about that. If GRRM has confirmed it outside the books, then it makes for a situation where R was confused but it is not a truly momentous scene. On the other hand, if the possibility is open, the scene seems more important.

Aemon said as much, I believe. He says that Rhaegar that Aegon was the PTWP.

[Dragonfish]

Point 1 is exactly my point. There is a dramatic difference between Robb making Jon his heir and Robb legitimizing Jon. For purposes of the North and most of the River country, Jon is not longer a bastard. Robb thought he was making him his heir by legitimizing him but in reality, he could have been making him R's heir.

Making Jon his heir and legitimizing him are effectively the same thing. In order to name Jon his heir, Robb must legitimize him. And he explicitly states that the purpose of legitimizing him is to make him his heir (plus, for all we know, Robb explicitly states in his will that Jon is his heir). There is no "dramatic difference" between the two, as far as I can see.

Also, as I said in my last post, Robb legitimizing Jon has no force of law unless he is recognized as a true king by everyone else. It seems strange to me that people would recognize Jon as the true Targaryen heir simply because a completely different king of a completely different dynasty "legitimized" him.

On Point 2, I'm very curious about that. If GRRM has confirmed it outside the books, then it makes for a situation where R was confused but it is not a truly momentous scene. On the other hand, if the possibility is open, the scene seems more important.

I don't understand, how would Rhaegar be confused in this scene if the woman was Elia?

I'm almost certain GRRM confirmed the girl was Elia, but I'm having trouble finding the citation because the Citadel is not working for me. If someone else could post a link, I'd be appreciative.

[Dragonfish]

LOL! Touche for you but I believe you are probably wrong. Reread the pertinent section and put it in the context of how Catelyn responds and what we know about the Blackfyre line. Naming Jon heir does not equal legitimizing in all cases.

Ummm...yes it does, as far as I can tell. Also, Daemon Blackfyre was legitimized, but he wasn't technically named heir. His claim was based on rumors that Daeron II was actually the bastard son of Aemon the Dragonknight and Queen Naerys. I don't see how this example illustrates your point.

EDIT--Here's what the Citadel says about the woman Dany saw with Rhaegar:

"The fifth room shows Rhaegar and Elia with the newborn Aegon, as confirmed my Martin."

[K-dog]

Making Jon his heir and legitimizing him are effectively the same thing. In order to name Jon his heir, Robb must legitimize him. And he explicitly states that the purpose of legitimizing him is to make him his heir (plus, for all we know, Robb explicitly states in his will that Jon is his heir). There is no "dramatic difference" between the two, as far as I can see.

Also, as I said in my last post, Robb legitimizing Jon has no force of law unless he is recognized as a true king by everyone else. It seems strange to me that people would recognize Jon as the true Targaryen heir simply because a completely different king of a completely different dynasty "legitimized" him.

I don't understand, how would Rhaegar be confused in this scene if the woman was Elia?

I'm almost certain GRRM confirmed the girl was Elia, but I'm having trouble finding the citation because the Citadel is not working for me. If someone else could post a link, I'd be appreciative.

Rhaegar is not confused whether the woman is Elia. Rheagar could just be confused regarding who the prince who was promised is. Rheagar thinking his son who is dead is the prince who was promised makes the scene pretty irrelevant but Dany seeing Rheagar and Lyanna and Rheagar stating that Lyanna's child is the prince who was promised is important. A GRRM quote saying it is Elia would resolve it either way though so if such a quote exists that would be helpful.

I agree that for Robb's purposes and given Robb's belief regarding Jon's parentage legitimizing and naming him heir are essentially one and the same. On the other hand, given what we know about Jon's parentage (or suspect we know) they are dramatically different. This is why the Blackfyre story is so important. It seemed to the Targ king that he was doing nothing problematic by legitimizing his bastards but, under the argument that one bastard he legitimized had a paramount claim to the throne over his true-born children, in reality it was a major problem. When a bastard is legitimized by the king, that bastard is legitimate and potentially receives his place as his father's son regardless of who the father is. Robb thinks he knows who Jon's father is but if Howland Reed has proof otherwise, the legitimazation has huge ramifications. If all Robb did was name Jon his heir, that would be one thing ... Jon would be heir to Winterfell. If instead Robb made him a trueborn son of his father, Howland Reed's information could make Jon a Targaryen heir instead. Dramatic difference. One is controlled and the other is not.

