R+L=J v.21

[GreatDave_Umber]

Yeah i think it is most likely R+L=J but it was a little theory i had bouncing around in my head...based on the old Jon sounds like a shortened Aegon.

Just fancied sounding it out with you guys who have been working so hard on all the theories and intracacies of the series.

Purely came from forum speculation on how Jon could be legitimised as heir to the throne...i thought well maybe he already is! Likewise, there seems to be a lot of speculation that Aegon is the mummer's dragon...ie either a fraud or the work of varys and not the actual true heir. This theory answered that too...

Anyway, I've sounded it out and then i can a do a little happy dance when(if) Howland Reed tells everyone that Jon snow is actually Aegon Targaryen...lol

[The guy from the Vale]

Jon still might be legitimate, even though he's Lyanna's son. Remember the Targaryens have a history of polygamy, and consider that the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy protected Jon, not Viserys.

[Alia of the knife]

Yeah i think it is most likely R+L=J but it was a little theory i had bouncing around in my head...based on the old Jon sounds like a shortened Aegon.

Just fancied sounding it out with you guys who have been working so hard on all the theories and intracacies of the series.

Purely came from forum speculation on how Jon could be legitimised as heir to the throne...i thought well maybe he already is! Likewise, there seems to be a lot of speculation that Aegon is the mummer's dragon...ie either a fraud or the work of varys and not the actual true heir. This theory answered that too...

Anyway, I've sounded it out and then i can a do a little happy dance when(if) Howland Reed tells everyone that Jon snow is actually Aegon Targaryen...lol

If it were this twist, YG could still be legitimate, just not the Heir as he would then be the second born son.

[Hedge Lawyer]

The explanations still aren't very persuasive to me. Is there ever anything to suggest that the true identity of Jon Snow's parentage is such a hot secret in the land that Ned and Cat can't speak of it once in private?

If the question of Jon Snow's true parentage was such a sought after secret, then you'd think that the real risk to that secret was Lyanna carrying the baby to term, delivering it, and Ned taking the baby and going to Winterfell. No one would put together the idea that (1) Lyanna was pregnant but had delivered the baby before she died, (2) there's no sign of the baby and (3) all the sudden her dear brother had a mysterious baby? That would seem to be a much more suspicious set of facts, and much more dangerous too considering that the baby was born when the Rhaegar & Lyanna relationship was at its most controversial. Robert and others would want to know where the baby went.

On the other hand, if somehow no one knew about Lyanna's pregnancy, then there is no reason to think that there are spies lurking to find out the identity of Jon's mother. Obviously Ned and Cat discuss some dangerous secrets in their own bedroom-after all, they discuss Lysa's letter in their bedroom. It's not like Cat was around Robert Baratheon very often- IIRC, Ned himself hadn't even seen Robert for 9 or 10 years prior to his arrival in Winterfell. It doesn't seem like there would be much risk in letting Cat in on the secret in this case

To believe the R+L=J scenario, it seems as though you'd have to believe that either Jon's true parentage was a deeply suspected and sought after secret that it was too dangerous to ever tell Cat (there's no indication that it is as far as I can tell); that Ned doesn't trust Cat to keep the secret or thinks that the hypothetical chance that she might spill the secret at some point outweighs the benefits of telling her; or Ned keeps the secret to the detriment of his family just because he said he would, even though there would be no real harm in telling Cat.

The worst part is that you have to accept one of these IMO strained reasons just in order to suspend your disbelief and accept that GRRM decided to use one of the more overused cliches in fantasy fiction. That's disappointing to me.

[Hedge Lawyer]

I love that Martin breaks so many clichés, but he can't break them all, it wouldn't be plausible. There are certain rules that must be obeyed for something to be considered a great story - otherwise it's just post-modern rubbish trying to hide the fact that its contents are void of any value through a pseudo-deconstructive mania.

I don't see how making Jon Ned's bastard would somehow be postmodern rubbish.

I've always though of it this way: Ned's a good man, better than most, but not perfect. He succumbed to temptation once, as all men do. However, because he is a good and honorable man, he resolved to live up to his mistake and raise his son as his own even though it would bring some shame on him. A lesser man would have abandoned Jon and never recognized him as his own. That was a common practice in Westeros for Lords and their Bastards. However, Ned is better than that. He did the best that he could to do the right thing and make amends for his mistake. He took responsibility and raised his bastard as his own when he could have take the easy way out. This doesn't seem particularly post-modern.

If the R+L=J theory is true, then Ned never actually succumbed to temptation. He never failed to live up to his own high standards. He was essentially perfect, with his only "flaw" being that he was too honorable.

