R+L=J v.21

[kneo]

Brandon would not have went to KL to kill rhaegar if lyanna didn't leave with rhaegar ( willingly or not). Aerys would not have killed Rickard if Brandon didn't go to KL. Ned and Robert and Jon arryn would not have called their banners if aerys didn't demand Ned and Roberts heads. The war would not have happened if Ned and Robert and Jon arryn call their banners. The war would not have happened if lyanna did not leave with rhaegar (willingly or not).

And now you are forgetting about Rickard's southern ambitions.

The rebellion would have probably started with or without the events that followed Lyanna's kidnapping.

[Alia of the knife]

But, what was the nature of Rickards Southron ambitions?

Was Rickard planning to take the Iron Throne for his family, or to cecede from the rest of the Seven Kingdoms, or just be more of an active presense in the South than previous Stark Lords?

If he was seeking autonomy for the North again, and not taking the Iron Throne, but reenstating the Kings of Winter, was that really wrong, given that Targaryen rule was not that great, and now at it's weakest point?

(And this could be sour grapes from a woman from a Northern family that may have hoped to become Lady Stark, but instead, the Starks were marrying out of the North).

If the Starks were still unofficial "royalty" to the Northerners, then maybe the only chance that they had in marrying "up" were the Starks.

Another intrigueing thing about possible Stark cesession is if the Starks took back the North from the Seven Kingdoms, that act would return the title of King to Rickard, Prince back to the Stark sons, and Princess to Lyanna, which Rhaegar may have argued if he approached his Father for Lyannas hand, because instead, Robert would be the husband of the Princess of the North, a land mass half the size of the entire Seven Kingdoms- much bigger, and more valuable than Dorne.

A perfect excuse for Rhaegar to use to take her, rather than tell everyone he was doing it for love, something his Lords would scoff at, or think he was mad for.

[Screaming Knight]

But, what was the nature of Rickards Southron ambitions?

Was Rickard planning to take the Iron Throne for his family, or to cecede from the rest of the Seven Kingdoms, or just be more of an active presense in the South than previous Stark Lords?

If he was seeking autonomy for the North again, and not taking the Iron Throne, but reenstating the Kings of Winter, was that really wrong, given that Targaryen rule was not that great, and now at it's weakest point?

(And this could be sour grapes from a woman from a Northern family that may have hoped to become Lady Stark, but instead, the Starks were marrying out of the North).

If the Starks were still unofficial "royalty" to the Northerners, then maybe the only chance that they had in marrying "up" were the Starks.

Another intrigueing thing about possible Stark cesession is if the Starks took back the North from the Seven Kingdoms, that act would return the title of King to Rickard, Prince back to the Stark sons, and Princess to Lyanna, which Rhaegar may have argued if he approached his Father for Lyannas hand, because instead, Robert would be the husband of the Princess of the North, a land mass half the size of the entire Seven Kingdoms- much bigger, and more valuable than Dorne.

A perfect excuse for Rhaegar to use to take her, rather than tell everyone he was doing it for love, something his Lords would scoff at, or think he was mad for.

Very true. Rhaegar could've taken lyanna under the guise of the Starks overstepping their boundaries. This may have been threatening to northerners and southerners alike. If these were rickards aspirations I'm sure any plan he had to offer his terms were probably after aerys reign was over. I'm sure it didn't include his and brandons traveling to KL with a small entourage to each's demise. And I'm sure these events were the last thing lyanna wanted to have happened. But they did, and whatever her level of complicity, she had a major, if not primary role in the events that followed her and rhaegars abduction/kidnapping/fleeing. Maybe she bound and gagged rhaegar and forces herself on him.

[Screaming Knight]

But, what was the nature of Rickards Southron ambitions?

Was Rickard planning to take the Iron Throne for his family, or to cecede from the rest of the Seven Kingdoms, or just be more of an active presense in the South than previous Stark Lords?

If he was seeking autonomy for the North again, and not taking the Iron Throne, but reenstating the Kings of Winter, was that really wrong, given that Targaryen rule was not that great, and now at it's weakest point?

(And this could be sour grapes from a woman from a Northern family that may have hoped to become Lady Stark, but instead, the Starks were marrying out of the North).

If the Starks were still unofficial "royalty" to the Northerners, then maybe the only chance that they had in marrying "up" were the Starks.

Another intrigueing thing about possible Stark cesession is if the Starks took back the North from the Seven Kingdoms, that act would return the title of King to Rickard, Prince back to the Stark sons, and Princess to Lyanna, which Rhaegar may have argued if he approached his Father for Lyannas hand, because instead, Robert would be the husband of the Princess of the North, a land mass half the size of the entire Seven Kingdoms- much bigger, and more valuable than Dorne.

A perfect excuse for Rhaegar to use to take her, rather than tell everyone he was doing it for love, something his Lords would scoff at, or think he was mad for.

Very true. Rhaegar could've taken lyanna under the guise of the Starks overstepping their boundaries. This may have been threatening to northerners and southerners alike. If these were rickards aspirations I'm sure any plan he had to offer his terms were probably after aerys reign was over. I'm sure it didn't include his and brandons traveling to KL with a small entourage to each's demise. And I'm sure these events were the last thing lyanna wanted to have happened. But they did, and whatever her level of complicity, she had a major, if not primary role in the events that followed her and rhaegars abduction/kidnapping/fleeing. Maybe she bound and gagged rhaegar and forces herself on him.

[Screaming Knight]

Sorry for the double posts, it always seems to happen when I'm on my phone. It's not that I just love seeing what I wrote.

[Alia of the knife]

I think that can depend upon whether she knew of her Fathers, and presumably Brandons plans.

Until we get a little info. on the female dynamics in the North, (as in Dorne), through hopefully the new "Dunk and Egg, The She Wolves of Winterfell," that Martin is writing, we can't assume they would have spoke of politics with a woman, so Lyanna may not have known of such plans.

But, given that Rhaegar was in love with Lyanna, he could have certainly exploited the political situation for either purely emotional reasons, or even both, with the good intentions of avoiding war, thinking naively that perhaps no one would be that upset about it.

- Stark heirs would be close to the Iron Throne since he's bound the North in marriage

- It he set Elia aside, Dorne might be upset, but it would still have a Martel, (Aegon) as future KIng of Westeros, (a United one, rather than a divided one), and at the end of the day, thats all they care about anyway.

-Perhaps Rhaegar knew Roberts behavior as a womanizer and figured he would get over it, especially if richly compensated.

(Have to go to bed).

[Lady Octarina]

But, what was the nature of Rickards Southron ambitions?

Was Rickard planning to take the Iron Throne for his family, or to cecede from the rest of the Seven Kingdoms, or just be more of an active presense in the South than previous Stark Lords?

If he was seeking autonomy for the North again, and not taking the Iron Throne, but reenstating the Kings of Winter, was that really wrong, given that Targaryen rule was not that great, and now at it's weakest point?

(And this could be sour grapes from a woman from a Northern family that may have hoped to become Lady Stark, but instead, the Starks were marrying out of the North).

If the Starks were still unofficial "royalty" to the Northerners, then maybe the only chance that they had in marrying "up" were the Starks.

Another intrigueing thing about possible Stark cesession is if the Starks took back the North from the Seven Kingdoms, that act would return the title of King to Rickard, Prince back to the Stark sons, and Princess to Lyanna, which Rhaegar may have argued if he approached his Father for Lyannas hand, because instead, Robert would be the husband of the Princess of the North, a land mass half the size of the entire Seven Kingdoms- much bigger, and more valuable than Dorne.

A perfect excuse for Rhaegar to use to take her, rather than tell everyone he was doing it for love, something his Lords would scoff at, or think he was mad for.

Well, I particularly don't find it impossible that Rickard planned on using Lyanna's marriage through Robert as a way to shift the balance of power against Aerys - the Baratheons have Targ blood anyway, and if that could be rescued later as a way to legitimize his becoming king, I'm sure it could be used as an argument earlier too. But then it seemed Rhaegar, the first in line to the Iron Throne, had fallen for Lyanna, and that could be used too. I personally never understood why they seem to have waited so long to do something about Lyanna's "kidnapping" (didn't it take them a month or something?).

[Alia of the knife]

Well, I particularly don't find it impossible that Rickard planned on using Lyanna's marriage through Robert as a way to shift the balance of power against Aerys - the Baratheons have Targ blood anyway, and if that could be rescued later as a way to legitimize his becoming king, I'm sure it could be used as an argument earlier too. But then it seemed Rhaegar, the first in line to the Iron Throne, had fallen for Lyanna, and that could be used too. I personally never understood why they seem to have waited so long to do something about Lyanna's "kidnapping" (didn't it take them a month or something?).

That is a good possibility that at least he wanted to check-mate Aerys.

(The Starks were the largest Kingdom before the Conquest, and while they dutifully followed their Ancestor who "bent the knee," which I think was a good idea rather than getting your people killed, nonetheless, it still may have been a sore point that they lost their Kingdom. If I'm not mistaken the Starks did not take sides in the Blackfyre rebellion, and they don't appear to have been "punished" for it)

On Rhaegar, I absolutely think that 95% of what motivated him was his love of Lyanna, with the 5% being politics/prophesy.

And while I think that Rhaegar was somewhat naive, he was still clever, so going to his Lords, (had he won), having to finally give them some explaination that they could wrap their minds around, he could not say he did it because he really loved her.

No one in the Kingdom married for love, but for political reasons and duty, so Crown Prince or not, he still had to reason with them.

What would happen if Aegon became ill and died?

His Mother and his Uncle Doran do not appear to enjoy good health, so it's possible his health could be in question one day.

Needing another son is something they could understand, and if you also tell them that her Father was planning on ceceding from the Kingdom, and you wanted to prevent that, again, thats something else they could understand.

[Screaming Knight]

That is a good possibility that at least he wanted to check-mate Aerys.

(The Starks were the largest Kingdom before the Conquest, and while they dutifully followed their Ancestor who "bent the knee," which I think was a good idea rather than getting your people killed, nonetheless, it still may have been a sore point that they lost their Kingdom. If I'm not mistaken the Starks did not take sides in the Blackfyre rebellion, and they don't appear to have been "punished" for it)

On Rhaegar, I absolutely think that 95% of what motivated him was his love of Lyanna, with the 5% being politics/prophesy.

And while I think that Rhaegar was somewhat naive, he was still clever, so going to his Lords, (had he won), having to finally give them some explaination that they could wrap their minds around, he could not say he did it because he really loved her.

No one in that Kingdom married for love, but for political reasons and duty, so Crown Prince or not, he still had to reason with them.

What would happen if Aegon became ill and died?

His Mother and his Uncle Doran do not appear to enjoy good health, so it's possible his health could be in question one day.

Needing another son is something they could understand, and if you also tell them that her Father was planning on ceceding from the Kingdom, and you wanted to prevent that, again, thats something else they could understand.

I think his love for lyanna further solidified his notion of the prophecy. He probably felt like they were destined. Who knows what the prophecy said or if that clouded his judgement of lyanna or if his love for lyanna clouded his judgement of the prophecy but I think it's pretty clear the two were related in his mind. I'm hoping the House of the Undying is as visual a scene in the series as it is in my mind when I read it. Just his brief quote and who he is with and who he seems to be exactly directing it at will really give insight into his psyche. Like your thoughts on rickards possible intentions too. Never gave his role and mindset prior to lyannas abduction and brandons goin to KL much thought before.

[Alia of the knife]

I think his love for lyanna further solidified his notion of the prophecy. He probably felt like they were destined. Who knows what the prophecy said or if that clouded his judgement of lyanna or if his love for lyanna clouded his judgement of the prophecy but I think it's pretty clear the two were related in his mind. I'm hoping the House of the Undying is as visual a scene in the series as it is in my mind when I read it. Just his brief quote and who he is with and who he seems to be exactly directing it at will really give insight into his psyche. Like your thoughts on rickards possible intentions too. Never gave his role and mindset prior to lyannas abduction and brandons goin to KL much thought before.

There would be a lot of awesome scenes visually, but it may be such a give away, (it really just makes you wish it was a finished work).

And thank you, I just try to keep my theories as streamlined as possible, and since Martin is a big History buff, and I'm familiar with some of the material he probably is referencing, I try not to get too elablorate with theories, though on occasion I can get creative.

And I think you nailed it with how Lyanna might have figured into prophesy, because it's the question of the chicken, or the egg and which came first.

[PinkiePycelle]

While there is a lot of plausibility in R+L=J, and I think it would make for a better story, I'm not overwhelmingly convinced.

For one, a good deal of the evidence that supports the theory can be construed in other ways. For an good example, look at Section E and F of the R+L section in the Tower of the Hand article. (link) The text can certainly be read in a way that supports the theory, but it gives a strong vibe of "begging the question," so to speak. At the very least, it cannot be considered concrete proof.

There are more concrete clues that do support the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a fling, but that doesn't mean they had a child or that said child is Jon. Normally I wouldn't think making that leap is too much of a stretch, but not for one problem: Ned's outright naming Wylla as Jon's mother. Here again, it is possible to read Ned's response in such a way that supports R+L=J, but it requires a certain...mental agility. I am wondering, are there other examples where such a read has been the "correct" way to read a line? The not-technically-lying interpretation strikes me as a more Varys-esque thought process than Ned Stark, but I suppose it is possible. Has it come up elsewhere?

If the Wylla statement is removed, then I think R+L enjoys the most support from the evidence we have. The fact that this line was cut from the show is noteworthy - GRRM has shared significant points of the last two books with the producers so that they can retain important foreshadowing in the show, which means we can learn a lot from what is included and what is not. The statement about Wylla was cut from the show, but Robert's account of Rhaegar's kidnap was left in. IIRC, other statements from Jorah Mormont that paint Rhaegar as less of a "kidnap-and-rape" type are also included in the show. If a fact's inclusion in the show is a factor that tips the scales, then I think R+L gains more ground from it.

I apologize in advance if any/all of what I say is simply rehashing old and settled issues. I did what I could to go through the old threads, but the existing conversation is...expansive.

[corbon]

Ned's outright naming Wylla as Jon's mother.

Except he didn't. Flat out did not.

Here again, it is possible to read Ned's response in such a way that supports R+L=J, but it requires a certain...mental agility. I am wondering, are there other examples where such a read has been the "correct" way to read a line? The not-technically-lying interpretation strikes me as a more Varys-esque thought process than Ned Stark, but I suppose it is possible. Has it come up elsewhere?

Speaking from extensive personal experience, this is how honest people mislead. I play a lot of board games with diplomatic aspects, and even more where diplomacy is critical but not a direct part of the game mechanisms. Primary to my technique is never, ever lying. You always tell the truth, even when it is bad for you, because that is the only way to get people to trust what you are saying.

But it is still possible to allow people to mislead themselves, and this is one of the techniques.

And it is a technique that allows you to maintain a Ned-like reputation for integrity.

Don't make the mistake of thinking Ned is an idiot who cannot think smart. He is not. He is considered one of the best generals in Westeros, the architect of Robert winning the rebellion (Robert's version of generalship is all in the front line breaking heads and inspiring people, but the two of them made a good team and Robert himself credited Ned with his victories).

He was just unfortunate to allow himself to show mercy to some very nasty and ruthless people so that innocents wouldn't suffer, and to be stuck in a vipers nest of people very different to him in a type of war he didn't want to fight in. And to have principles get in the way of pragmatism.

[Ygrain]

Don't make the mistake of thinking Ned is an idiot who cannot think smart. He is not. He is considered one of the best generals in Westeros, the architect of Robert winning the rebellion (Robert's version of generalship is all in the front line breaking heads and inspiring people, but the two of them made a good team and Robert himself credited Ned with his victories).

He was just unfortunate to allow himself to show mercy to some very nasty and ruthless people so that innocents wouldn't suffer, and to be stuck in a vipers nest of people very different to him in a type of war he didn't want to fight in. And to have principles get in the way of pragmatism.

May I hug you for that, virtually? I _so_ tire of all those stupid-Ned-blah-blah-blah rants.

[Lady Octarina]

Don't make the mistake of thinking Ned is an idiot who cannot think smart. He is not. He is considered one of the best generals in Westeros, the architect of Robert winning the rebellion (Robert's version of generalship is all in the front line breaking heads and inspiring people, but the two of them made a good team and Robert himself credited Ned with his victories).

He was just unfortunate to allow himself to show mercy to some very nasty and ruthless people so that innocents wouldn't suffer, and to be stuck in a vipers nest of people very different to him in a type of war he didn't want to fight in. And to have principles get in the way of pragmatism.

May I hug you for that, virtually? I _so_ tire of all those stupid-Ned-blah-blah-blah rants.

I won't even ask for authorization; I'm virtually hugging you right now. :laugh:

The thing is, Ned made some serious mistakes that led him to an early grave, but that doesn't mean he has made such mistakes his whole life, otherwise I'm sure he wouldn't even be alive by the time AGoT begins. I think he worked this way: if the ending is honorable, any means can be used to achieve it. He wasn't certain about how what the honorable attitude would be in the twincest crisis. So, yup, Eddard is a machiavellian in the pure sense of the word.

[Alia of the knife]

While there is a lot of plausibility in R+L=J, and I think it would make for a better story, I'm not overwhelmingly convinced.

For one, a good deal of the evidence that supports the theory can be construed in other ways. For an good example, look at Section E and F of the R+L section in the Tower of the Hand article. (link) The text can certainly be read in a way that supports the theory, but it gives a strong vibe of "begging the question," so to speak. At the very least, it cannot be considered concrete proof.

There are more concrete clues that do support the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a fling, but that doesn't mean they had a child or that said child is Jon. Normally I wouldn't think making that leap is too much of a stretch, but not for one problem: Ned's outright naming Wylla as Jon's mother. Here again, it is possible to read Ned's response in such a way that supports R+L=J, but it requires a certain...mental agility. I am wondering, are there other examples where such a read has been the "correct" way to read a line? The not-technically-lying interpretation strikes me as a more Varys-esque thought process than Ned Stark, but I suppose it is possible. Has it come up elsewhere?

If the Wylla statement is removed, then I think R+L enjoys the most support from the evidence we have. The fact that this line was cut from the show is noteworthy - GRRM has shared significant points of the last two books with the producers so that they can retain important foreshadowing in the show, which means we can learn a lot from what is included and what is not. The statement about Wylla was cut from the show, but Robert's account of Rhaegar's kidnap was left in. IIRC, other statements from Jorah Mormont that paint Rhaegar as less of a "kidnap-and-rape" type are also included in the show. If a fact's inclusion in the show is a factor that tips the scales, then I think R+L gains more ground from it.

I apologize in advance if any/all of what I say is simply rehashing old and settled issues. I did what I could to go through the old threads, but the existing conversation is...expansive.

Forgive me if I don't understand your question, but are saying that the naming of Wylla was cut from the show?

Because I seem to remember that Wylla was named.

When Robert was asking Ned about his Bastards Mother, Robert flubbed her name, and just briefly, Ned corrects him, and says Wylla- and painfully so.

And I think it would be on par for this work that simple, honorable Ned would "out-Varys" Varys in the end.

As stated, just because Ned doesn't like intrigue, it doesn't mean he's lacks the cleverness to indulge in it should he feel the need to do so.

I'm a generally honest, straight forward person, because I don't like deception, or lying to people, but it doesn't mean that sometimes, like at work, you have to either go about it differently, or just keep your own counsil and avoid situations that are compromising.

[Dragonfish]

For one, a good deal of the evidence that supports the theory can be construed in other ways. For an good example, look at Section E and F of the R+L section in the Tower of the Hand article. (link) The text can certainly be read in a way that supports the theory, but it gives a strong vibe of "begging the question," so to speak. At the very least, it cannot be considered concrete proof.

No one is saying that there is concrete proof for this theory. We just think there is plenty of evidence that makes this theory quite strong.

Also, I'm curious: how do think the evidence can be construed in other ways? More specifically, how do you think the quotes regarding Ned's "living lies" for fourteen years and making promises to Lyanna for which he paid a price can be construed?

There are more concrete clues that do support the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a fling, but that doesn't mean they had a child or that said child is Jon.

The blue rose vision from the House of the Undying would suggest otherwise.

Normally I wouldn't think making that leap is too much of a stretch, but not for one problem: Ned's outright naming Wylla as Jon's mother. Here again, it is possible to read Ned's response in such a way that supports R+L=J, but it requires a certain...mental agility. I am wondering, are there other examples where such a read has been the "correct" way to read a line? The not-technically-lying interpretation strikes me as a more Varys-esque thought process than Ned Stark, but I suppose it is possible. Has it come up elsewhere?

Well, coincidentally enough, there are those such as myself who argue that Varys may be employing a similar tactic when he speaks of Aegon in the epilogue. But there's no concrete proof that that is what he or Ned are doing in their respective scenes.

In any case, if you don't accept that Ned is twisting the truth here, then why can't you accept that he's simply lying?

If the Wylla statement is removed, then I think R+L enjoys the most support from the evidence we have. The fact that this line was cut from the show is noteworthy - GRRM has shared significant points of the last two books with the producers so that they can retain important foreshadowing in the show, which means we can learn a lot from what is included and what is not.

The Wylla reference was included in the show. Though not with the same wording as in the books (Ned simply says "Wylla" rather than "her name was Wylla").

Also, if you think that what is included in the show can be telling, then what do you think of the fact that the producers included Ned's line about Jon being "his blood"? That seemed to me to be a clear nod to R+L=J.

[Maroucia]

Hi guys,

Not knowing anything about that theories of R+L=J, I would like to learn about it.

Why do you believe that, where are the proofs? I’m sure it’s been explained over and over again a great deal of time, so if anyone can just give a link so I can go to sleep less ignorant tonight, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Sasha Steelsong]

Hi guys,

Not knowing anything about that theories of R+L=J, I would like to learn about it.

Why do you believe that, where are the proofs? I’m sure it’s been explained over and over again a great deal of time, so if anyone can just give a link so I can go to sleep less ignorant tonight, it would be greatly appreciated.

This link at Tower of the Hand has a good summary:

http://towerofthehand.com/essays/chrisholden/jon_snows_parents.html

You will need to go to the main page though and set your spoiler level. The site will automatically filter out anything you haven't read yet SO if you want to see the whole theory (regardless of how far you've actually gotten) you will need to change your scope to be "A Dance with Dragons" and "Fire and Blood"

[Maroucia]

This link at Tower of the Hand has a good summary:

http://towerofthehan...ws_parents.html

You will need to go to the main page though and set your spoiler level. The site will automatically filter out anything you haven't read yet SO if you want to see the whole theory (regardless of how far you've actually gotten) you will need to change your scope to be "A Dance with Dragons" and "Fire and Blood"

Thank you very much, now I’m going to go and educate myself.

[PinkiePycelle]

Don't make the mistake of thinking Ned is an idiot who cannot think smart. He is not.

I'm not saying that he isn't smart, far from it. I'm saying instead that he dislikes the deceptive, word-twisting approach of people like Varys. The quote in the book reads, at least superficially, as Ned naming Wylla as Jon's mother.

(If you have the boxed 1-4 paperback set, then this is on page 110 of AGOT)

"Was it Merryl? You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?"

"Her name was Wylla."

As the Tower of the Hand post articulated, Ned could have been lying, but that just raises further questions. If the entire Wylla story is a deception, it doesn't make sense for Ned to use a real person as the cover - he could have given Jon to Wylla to wetnurse and simply said "Take care of this kid," rather than "Take care of this kid, and if it's OK with you I'm going to tell everyone you're his mother." He would have to trust her enough to include her in a very important cover-up, and I'm not sure why she would warrant such faith. Moreover, this is a much more deceptive approach than to simply avoid talking about Jon's background. We know that Ashara rumors were already circulating, Ned wouldn't have needed to take things so far in order to claim Jon as his son.

None of this is concrete proof, one way or the other - as I said, I'm not fully in either camp on this issue. However, in order to read that specific line from AGOT as supporting R+L=J, then Ned needs to be presented as having been both sloppier and more deceptive than Littlefinger was when he had to pass someone else's child off as his bastard. That is where I have a problem with theory.

Forgive me if I don't understand your question, but are saying that the naming of Wylla was cut from the show?

Because I seem to remember that Wylla was named.

When Robert was asking Ned about his Bastards Mother, Robert flubbed her name, and just briefly, Ned corrects him, and says Wylla- and painfully so.

That is correct - I was thinking of the several seconds prior, when Robert confused his former conquest for Ned's. The Wylla line was retained in the show. Just as well - when adaptations conflict with source material, it confuses discussions like this by a whole other order of magnitude.