The R+L=J thread, part XII

[LadyMary]

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?

As Xenophon posted, R+L=J works if the parents of Jon are Rhaegar and Lyanna. There's a debate in the fandom about whether Rhaegar kidnapped/raped Lyanna or they eloped together and had consensual sex. Either way, Rhaegar impregnated Lyanna and she gave birth to Jon that fits the theory. I think she eloped with Rhaegar because they were in love, or he seduced her into going with him and then kept her from returning North in order to fulfill the prophesy.

I think it's hard to imagine that Lyanna, the wolf maid of Meera's story, would be easy to abduct against her will all the way (presumably) in Winterfell from somewhere in the South without someone noting a captive girl over hundreds of leagues of traveling (plus Ned warned Arya that Lyanna's wolf-like nature led to her to a too-early death, which suggests she did what she wanted).

In any case, I think Lyanna would be more worried to extract that promise from Ned to protect her love child than a child that was the product of rape, but I suppose a kind of Stockholm Syndrome could have been involved.

[tozka]

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.

Ned would agree to protect Jon at the cost of his honor regardless of he was born because of rape or love. He is his sister son (if some theories are right).

[K-dog]

As Xenophon posted, R+L=J works if the parents of Jon are Rhaegar and Lyanna. There's a debate in the fandom about whether Rhaegar kidnapped/raped Lyanna or they eloped together and had consensual sex. Either way, Rhaegar impregnated Lyanna and she gave birth to Jon that fits the theory. I think she eloped with Rhaegar because they were in love, or he seduced her into going with him and then kept her from returning North in order to fulfill the prophesy.

I think it's hard to imagine that Lyanna, the wolf maid of Meera's story, would be easy to abduct against her will all the way (presumably) in Winterfell from somewhere in the South without someone noting a captive girl over hundreds of leagues of traveling (plus Ned warned Arya that Lyanna's wolf-like nature led to her to a too-early death, which suggests she did what she wanted).

In any case, I think Lyanna would be more worried to extract that promise from Ned to protect her love child than a child that was the product of rape, but I suppose a kind of Stockholm Syndrome could have been involved.

I'm with you. I don't think non-consensual makes much sense considering what we know about Lyanna. She had the wolf in her. Look at those Starks we know who have the wolf in them. Rickon: four years old but wild, willful, and dangerous in the presence of his wolf. Arya: about 8 years old the first time she kills someone and not more than ten when she first kills a grown man without assistance. I just think of Lyanna as a fully grown Arya and the girl seems more like a beautiful Brienne than a Starkish Margaery.

[Kalbowski]

5) Neds letter to Jon, and his thoughts of Jon in KL.

It suggests he wants to talk to Jon and fill him in on everything.

I apologize but I don't know what letter Ned wrote to Jon. Is this the same letter that Ned gave to Varys in the dungeon? If so, I have no idea about that letter either. Did Ned give Varys a letter in the dungeon? Can someone please help me???

[A wilding]

I apologize but I don't know what letter Ned wrote to Jon. Is this the same letter that Ned gave to Varys in the dungeon? If so, I have no idea about that letter either. Did Ned give Varys a letter in the dungeon? Can someone please help me???

Yes, this is a reference to the theory that Ned in the dungeon did take Varys up on his offer to take a letter. A theory only, because it does not happen in Ned's PoV. IMO the theory is weak, because:

- Varys says he would take it, read it, and do with it whatever best served his own ends, surely enough to make Ned think twice about writing one.

- That is the last mention of Ned writing a letter.

- Ned soon has other things on his mind when Varys tells him he has to throw away his honour to prevent Sansa's execution.

ETA: Still, the argument still holds that Ned might have wanted to send Jon a letter to tell him his parentage.

[Ser Shabutie]

I was re watching episode 2 when Jon parts with Ned and I noticed that when Ned says the words "next time we see eachother, we'll talk about your mother" he seems overly emotional, an emotion that seems only sparked when the mention of his sister comes into play and her promise. Most noticeably his lip movements...looks like he wants to cry. Since D&D know the heritage, they could've instructed Sean to throw in that extra tad bit. They could have just got away without the lip movements..but that detail is there...he was chokin up! O_x

May have been brought up before, and I apologize if it has, just don't have the time to search threads for 1 concept. x_x

[tozka]

I was re watching episode 2 when Jon parts with Ned and I noticed that when Ned says the words "next time we see eachother, we'll talk about your mother" he seems overly emotional, an emotion that seems only sparked when the mention of his sister comes into play and her promise. Most noticeably his lip movements...looks like he wants to cry. Since D&D know the heritage, they could've instructed Sean to throw in that extra tad bit. They could have just got away without the lip movements..but that detail is there...he was chokin up! O_x

May have been brought up before, and I apologize if it has, just don't have the time to search threads for 1 concept. x_x

I rather doubt that because I don't think GRRM is in habit of sharing details of unpublished books with anyone (beside his wife?girlfriend).