[K-dog]

Ummm...yes it does, as far as I can tell. Also, Daemon Blackfyre was legitimized, but he wasn't technically named heir. His claim was based on rumors that Daeron II was actually the bastard son of Aemon the Dragonknight and Queen Naerys. I don't see how this example illustrates your point.

EDIT--Here's what the Citadel says about the woman Dany saw with Rhaegar:

"The fifth room shows Rhaegar and Elia with the newborn Aegon, as confirmed my Martin."

I think I explain this more above.

On the other, if Martin confirmed it, Martin confirmed it.

[Galen M]

I don't think Robb's writ would read "Jon Snow is hereby recognized as legitimate," more like Jon Snow is now recognized as Ned Stark's trueborn son." In that case, there would be no difference. Anyways, the King in the North could not legitimize an heir to the iron throne.

[Dragonfish]

Rhaegar is not confused whether the woman is Elia. Rheagar could just be confused regarding who the prince who was promised is. Rheagar thinking his son who is dead is the prince who was promised makes the scene pretty irrelevant but Dany seeing Rheagar and Lyanna and Rheagar stating that Lyanna's child is the prince who was promised is important. A GRRM quote saying it is Elia would resolve it either way though so if such a quote exists that would be helpful.

Ok, now I understand, thanks for the clarification.

Obviously Rhaegar was mistaken about who the PWWP was, but I don't think that makes the scene irrelevant. After all, the scene allows us to see a bit of Rhaegar's character, to see that he believed his child was the PWWP, and to see that he believed his children would be the other dragon heads. I think that makes this scene majorly important, not irrelevant.

I agree that for Robb's purposes and given Robb's belief regarding Jon's parentage legitimizing and naming him heir are essentially one and the same. On the other hand, given what we know about Jon's parentage (or suspect we know) they are dramatically different. This is why the Blackfyre story is so important. It seemed to the Targ king that he was doing nothing problematic by legitimizing his bastards but, under the argument that one bastard he legitimized had a paramount claim to the throne over his true-born children, in reality it was a major problem. When a bastard is legitimized by the king, that bastard is legitimate and potentially receives his place as his father's son regardless of who the father is. Robb thinks he knows who Jon's father is but if Howland Reed has proof otherwise, the legitimazation has huge ramifications. If all Robb did was name Jon his heir, that would be one thing ... Jon would be heir to Winterfell. If instead Robb made him a trueborn son of his father, Howland Reed's information could make Jon a Targaryen heir instead. Dramatic difference. One is controlled and the other is not.

First of all, I'm of the opinion that Aegon the Unworthy knew exactly what he was doing when he legitimized all his bastards. But that's a minor point, and ultimately tangential to the argument.

In any event, as I have said several times, Robb's legitimization of Jon matters little unless everyone recognizes him as king. In other words, Jon cannot be a proper heir to the Targaryen dynasty unless people somehow recognize both the Targaryens and the Starks as rightful kings. That's why the legitimization of Daemon Blackfyre is not a good example: he was legitimized by a king from the very dynasty he was attempting to rule. If Daemon had been legitimized by, say, a rebel Stark lord who claimed himself a king, then no one who recognized the Targaryens as the true kings would recognize Daemon's legitimization. Am I making sense here?

[willo the wisps]

Regarding the King's Guard and final orders.

Some people are reading George's words about "they follow orders" to mean that they were following Rhaegar's orders to the

exlcusion of everything else, simply because he was Rhaegar. But at the end of the day, Rhaegar was only their prince, and not their King. So, Im going to try and reason out why they would not have been at KL when it fell.

I am at a bit of a disadvantage because I do not have GoT in front of me and what I am about to write is being

taken partly from memory and partly from a summary of the chapter in question from Tower of the Hand.com but and from

the audio book which you can hear here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS5du3IxD4g

Here's is what the summary says about it: "Eddard tells them he looked for them on the Trident, at King's Landing, and at Storm's End and thought perhaps they were with Ser Willem Darry on Dragonstone, but they say that they swore a vow and do not run. Just as he and his companions close to fight the Kingsguard, Eddard wakes up."