The first description presents a well-rounded character. The second is more like a plot device.

[Dragonfish]

The worst part is that you have to accept one of these IMO strained reasons just in order to suspend your disbelief and accept that GRRM decided to use one of the more overused cliches in fantasy fiction. That's disappointing to me.

Like it or dislike it, but the fact remains that Ned would lie to Catelyn in such a situation, and this is explicitly supported in the text. "Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust." We have this straight from the horse's mouth. And it's really not a bad philosophy, either, when the secret is something so dangerous; after all, it's much easier to keep a secret the fewer the people who know about it.

Oh, and it's really not so ridiculous to assert that Cat might spill the truth regarding Jon. Ned directly asks himself in AGOT what Cat might do if she had to choose between Jon's life and her children's lives, and he doesn't know the answer. Mind you, in this hypothetical scenario, Ned isn't sure Catelyn wouldn't sacrifice Jon's life for her children's lives even when she thinks Jon is Ned's son. Now imagine this same scenario, only with Catelyn finding out that harboring Jon represents treason. How do you think she'd react then?

[Dragonfish]

If the R+L=J theory is true, then Ned never actually succumbed to temptation. He never failed to live up to his own high standards. He was essentially perfect, with his only "flaw" being that he was too honorable.

The first description presents a well-rounded character. The second is more like a plot device.

Except that he is breaking his honor code by committing treason, all in the name of protecting family. That makes me like his character more, not less.

[Hedge Lawyer]

Like it or dislike it, but the fact remains that Ned would lie to Catelyn in such a situation, and this is explicitly supported in the text. "Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust." We have this straight from the horse's mouth. And it's really not a bad philosophy, either, when the secret is something so dangerous; after all, it's much easier to keep a secret the fewer the people who know about it.

That's true, but it's never really established that this is one of those secrets. If it's the truth, then Ned's not the only person who knows about it. I guess that Ned trusts Cat less than he trusts Howland Reed. Besides, it's hard to suspend the belief that no one wonders what happened to Lyanna's baby.

Oh, and it's really not so ridiculous to assert that Cat might spill the truth regarding Jon. Ned directly asks himself in AGOT what Cat might do if she had to choose between Jon's life and her children's lives, and he doesn't know the answer. Mind you, in this hypothetical scenario, Ned isn't sure Catelyn wouldn't sacrifice Jon's life for her children's lives even when she thinks Jon is Ned's son.

That's because she hates Jon because she thinks that Jon's the living reminder of Ned's infidelity. Jon represents Cat's shame. If Cat knows that Jon is Ned's nephew, her reason for hating Jon vanishes. It leaves the hypothetical situation in which she is somehow forced to choose between keeping the secret and protecting her children, but that situation isn't presented in the story. I'm not sure how such a situation could come to pass

Now imagine this same scenario, only with Catelyn finding out that harboring Jon represents treason. How do you think she'd react then?

Probably by keeping her mouth shut. The only way that Jon could represent a danger is if others found out. It wouldn't be in her interests to talk about it, and (living) Cat isn't presented as someone who would murder a child because they might be a danger at some point down the road.

There's always the danger that the other people who know the truth could inform on Jon. But that makes not telling Cat even less understandable. The secret's already out. This isn't a situation in which Ned can ensure a secret by not telling anyone else. Shouldn't Cat be aware of the truth just in case there's blow back caused by someone else spilling the secret?

This is another reason why I don't like the theory. It requires too much suspension of disbelief.

[Ygrain]

The explanations still aren't very persuasive to me. Is there ever anything to suggest that the true identity of Jon Snow's parentage is such a hot secret in the land that Ned and Cat can't speak of it once in private?

Robert never even flinched at the horrible fate of Rhaegar’s children, and he kept sending assassins after Dany and Viserys. One slip, and Jon could be dead.

If the question of Jon Snow's true parentage was such a sought after secret, then you'd think that the real risk to that secret was Lyanna carrying the baby to term, delivering it, and Ned taking the baby and going to Winterfell. No one would put together the idea that (1) Lyanna was pregnant but had delivered the baby before she died, (2) there's no sign of the baby and (3) all the sudden her dear brother had a mysterious baby? That would seem to be a much more suspicious set of facts, and much more dangerous too considering that the baby was born when the Rhaegar & Lyanna relationship was at its most controversial. Robert and others would want to know where the baby went.