You are reading too much in this, I think.

[Ser Shabutie]

I rather doubt that because I don't think GRRM is in habit of sharing details of unpublished books with anyone (beside his wife?girlfriend).

You are reading too much in this, I think.

possibly, but just an observation that I had made....also reading somewhere that GRRM was surprised that D&D did correctly figure out Jon's parentage. They know something. :o

[Dragonfish]

I rather doubt that because I don't think GRRM is in habit of sharing details of unpublished books with anyone (beside his wife?girlfriend).

You are reading too much in this, I think.

George has told David and Dan how the story ends. He's also given them a copy of the next book, which they're reading right now. We also know from an interview with George that he asked them who Jon's mother was, and was "surprised but pleased" by their response. So I think it's safe to say that David and Dan know who Jon's mother is.

[Songstress]

http://nymag.com/dai...ext_for_ga.html

Seems like to me, that Sean Bean just confirmed R+L=J.

Heh... I thought I'd find that quoted in this thread. And it certainly does at least partially give that impression, although it's not conclusive if you look at the whole context.

Still, as one who is predisposed to believe R+L=J from my first read-through, I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that's what he meant.

[Asarlai]

Heh... I thought I'd find that quoted in this thread. And it certainly does at least partially give that impression, although it's not conclusive if you look at the whole context.

Still, as one who is predisposed to believe R+L=J from my first read-through, I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that's what he meant.

I haven't been buying the R+L theory, but I do think that Sean Bean's interview is a big point in favor of Ned not being Jon's father. I just read it in context, but here's the specific part: "Even if I were his true father, I can’t talk about it for fear of offending my wife, who’s really bitter about this."

"True" father doesn't just seem to mean father of a trueborn son, since he says his wife would still be angry, which means Ned being Jon's "true father" would still mean Jon being a bastard. Personally, I think it's a worse story of R+L is true, but it seems more plausible now, assuming Sean Bean* knows what he's talking about and isn't using verbal trickery.

*If your last name is Bean, why name your kid Sean??**

**Turns out his birth name was Shaun. He did this to himself.

[Songstress]

Personally, I think it's a worse story of R+L is true, but it seems more plausible now, assuming Sean Bean* knows what he's talking about and isn't using verbal trickery.

I think it's only a worse story if it becomes a cliche. Worst case, Jon finds out that his parents were actually Rhaegar and Lyanna, who were secretly married, and he's the true heir to the Iron Throne - and then is talked into claiming the throne, or winds up alongside Dany as a "head of the dragon" or husband or whatnot because he has Targaryen blood, etc.

I've long held to the thought that Jon may never even find out if it's true... or if he does, that he'll consider all aspects of what the truth means to him and wind up holding true to his vow to the Night's Watch.

*shrug* We all will see how it plays out in the end. I won't be all that disappointed if R+L+J was a red herring... but if it was, I want someone to explain what actually DID happen at the Tower of Joy, and what Ned promised Lyanna.

[jurble]

R+L=J is way too obscure to be a red herring. It's above the level of Timmett being heir to the Vale, but below obvious.

[shouldbedoingsomethingelse]

Robb named Jon the heir to winterfell.

you cannot name anyone as your heir. an heir is by definition one who takes by intestacy (i.e. when there is no will). if you name some one to take your property by will (i.e. you devise or bequest to them), the person is a devisee (if taking real property) and a beneficiary (if taking personal property), not an heir (and technically, in the medial ages, in england, real property was not devisable at all; it descended solely according to the law of primogeniture. so there was no testamentary disposition of land. will's were the exclusive domain of the ecclesiastical courts and solely for the disposition of personal property--to ann, my 3rd best frock etc...). most land in england that belonged to peers was entailed anyway (i.e a fee tail), so that no female could inherit regardless, though it doesn't seem that that is the case in westeros.

the point the other poster was making was absolutely correct--rob could only legitimize jon, in which case jon falls into the chain of heredity, but rob could not make him his heir. the other argument made is legally possible as well, that by legitimizing jon, he makes jon someone's heir, but not necessarily his own (however, jon could take always take winterfell through his mother, if legitimized, even if he is not ned's son, but rhaegars...)

[Dragonfish]

the point the other poster was making was absolutely correct--rob could only legitimize jon, in which case jon falls into the chain of heredity, but rob could not make him his heir. the other argument made is legally possible as well, that by legitimizing jon, he makes jon someone's heir, but not necessarily his own (however, jon could take always take winterfell through his mother, if legitimized, even if he is not ned's son, but rhaegars...)