What I remember, Ned specifically wondered about them not being at the Trident, to which one of the KG responded something along the lines of would that they were, otherwise the usurper would be dead. Given this quote, we know they already knew that Rheagar is dead. All Ned said was the Trident-he gave no specifics as to what occured there and unless you were living under a rock, anyone in westeros would know what battle "The Trident" referred to and who died there. So, given their isolation, the KG seemed to have known about the Trident already and what transpired without further comment.

The KL part is tricky. Ned says when KL fell, Jaime slit Aerys' throat with a golden sword, and he wondered where they were. Far away , one replied, or else Aerys would still sit his iron throne and their false brother would burn in 7 hells. Here it almost seems like Ned is informing them of current events or at the least supplying details he did not when mentioning The Trident, but the KG react so dispassionately, its almost as if they already knew that too.

Now, lets look at this. The three KG at the ToJ are knights of legend..but beyond that one of them is the Lord Commander himself. Now, I think if anyone would be sort of partial to making sure the King was protected at all costs, it would be the actual leader of the KG itself. So the issue Im trying to wrap my mind around if those three KG knew of Rhaegar's falling...they have to know that with Rhaegar dead the next target of the Usurper is KL and the King and his family..the King whom they are sworn to protect as job one. Even if they were guarding Rhaegar's son, he still isnt the King or even Rhaegar's heir at that point,..why would they forsake their number one sworn duty to guard some offshoot of Rhaegar?

Mind you, Im totally in the camp of R+L=J..but even I cant wrap my brain around it.

Now, you could make the argument that being that the ToJ was so isolated and obviously well hidden that communication could have been an issue. And really, thats about the only thing that makes sense. I cannot see the KG3(which again, includes the Lord Commander) putting Rhaegar's second born sons safety ahead of their still living King, and that king's second son Viserys. As it is, Viserys takes precedence over Aegon and most definitely over Rhaella, a fact to which Ned alludes when he mentions he'd thought the KG3 would have sailed with Willem Darry, to which the KG famously reply Darry is a good man and true, but not of the KG, who do not flee; they swore a vow...and now, it begins.

Now, I can totally see the KG3 choosing to protect Jon, who would be the legitimate heir by this point, rather than run off after Viserys. And the language is clear "darry is a good man...but not of the KG.", a quote which to my mind, given what we know( or very much suspect) can almost read like "yeah, its cool that darry is guarding the queen and her son viserys...but we are the ones guarding the rightful king"

So, the issue to me isnt so much why were they not at the Trident..Rhaegar could have told them to guard the tower( and who is in it_ til he returns which they could have done *literally* no doubt). The issue is why were they not at KL. And did they willfully abandon their king , or did they simply not know? Ned implies with the comments regarding the Siege at Storm's End that he thought they would have tried to save themselves by pledging fealty to Robert, to which Ser Arthur Dayne scoffs and says their knees do not bend so easily. Meaning they would never betray their king or their king's cause. Which again begs the question, why were they not at KL?

So the only options are they broke their vows to Aerys in order to protect Rhaegar;s second born son( not likely) or perhaps, by the time they learned of the events of the Trident, KL had already fallen as well. In which case, their duty lie with protecting the true heir, Jon. I mean when Ned questions them about the Trident and KL and says "where were you" the answers are "we were not there" and "far away". There isnt alot to be interpreted from that...but I will go all in with the speculation. We were not there is at least a firm declarative and isnt too far a leap from " we were ordered not to be there". But far away bit? Well yes, I would imagine the ToJ is a fair trot from KL, but again..if they did not know their king was in jeopardy, you cant get much farther than that, now can you?

Again, I am being wildly speculative..but thats the only thing that makes sense to me. At the very least, if they knew Rhaegar had fallen and KL was next, I cant see at least one of the KG3 not trying to attempt to get back to KL..it just...doenst make sense.

But given the isolation of the ToJ, and the fact that it seems that very few knew where it was and who was there...and its implied in the chapter that Ned probably found out about it after the Siege from either the Tyrelle or Redwyne men(seeing that the ToJ was located in their domain, or thereabouts), I dont think its out of the realm of reasonable possibility that the three men guarding that tower simply did not know current events in time.

Then, there is the curious line about them swearing a vow, and then ser arthur dayne donning his helmet and saying "it begins now". Well,. if they are there to guard the king, and the usurpers sworn man comes for the inhabitants of the tower, well then defending it would be their first battle in defense of that new king, no? And as it happens, it would turn out to be their last.

my two cents.

Gods help us..what would have happened if Lyanna had birthed out a girl. Well, in that case, Im thinking Lyanna and her kid would have been dropped off at a castle in Dorne, word sent to Ned to come gather her and her daughter there, and they would have tried for a ship

to Dragonstone poste haste.

[Silverin]

In any event, as I have said several times, Robb's legitimization of Jon matters little unless everyone recognizes him as king. In other words, Jon cannot be a proper heir to the Targaryen dynasty unless people somehow recognize both the Targaryens and the Starks as rightful kings. That's why the legitimization of Daemon Blackfyre is not a good example: he was legitimized by a king from the very dynasty he was attempting to rule. If Daemon had been legitimized by, say, a rebel Stark lord who claimed himself a king, then no one who recognized the Targaryens as the true kings would recognize Daemon's legitimization. Am I making sense here?

And even if Robb legitimazed Jon he named him as a Stark, the son of Ned Stark, not the son of Rhaegar a Targaryen.

I think as long as the North accepts Jon as Robb's heir it is enough. The Iron Throne didnt accept Robb as the King in the North, but they didnt accept neither Renly's neither Stanni's claim to the throne either. But despite that the Tyrells and Baratheons stood beside Renly, and there some who sees Stannis as they rightful king. And in the eyes of the Umbers, Mormonts, Tullys etc Robb WAS their king. So again even if the Iron Throne does not accept it means nothing.

The more important point is the one I stated first that Jon was legitimazed as a Stark, not as a Targaryen. And even if Howland Reed sais he is the son of Rhaegar so he is the true heir why would anyone believe him? He is a Stark loyalist, so him trying to put Jon on the Throne is doubtful.

And another point in the third book regarding Jon character when he was thinking of wether he should accept Stannis offer and inherit Winterfell with burning the godswood or not, that is when he sees Ghost and sees that his face is like the face of a heart tree. He thinks, Ghost was sent by the old gods, by HIS gods, and that is why he does not take Stannis offer. I think it is a wery defining moment for Jons character. Wether he is the son of Rhaegar or not, he is a Stark, his gods are the old gods, and remember, in the south the godswood were cut down and burned as Osha said his gods only have power in the North. For me it meant Jon Snow belongs to the North.

[LadyMary]

After reading that quote in context, I don't think it's really the confirmation it appears to be.

I don't buy it. The only children the Lannisters had killed were the Targaryen children, and only after the Targaryens were essentially run out of Westeros. Ned had no reason to believe they'd target the bastard child of the new king. They're trying to get in good with Robert; killing his and Lyanna's child would seriously hamper that plan.

EDIT--Also, it still doesn't make sense why he wouldn't tell his wife who Jon really was. If R+L=J, then Ned is committing treason, and if his wife accidentally let this slip then the whole kingdom would be against him. But if Jon is Robert's son, then the only people who would do him harm are far away to the South, so Ned can afford to at least tell the people he loves who Jon really is. Ned's vigilant secrecy on this issue just doesn't fit if Jon is Robert's son, IMO.

I don't buy it either. The Lannisters didn't try to kill Edric Storm who was Robert's only acknowledged high-born bastard (as far as we know). They didn't try to kill his other bastards either, until after the secret of Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen's illegitimate birth was discovered - first by Jon Arryn and later by Ned Stark who threatened to let the world know about it. They killed the whore's baby and wanted to arrest (and probably kill) Gendry who was on his way to the Wall by then but that was due to Cersei's paranoia - trying to destroy the evidence of Robert's known bastard progeny so they couldn't be compared to her own. At the time Robert took the throne, it may have been common knowledge that he'd fathered at least one bastard (Lyanna knew about Mya Stone), but nobody cared about it because those bastards were born on common women and had absolutely no claim on the throne or anything else of Robert's, and he took absolutely no interest in them.

[Lord Advantine]

If Tywin isn't Tyrion's dad, it literally destroys Tyrion's entire storyline. :thumbsdown:

Not necessarily. I think there are strong hints that Tywin isn't really Tyrion's biological dad, and this is further confirmed when Tyrion killed Tywin, his supposed dad. Plus the strength of Tyrion's storyline is not necessarily about his daddy-issues entirely :)

Yes Genna Lannister even commented that Tyrion was Tywin's true son and heir. Tyrion himself believes himself to be his father writ small.

I think the fact that Tyrion murders Tywin in cold-blood strongly suggests the development that Tywin may not be Tyrion's biological father after all. But Tyrion is indeed a Lannister, because his mom was a Lannister cousin.

Why from his mother's side? We know from King Robert's ancestry that Targaryen daughters periodically married outside their house. The Lannisters, being the richest family in the kingdoms and probably the second most powerful after the Targaryens, would be prime candidates for a marriage to a member of the royal house. So there's probably Targaryen blood in Tyrion's ancestry even with his parents being exactly as advertised.

Yes, Tyrion's father, brother, and uncle don't seem to display the "dragon dreams" that Tyrion has had--but then to our knowledge none of the recent Stark family before the current youngest generation displayed warg or greenseer abilities, either.

Well Tyrion has direct Lannister blood from his mom, who was a full 100% Lannister cousin married to Tywin. Tywin hated Tyrion, not only because he killed his wife through his birth, but probably because he suspected Tyrion was not really his son, but that of his best friend, Aerys II the mad king. Tywin did serve as Aerys's Hand of the King, and the fallout from Aerys' later rejection of Tywin's proposal to mary Cersei to Prince Rhaegar and the taking of Jaime to be a Kingsguard pushed Tywin into betraying his formerly best friend.

And Tywin never directly had Tyrion killed, because Tyrion was still a Lannister by blood. There's a reason why he seems to try to get Tyrion killed by putting him into difficult situations, and humiliating Tyrion in so many ways.

And Tyrion shares his half-brother's Rhaegar's predilection for reading.

"Oh my God! That makes sense. I've never understood, "Well then why would Ned hide that from Robert?" because he didn't know for sure, one way or the other...and he was afraid of what Robert might do if it turned out "I never..." with Lyanna?

Oh wow, that would make so much sense. Tell Robert and if it turns out they never had a sexual relationship, Robert's likely to go berserk and order that abomination killed, etc. He couldn't risk it?"

That's an easy enough problem to solve. Just ask old fat King Rob is he ever "did it" with Lyanna before telling him about the kid!

Ned Stark: Your Grace, did you "do it" with my sis?

Fat Drunk King Rob: I jolly did, Ned! *gets drunk and all boisterous on Ned*

Ned Stark: Ok, you've got another bastard now, a Stark, to add to your collection of the previous 12 bastards you sired!

On Point 2, I'm very curious about that. If GRRM has confirmed it outside the books, then it makes for a situation where R was confused but it is not a truly momentous scene. On the other hand, if the possibility is open, the scene seems more important.

Maybe GRRM was trying to do some "misdirection" on his part since he didnt expect his readers to quickly figure out R+L=J

MULTIQUOTE, PEOPLE. LEARN TO USE IT. - m

@m: Thanks. Was trying to figure out how to use the "Multiquote" buttons actually :) - LordAdvantine

[UnHoly1]

There's also something else that occurred to me, rereading AGOT. All of Ned Stark's male children bear names resembling those of men who were important to him. His first son is Robb, after King Robert. Bran, after Brandon his brother. Rickon greatly resembles Rickard, the lost father. It seems likely that Jon is named after Jon Arryn... which might in itself be a little foreshadowing. Jon Arryn was, after all, the caretaker, but not the family--an adopted father figure, and protector. Ned is to Jon Snow what Jon Arryn was to Ned.

I like it!

[Faranya]

Now, I've been skimming through this and the other R+L=J threads (no, I did not read every post)

I've just got one real question:

Does the R+L=J theory demand the Lyanna eloped with Rhaegar, or only that Jon is Rhaegar's son with Lyanna?

[Xenophon]

Now, I've been skimming through this and the other R+L=J threads (no, I did not read every post)

I've just got one real question:

Does the R+L=J theory demand the Lyanna eloped with Rhaegar, or only that Jon is Rhaegar's son with Lyanna?

Both versions exist. Lyanna eloping with Rhaegar makes more sense of why Lyanna would being holding blue roses as she died, and why Ned would agree to protect Jon at the cost of his honor.