On the other hand, if somehow no one knew about Lyanna's pregnancy, then there is no reason to think that there are spies lurking to find out the identity of Jon's mother. Obviously Ned and Cat discuss some dangerous secrets in their own bedroom-after all, they discuss Lysa's letter in their bedroom. It's not like Cat was around Robert Baratheon very often- IIRC, Ned himself hadn't even seen Robert for 9 or 10 years prior to his arrival in Winterfell. It doesn't seem like there would be much risk in letting Cat in on the secret in this case

It does seem that very few people knew of Lyanna’s pregnancy. On the other hand, nearly everyone, and mainly Robert, knew that Ned never lies, so when Ned turns up claiming he made a slip and fathered a bastard, no-one suspects a thing.

To believe the R+L=J scenario, it seems as though you'd have to believe that either Jon's true parentage was a deeply suspected and sought after secret that it was too dangerous to ever tell Cat (there's no indication that it is as far as I can tell); that Ned doesn't trust Cat to keep the secret or thinks that the hypothetical chance that she might spill the secret at some point outweighs the benefits of telling her; or Ned keeps the secret to the detriment of his family just because he said he would, even though there would be no real harm in telling Cat.

1) While it is not a sought after secret, it is a potentially deadly secret if it was spilled

2) Even with persons you trust, there is always the danger of a slip of the tongue, in anger, in fever or fear.

3) The thing with honour is that once you give your word, you keep it, no matter the cost – which is exactly what Ned does. He cannot tell the truth and he does not want to lie, so he tells nothing. The fact that there may be no harm in telling is pointless here; breaking the word is what matters. If I ever had to take a vow to a dying person, I would definitely go to great lengths not to break it, and I’m nowhere next to as honourable as Ned.

If the R+L=J theory is true, then Ned never actually succumbed to temptation. He never failed to live up to his own high standards. He was essentially perfect, with his only "flaw" being that he was too honorable.

How so? He lies to everyone, claiming that Jon is his bastard, even to those whom he owes the truth: his wife and his best friend and liege. And in the end, he trades his honour for his family – not only does he confess a treason he never committed, but he also supports a false claim to the throne. That’s _very much_ breaking his own codes.

[Ser Pollo Loco]

Not to mention that early in the relationship Ned barely knew Cat

[Dragonfish]

That's true, but it's never really established that this is one of those secrets.

So you don't think that Jon being Rhaegar's son would be a dangerous secret? If anything, in Robert's regime I think it'd be pretty close to the most dangerous secret anyone could have, given how Robert reacted to Aegon and Rhaenys' deaths and the news of Daenerys' pregnancy.

If it's the truth, then Ned's not the only person who knows about it. I guess that Ned trusts Cat less than he trusts Howland Reed.

It's really not a matter of whom he trusts more, it's more a matter of who needs to know the secret and who doesn't. Howland Reed knows not because Ned trusts him the most (though I don't doubt that he does trust him), but because he was with Ned when he found Lyanna. Had Howland Reed not been with Ned at the time, I doubt he'd tell him, for the same reason I doubt he'd tell Catelyn: because none of them need to know the truth, and telling them simply creates the risk that the secret will slip out at some point in the future. Hence "some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust."

Besides, it's hard to suspend the belief that no one wonders what happened to Lyanna's baby.

I don't think anyone knows Lyanna had a baby, so this is a moot point.

That's because she hates Jon because she thinks that Jon's the living reminder of Ned's infidelity.

That's one of the reasons, but the other reason (which I have already explained) is that Jon represents a potential danger to her children's claims. Let me repeat that: Catelyn hates Jon partly because he represents a danger. Given this fact, I don't understand how you could possibly argue that her finding out Jon is Rhaegar's son would take all that weight off her shoulders. All it would do is drive home the point that Jon is a danger to her children, and make her complicit in her own husband's treason. This is something I doubt Ned would want to do.

Jon represents Cat's shame. If Cat knows that Jon is Ned's nephew, her reason for hating Jon vanishes.

No, it most certainly does not.

It leaves the hypothetical situation in which she is somehow forced to choose between keeping the secret and protecting her children, but that situation isn't presented in the story. I'm not sure how such a situation could come to pass.

Neither am I, and I doubt Catelyn would know for sure either. On the other hand, she can't be sure how Jon or his descendants would come to challenge her children's claims, yet she's still wary of that possibility. No reason to think that she wouldn't also be wary of Jon's true parentage leaking out.

Probably by keeping her mouth shut. The only way that Jon could represent a danger is if others found out. It wouldn't be in her interests to talk about it, and (living) Cat isn't presented as someone who would murder a child because they might be a danger at some point down the road.

Cat might tell Robert if she thought there was a danger of the secret getting out through other means, in which case it might be safer to be the one to offer the info on her own terms. Sort of like how politicians reveal their own scandals before the papers are able to reveal them.

There's always the danger that the other people who know the truth could inform on Jon. But that makes not telling Cat even less understandable. The secret's already out. This isn't a situation in which Ned can ensure a secret by not telling anyone else. Shouldn't Cat be aware of the truth just in case there's blow back caused by someone else spilling the secret?

The secret is not "out". There are at least three people who know the secret, to be sure, but that does not equate to the secret being widely known. And in any case, telling the secret to anyone else only makes it more difficult to keep it.

Also, as has been explained before, not telling Catelyn at least gives her some degree of plausible deniability. Telling her the truth only makes her complicit in Ned's own treason. Do you really think Ned would want to bring dishonor on his wife any more than he already has?

This is another reason why I don't like the theory. It requires too much suspension of disbelief.

Everyone in this thread has offered plenty of logical and reasonable explanations for why Ned wouldn't tell Cat. You only think it requires suspension of disbelief because you refuse to accept those explanations.

[Alia of the knife]

I think Cat would turn Jon over just to take the decision out of his hands.

She herself would probably back up the story that Rhaegar "raped" Lyanna, thus keeping Roberts hatred still focused on Rhaegar instead of Neds treachery, (and it was treason).

Coming from her as a third party, it reenforces the nuance of the diffucult decision Ned was faced with, and I think Robert in that light would understand Neds desire to protect what remained of his sisters honor and hide the fact she bore a "bastard."

Robert knew full well how Ned felt about killing Rhaegars other children, so it would be no surprise that he couldn't put to sword his own nephew.

And for her, it gets Jon out of her life and as a threat to her children.

She may even claim his bastardy even if she knew he was trueborn, though being Lyannas son rather than Neds decreases his decendents claim to Winterfell, it doesn't completely eliminate it as his being illigitmate would.

(okay, off to watch Walking Dead).......

[Screaming Knight]

I disagree about her not being trusted to behave responsibly. She has a different idea of what her responsibility is, that's all, plus a general lack of foresight. Cat can be trusted in so far as she will always do what she thinks is best for her family. If that is giving up her sister-in-law's son to get her husband or children out of hot water, that's what she'll do. If that includes capturing a man contracting out the deaths of her children, she'll do that as well. She doesn't have a lot of foresight, but she is ruthless with her family's enemies. She does trust the wrong people (LF, Lysa, ultimately Jaime and Walder Frey), and have an overestimation of her husband's ability to maneuver in KL, though.

I agree that keeping Jon safe is an honorable thing to do. Keeping Lya's secret has caused him some discomfort, but it didn't get anyone killed. Telling the secret would have been less honorable, and Jon may have been dead already if Ned had confided in Cat. Does anyone doubt that she would have used Jon's true ID to help Ned if she could have? Or, on the flip side, to support Robb's journey south (stepping around all the King in the North problems and maybe ending the story in book 2)?

I think Ned didn't tell her for her own safety as well. Also, Cat's sense of resentment toward Jon is helpful in Ned maintaining the secret. If she knew, it would change her perception and treatment of Jon. She has a typical attitude a wife would have to a husbands bastard son living and being raised among her own children. If she knew she would be an accomplice if the truth was ever discovered and she would stand to be punished as well. And who knows what she would have thought was the honorable thing to do was regarding Jon. She might have feared for her children and brought the truth forward. But I think Ned didn't tell her primarily for her own safety.

[Lady Octarina]

Jon would never accept the crown anyway. Stannis offered him Winterfell, which he actually wanted, and he refused. Why would he accept a kingdom he doesn't want?

For duty. If he thought it was the only way to save the realm against the Others. Any such thing.

On another note, what if Rhaegar convinced Lyanna about the Azor Ahai prophecy. He is AA, she is Nissa Nissa, and Jon is Lightbringer. Jon is "the sword in the darkness."

Oh, I do love this idea! ^.^

On the other hand, if somehow no one knew about Lyanna's pregnancy, then there is no reason to think that there are spies lurking to find out the identity of Jon's mother. Obviously Ned and Cat discuss some dangerous secrets in their own bedroom-after all, they discuss Lysa's letter in their bedroom. It's not like Cat was around Robert Baratheon very often- IIRC, Ned himself hadn't even seen Robert for 9 or 10 years prior to his arrival in Winterfell. It doesn't seem like there would be much risk in letting Cat in on the secret in this case

I won't even mention your other points, just this one that has a relation to something I replied earlier. Varys has spies EVERYWHERE. Winterfell is one of the main political centers of Westeros (all Northern matters are decided there), even if Ned is not that much of a political creature. He might not be aware of just how many spies there are around the kingdom, but he's certainly aware that, for Winterfell's strategic importance and his own importance as Robert's best friend, he's watched. It would be silly to discuss such dangerous business around anywhere in Winterfell, and Lysa's letter was a subject brought up by Catelyn, and their suspicions could only anger the Lannisters, they might still have the king's protection on this subject. But Rhaegar's last living heir is an entirely different matter. I also don't understand why it's so hard to accept that the fact that Eddard loved Catelyn doesn't mean he shared all his secrets with her - one has to be too romantic to believe such a thing.

I don't see how making Jon Ned's bastard would somehow be postmodern rubbish.

I've always though of it this way: Ned's a good man, better than most, but not perfect. He succumbed to temptation once, as all men do. However, because he is a good and honorable man, he resolved to live up to his mistake and raise his son as his own even though it would bring some shame on him. A lesser man would have abandoned Jon and never recognized him as his own. That was a common practice in Westeros for Lords and their Bastards. However, Ned is better than that. He did the best that he could to do the right thing and make amends for his mistake. He took responsibility and raised his bastard as his own when he could have take the easy way out. This doesn't seem particularly post-modern.

If the R+L=J theory is true, then Ned never actually succumbed to temptation. He never failed to live up to his own high standards. He was essentially perfect, with his only "flaw" being that he was too honorable.

The first description presents a well-rounded character. The second is more like a plot device.

The post-modern rubbish would be Martin breaking every established ground in fantasy fiction, turning his books into something that couldn't even be recognized as fantasy anymore.

Did you read the rest of my post? I never said Eddard had no flaws in R+L=J, only that his flaws are of a different kind. If he said the truth, he would hurt (kill) Jon and break his promise to Lyanna. By keeping the lie, he risked the peace of his own home. There's no easy way out here, Ned would be acting like a jerk no matter what path he chose. Not to mention there's still that unexplained story about Ashara Dayne, so he might have still succumbed to temptation. And anyway, do you really think he needs a bastard to be considered human or complex? Does trying to remain loyal to some principals make you any less human than screwing any girl that comes you way? You're saying Robert is more human than him, then? Because I'd say he makes sure to dehumanize himself at every opportunity.

It's not clichés that diminish the worth of a book, but the way the author uses them. Or do you think there is any book completely devoid of borrowings from previous works of the same kind?

Well, it's your opinion, and from what I've seen nothing we say here will convince otherwise, so...

[Andrew Lantz]

From a recent interview: http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/2012/03/09/game-of-thrones-interview-writers-david-benioff-and-d-b-weiss/

It turns out that Martin also loved HBO series, he loved Deadwood and Rome. He’d been dealing with Hollywood people and had a smart skepticism and he wanted to know that we wanted to do a faithful adaptation. So he gave us a test question which was ‘Who do you think Jon Snow’s real mother was?’ and there was a pause, and we thought that if we got this wrong then we may not have a show, and the answer is not in the books. We said ‘the answer’s…X’ and we were right. We had to prove to him that we wanted to make the faithful adaptation. Then he saw the show for the first time and thought ‘That’s my world, those are my characters’.

I'm almost certain they would have guessed Rhaegar and Lyanna- I mean what else would they have guessed?

Am I looking too much into this, haha

[Falrinn]

GRRM could of been allowing for multiple "correct" answers. He was likely just making sure they actually read the books.

Having said that, there's a decent chance you are correct. All the other options don't work for one reason or another, and R+L=J does explain a couple of odd points like the three remaining Kingsguard all deciding that protecting a dying woman in the middle of nowhere is somehow more important then protecting the king on Dragonstone.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I think that if this is the case, the clincher is that "it's not in the books." Three of the four possibilities — Ashara, Wylla and the fisherman's daughter — are spelled out in the books. Lyanna is the only one who isn't said explicitly, and also the only one that could reasonably be settled on, i.e. that isn't so far out of left field that no one could guess it.

[Corvinus85]

This has been discussed recently in the regular R + L = J thread, and though I don't think it confirms it, it certainly seems to be another clue in its favor.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

what's the deal with asking "real" mother. I could see saying "real" father. but why not just say "mother"?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

what's the deal with asking "real" mother. I could see saying "real" father. but why not just say "mother"?

I took it to mean that we have a few examples of "fake mothers," e.g. Wylla and Ashara. Because these people have been specifically named, the correct alternative would have to be qualified as "real."