If Jon were actually the son of one of Robb's bannermen, then yes, Robb legitimizing him would accidentally make Jon the heir to that bannerman's house and lands, assuming that that bannerman still regards Robb as a rightful king. However, Robb's legitimization of Jon does not make him the rightful heir to the Targaryen throne, because the Targaryen throne is not part of Robb's kingdom. Only a king can legitimize a bastard, and even then the legitimization only applies within his own kingdom.

[Asarlai]

R+L=J is way too obscure to be a red herring. It's above the level of Timmett being heir to the Vale, but below obvious.

TIMMITT SON OF TIMMITT WILL HAVE HIS DUE!

[Songstress]

TIMMITT SON OF TIMMITT WILL HAVE HIS DUE!

:lmao:

[Noir Dove]

TIMMITT SON OF TIMMITT WILL HAVE HIS DUE!

I laughed so hard. :lmao:

[Wik]

I'm thinking more along the lines that LadyMary is.

I honestly don't see Jon and Dany's purpose as reviving the Targaryen line of kings. That is what Dany wants, Jon has no idea he could be a Targaryen, but in the end it will come down to them saving the world from the advance of the Others.

Jon is my absolute favorite character, but I've said before I wouldn't be surprised if R+L=J turns out to be true, he realizes it, and instead of saying "okay, I'm King, bye bye night's Watch" he stays as Lord commander and ends up giving his life in the fight against the Other's. R+L=J just makes it a better story that the true king, if he is legitimate that is, denounces himself, gives up the throne and dies at his post as he vowed too instead of the "hidden heir" comes to power at the end.

I won't hate it if he does end up on the throne, but I don't think he will survive, which doesn't upset me if he goes out in a blaze of glory.

To me it's more of a situation where no one in the realm has/does care about The Wall or the Nights Watch. Who was it that basically said to Stannis or of Stannis (paraphrasing here, obviously), "instead of telling people your king and expecting them to nod and say alright cool, act like a king and protect and help your people as best that you can with what you have. That is how you will win them over."

I basically see this line of thinking as what Jon goes through but in a much less convoluted way and shorter period than it took Stannis to realize this. Jon will realize the peril of the Seven Kingdoms. He will realize he is the true and rightful king, he will spurn that responsibility because he doesn't care for it, but as Lord Commander, he will instead re-double his efforts at the Wall and with Dany and the dragons help rally the Night's Watch and defeat the Others, probably dying in battle as a great and glorious would be/should be king, leaving Dany to pick up the pieces and win back/reunite the Seven Kingdoms.

Just one of many theories I have, which I come up with and change on a daily basis lol!

[Wik]

Just wanted to toss this out there: I have been coming here on and off for a while now. I have been gone for about a year and some change and didn't start looking through these threads again until about a week ago with the series coming to an end.

I was lucky enough to discover the R+L=J potential on my own, instead of from second hand sources and this forum. I was texting friends about it and ran to these forums to share my new discovery, only to find there was a massive thread that had already been started a long time before I every posted here about R+L=J. I was disappointed but seeing that others also knew of it and supported it, it galvanized my opinion that is will eventually be brought to light that indeed R+L=J. Others don't like that some of us cling to this theory but (and for unexplained reasons I guess) it is much more concrete and a "sure thing" when you discover it on your own. Having someone here shove it down your throat when you didn't know about it or understand it can lead to being a big turn off. Understandable. But having been someone who put all the pieces together on his own, I am staunchly in support of the theory as the gospel as so many parts fit together.

That being said I am absolutely going nuts over the claims that Jon can't POSSIBLY be a Targ, because he got burned in the fight with the Other at The Wall...WTF, are you kidding me? I remember several years ago SFDanny and others just REALLLLLLY getting into it, back and fourth, good facts backing up other facts and bits of info and the non believers also had solid evidence they had massed. Now the biggest evidence is Jon being burned? So what? Who cares?! If people chose not to believe in the theory, that is fine and I always find this to be THE BEST debate going in ASOIAF, but lets get something better than Jon being burned, which means he can't be a Targ. My goodness, this wasn't even an option or a point prior to the series! Targs have a somewhat MINOR resistance to fire, Dany had her one time, circumstantial scene where she walks into Drogo's fire. Fine, but as GRRM has said that was a ONE TIME THING.

I applaud both sides using evidence within the series to support each theory but this stupid theory/point is driving me NUTS. It ranks up there with these TV only people who actually think SHAE is a Targ because she is "resistant" to fire in the show! I mean, REALLY!?!?! :shocked: :tantrum: