R+L=J v.22

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Ned remembers taking Dawn back to Dayne's home, I think we need to accept that some people are dead.

Yes. There are definitely cases of ambiguous wording in the series and I generally err on the side of skepticism, but sometimes people are actually dead.

[MyLifeIsNotSoPrecious]

Ned remembers taking Dawn back to Dayne's home, I think we need to accept that some people are dead.

Ned would take Dawn back even if they faked Dayne's death. I don't care if Dayne or any of the KG is alive or dead. I'm just saying that we don't know if theyre dead, we are just assuming.

I also realized while watching the season 2 premiere of the HBO series that they left out Ned's Tower of Joy dream scene from the first season. That is an important peice of background information. Why would they leave it out? Perhaps Martin didn't want to portray it on screen for fear of revealing what actually happened.

[Dragonfish]

I also realized while watching the season 2 premiere that they left out the Ned's Tower of Joy dream scene from the first season. That is an important peice of background information. Why would they leave it out? Perhaps Martin didn't want to actually portray what happened on screen for fear of revealing what actually happened.

I don't see how the show would be in danger of portraying "what really happened" if they simply stuck to the way the dream is described in the book. I think the decision to omit the ToJ scene had more to do with budgeting (they didn't want to have to cast eight more actors) and a desire not to be too obvious with R+L=J.

[Sasha Steelsong]

I also realized while watching the season 2 premiere of the HBO series that they left out Ned's Tower of Joy dream scene from the first season. That is an important peice of background information. Why would they leave it out? Perhaps Martin didn't want to portray it on screen for fear of revealing what actually happened.

That seems to be the general consesus. That while it is easy to hide something in pages of a book where people's imaginations do a lot of the work where it isn't if you do it on TV. Plus there is the practical side...they would have had to cast a Rhaegar and Lyanna (not to mention the other KG guards, Howland Reed, etc) to make it work. I think they are going to run into the same problems with the HOTU stuff this season. I therefore don't expect to see Rhaegar telling Dany there must be three..hell I'll be surprised if we get any of the imagry even the more abstract stuff (like the blue rose growing out of a wall of ice...without the TOJ reference it is not as obvious).

[Jem]

I also realized while watching the season 2 premiere of the HBO series that they left out Ned's Tower of Joy dream scene from the first season. That is an important peice of background information. Why would they leave it out? Perhaps Martin didn't want to portray it on screen for fear of revealing what actually happened.

I've been thinking about this a bit. I think that they could have done it without using too much budget and without casting any additional actors. All they would need to do is show a few quick shots: blue rose petals flying out of a tower window, a blood red sky, men in armor, swords clashing, a woman's voice saying "Promise me, Ned", a few mens voices saying some of the key sentences. It could be all blurry and confusing and muddled, like a dream, and it could be over in seconds. Easy peasy.

I think the reason they didn't show it is that, after four additional books (and what will be probably five or more TV seasons) that dream/vision still has not been confirmed or resolved. It simply has not become relevant yet. And, while I am very disappointed that they didn't do a ToJ scene and I do think they have missed the chance to lay down some important foreshadowing, I do get why they didn't do it. Simply, most non-reading viewers would just go: What the? and then forget all about it. It would add confusion (and remember TV writers always seem to pitch to the lowest common denominator) and it probably wouldn't add enough memorable information.

That is what I think anyway. Still disappointed though.

[Elric the White Wolf]

Apple Martini Posted 22 March 2012 - 09:30 PM

Fan myth or family myth, a myth is all it is. And "unreliable narrator run amok" is Dany to a T. I just get so so sick of "Jon got burned, he can't be Rhaegar's son!

Hi everyone, I am a new poster, but I've been reading the Westeros board, and this thread in particular, for many moons. I am a scholar by training (medieval history), and I am a big fan. And a nearly fanatical believer in the R+L=J theory!

Yes Apple Martini I totally agree! I am also so very tired of the "but...but...but...Jon doesn't have the Targ features" meme that pops up too often. Then some dedicated person has to post the usual run-down on genetics, recessive vs. dominant features, etc. The fact that Jon looks like Arya, who is said to look like Lyanna (and unlike the other Stark children who all have Tully traits), speaks volumes as to the (potential) truth of R+L=J.

It also makes sense to me that this series was (possibly) originally intended to be a trilogy rather than a marathon of seven, maybe more, novels. GoT (novel one) is well-paced, well-written, features solid plotting, and is an accomplished work of fiction. Its structure makes perfect sense as the beginning of a narrative trajectory appropriate to a trilogy. Now (after many years and book five) I get the feeling that the main story is being stretched beyond its anticipated capacity. Just my humble opinion.

This applies to R+J -- as some others have astutely observed -- there are a number of clues in GoT (Noelle Snow and Sven Wonders posted this earlier). Then the clues become less and less and more random as the series continues, as though the timeline for a "reveal" changed. (As an aside I have noticed that the viewers of the television series are already complaining that we *still* don't know anything about Jon Snow's mother!). Personally I am desperate for more news concerning R+L=J. I mean really desperate...argh.

[Isolde]

For what it’s worth here is my opinion on the R + L = J topic.

1. Let us begin with the direwolves. There was one for each Stark child. Jon got one, so he is a Stark, just not necessarily Ned’s. But…his was white. Targanyen hair is…what color now?
   

1. Lyanna was betrothed to Robert. Robert’s failings seem to have fallen in the category of appetites, but I think in other matters he was probably much like his old friend Ned. It would be within Robert’s character to treat someone like Lyanna, whom he avowedly loved, with honour. I highly doubt that he would have seduced her prior to marriage. He’s just not that kinda guy. There is no evidence that he is underhanded.
   

Rhaegar, on the other hand, is altogether a different kettle of fish. He is married, then bypassed his own wife to give Lyanna the rose at the tournament. (Don’t know about you, but that would cause some major difficulties at home – LOL!) He then abducts Lyanna, which precipitated among other things, the rebellion. Now a man who would willingly dishonour his wife and abduct a woman, and a betrothed woman at that, um, can perhaps be said to have a much higher probability of being dishonourable than, say, Robert.

IMO it would be well within character for Rhaegar to have either raped or seduced Lyanna. And by all accounts he was dashing.

1. I never really clued in to the kingsguard around Lyanna, but if that is true, then I would suspect that Rhaegar would have sent them.
   

1. Ned found Lyanna dying. She wasn’t dead. She would have asked for current news. Ned would have been able to tell her what had occurred at Kings Landing. Based on what they had done to the Targanyen household, Lyanna’s (and any woman’s) first instinct would be to protect her child. She would have forced Ned to promise her never to reveal the father of her child to anyone – and Ned being Ned kept that promise.
   

Given the treacherous nature of the people in the realm it made sense to protect Jon’s origins from everyone. But that was one serious promise. It caused tension between Ned and his wife, and a burden to Jon which affected his life and career choice. It was one way for Ned to protect this child though.

And Lyanna could certainly trust Ned to keep his promise, because Ned is that kind of a guy. Honourable.

1. It will be interesting to see how Martin plays this out, because there are some cute things that he can do with that. Jon is at the wall in the center of the struggle in the land of ice, while Daenerys seethes from the south with fire, and dragons. How does the throne ship resolve? How does the struggle with the Others resolve?
   

[Dragonfish]

Rhaegar, on the other hand, is altogether a different kettle of fish. He is married, then bypassed his own wife to give Lyanna the rose at the tournament. (Don’t know about you, but that would cause some major difficulties at home – LOL!) He then abducts Lyanna, which precipitated among other things, the rebellion. Now a man who would willingly dishonour his wife and abduct a woman, and a betrothed woman at that, um, can perhaps be said to have a much higher probability of being dishonourable than, say, Robert.

IMO it would be well within character for Rhaegar to have either raped or seduced Lyanna. And by all accounts he was dashing.

What makes you think Rhaegar raped Lyanna? The only people who claim he did so are Robert, who clearly is biased against Targaryens, and Bran, who wasn't alive at the time and doesn't know what he's talking about (for instance, he gets the details of Rickard and Brandon's deaths wrong). In contrast, we have multiple characters attesting to Rhaegar's good character, which would seem to conflict with the idea he would rape a woman. Even Ned doesn't seem to think too negatively of Rhaegar when he says to himself that he probably wouldn't have visited brothels (not the sort of thing you'd say about your sister's rapist). There are also several indications that Lyanna was not happy with her betrothal to Robert, that she was infatuated with Rhaegar, and that she ran off willingly with him. So all in all, I find it highly unlikely that Rhaegar was actually a rapist.

[Milcov]

Lyanna was betrothed to Robert. Robert’s failings seem to have fallen in the category of appetites, but I think in other matters he was probably much like his old friend Ned. It would be within Robert’s character to treat someone like Lyanna, whom he avowedly loved, with honour. I highly doubt that he would have seduced her prior to marriage. He’s just not that kinda guy. There is no evidence that he is underhanded.

Rhaegar, on the other hand, is altogether a different kettle of fish. He is married, then bypassed his own wife to give Lyanna the rose at the tournament. (Don’t know about you, but that would cause some major difficulties at home – LOL!) He then abducts Lyanna, which precipitated among other things, the rebellion. Now a man who would willingly dishonour his wife and abduct a woman, and a betrothed woman at that, um, can perhaps be said to have a much higher probability of being dishonourable than, say, Robert.

IMO it would be well within character for Rhaegar to have either raped or seduced Lyanna. And by all accounts he was dashing.

Actually it's quite the opposite. By all accounts (besides that of Robert) Rhaegar sounds like a just man who wouldn't kidnap and rape someone. We also know he probably discussed this with Elia as he'd said about needing the third child, knowing she couldn't have another child. And on the other hand we witness Robert ordering the murder of children, delighting in the rape of Elia and the murder of her children by Gregor/Tywin. We also know he sleeps around and is hardly faithful to his own wife.

[Alia of the knife]

I think both reasons might have sent him to King's Landing: his being worried about Lyanna, and trying to protect the family honor, or some such thing. But we shouldn't try to rationalize it that much; from all we know Brandon was so impulsive that his ride to KL was probably only his instinctual response to a difficult situation, maybe he only thought about it while he was locked in the dungeons waiting for his father's arrival.

I don't disagree with this, but the idea he went there soley to drag her back to Robert to assauge his familys honor is what I disagree with as some have put forth.

While the latter might be the most likely realistic outcome,(depending on what satisfaction the family demanded from the Targaryens), I had the impression his love and worry for Lyanna were genuine. :frown5:

[Harimad]

Taking out whether R+L=J is actually true, do readers want Jon to be a Targaryen, and if so, what would this add to Jon's arc?

I came to R + L = J a while back on my own, and I had to say that I actually felt disappointed over the prospect. I'm not 100% sold on "fire and ice" being the ultimate endgame of the plot, and I innately want to believe that whatever balance must be restored will not be done so through the properties of genetics (i.e. that Jon is in a unique position to accomplish whatever he does because of his bloodline). I know that free will versus prophesy/ bloodline is an ongoing theme of the series, and I suppose I would find it disappointing if everything suddenly resolved itself in Jon's arc because "he's blood of the dragon, and thus has both a huge advantage in destroying the Others and, oh, by the way, Westeros suddenly acknowledges him as having the best claim to the Throne" or something.

But on a re-read, I became hopeful about the prospect of R+L=J to the degree that it could undermine the role of genetic advantage/ prophesy in favor of personal choice-- i.e. that if Jon does find out about his "true" origins, that he negates whatever advantages or characteristics that come with this knowledge, and that THAT's what the point of R+L=J is in the first place. In another thread, Tze outlined a much more beautifully articulated argument for this that I think ought to be cited: http://asoiaf.wester...40#entry3064210

Anyway, just curious.

I think r+l=j has definite possibility to be true (and I personally hope it is!)

My problem is in the middle of my re-read i get kind of thrown by all the AA/TPTWP stuff. Maybe it's because it sneaks in there with Mel's crazy fire-gazing and some of the limited info we get from Barristan in ASOS, but I always did like how this series is a lot more political than driven by a huge amount of prophecy.

I've been a Robert Jordan Wheel of Time fan for...years....but I found the constant prophesy somewhat exhausting. That series also had a clear Messiah/end of the world thing going on which I feel like is more in the background in ASOIAF (white walkers/others etc) and I like it that way.

I could be wrong, but i feel like what you're trying to say is that Jon being blood of the dragon, AA, TPTWP and just "magically" knowing how to save the kingdom, take over the throne, and immediately bring the realm to peace that lasts forever ties things up WAY too neatly and would be somewhat of a disappointing ending for such a complex and marvelous series---if i understood that, i thoroughly agree!

One of the things i noticed in re-reading the House of the Undying was the scene with Rhaegar (page 701)

"'Aegon,' he said to a woman nursing a newborn babe in a great wooden bed. 'What better name for a king?'

'Will you make a song for him?' the woman asked.

'He has a song,' the man replied. 'He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire.'"

and THEN "'There must be one more, he said...'the dragon has three heads.'"

now the first time i read this I was trying to figure out some way that "aegon" here was really Jon and that the woman was Lyanna, not Elia because Lyanna would be the "ice" and Rhaegar would be the "fire" ---cheesy, I know. But with him saying that there must be one more...that could mean Jon...but then either Rhaegar was mistaken about him being TPTWP or else Aegon is still alive somewhere (whether he's Young Griff or not)

Somehow this is all trying to answer what I think of Jon being a Targ (oops!)

1. I want Jon to somehow be successful and have a very important impact on the Kingdom (hopefully his ending in ADWD is not his END)

2. I like the idea of R+L=J, but whether or not that makes Jon legitimate doesn't really matter to me

3. As much fun as it could potentially be to see Jon on the Iron Throne...I think it's cliche.

4. If Jon = Targ means that he and Dany get together I will be FURIOUS

I was surprised to read on another thread that a lot of people hope Jon stays dead and don't like his character, I guess he doesn't make the brightest decisions, but the humanity of GRRMs characters is what makes his books so great!

[Lady Octarina]

I was surprised to read on another thread that a lot of people hope Jon stays dead and don't like his character, I guess he doesn't make the brightest decisions, but the humanity of GRRMs characters is what makes his books so great!

I agree with all your post, except the part about his taking the throne. Might be cliché, yes, but that still doesn't change the fact that it feels... right... as few things do in this universe. (IMO)

Also, about the part I quoted, well... I joined this fandom and started following discussions here and on Tumblr some months before the TV show began, and what I noticed was that there was a shift on how much love certain characters received: Jon was much more popular before the show*, whereas other characters who were hated (Catelyn, Theon) or to whom fans were generally indifferent (Robb, Renly) became fan-favorites. And others simply kept the same level of popularity before and after HBO (Tyrion, Arya, Daenerys). Few things interest me as much as these fandom "revolutions" :laugh:

*which doesn't mean there weren't haters before, people saying he was too much the typical hero (which I fail to see, unless in a broken version), therefore boring (another concept I never understood - as if one or two clichés ruined thousands of pages in which a world is developed and a character's trials so well described).

[Eira Seren]

I doubt that Ashara was in King's Landing when Aegon was born. She'd have likely been dismissed from court as being an unfit companion to Princess Elia once it was discovered she was pregnant.

During one of his interviews/panels, GRRM notes that Ashara was Elia's lady in waiting in KL, up until about a year before the war. He also said that there has been much speculation about her whereabouts during the war, but that readers shouldn't assume that she was "nailed down to the floor of Starfall." wish i could find the link.

As for Lyanna falling for Rhaegar, it is certainly possible (isn't she described as impulsive and headstrong?). Unless we are going with Stockholm syndrome, Rhaegar doesn't seem like an abductor. I think she runs off with him. I think it is interesting, too, that Meera is telling Bran stories about his family--stories Bran ought already to know. But the version he tells in the crypt is different. Weird that the Stark children don't know the full story of their aunt's death. And when Meera does tell the story, she tells it in the form of a sort of allegory/fairy tale, rich in symbolism that Bran and the reader have to decode. GRRM's little puzzle indicates (to me at least) that he expects us to work out the bigger puzzles of the story as well. I think the Reed children know a lot more, and it is just about timing--when can GRRM reveal certain details without giving the whole thing away before he's ready (or before readers lose patience).

Dany has also heard different versions of her own family history, including that Rhaegar is honorable. Didn't it come from Selmy and Jorah? Both may have their own motives for telling her so, and she also thinks of her brother dying for the woman he loved. . . he didn't really die for Elia, but then, that he died for love is probably the version of events that has been told to her by Viserys or someone else. So do we have any other confirmed sources (or unbiased ones) for Rhaegar's honor?

One more question I have is why Benjen takes the black after the war. He was aparently at Harrenhal and stayed in Winterfell during the rebellion (according to GRRM). So does he go because he is the last to inherit, or for some kind of atonement?

[The guy from the Vale]

Well, after the War is won and Robb is born, Benjen is still the second to inherit, even if he's also the last to. So it makes little sense to me that he'd go for being last to inherit until at least Bran is born - and then he'd have been in the NW for a mere seven years while having quite a successful career there in a time when there's not halff as much turmoil as when Jon is elected LC. So I'd say it's likely Ben had another reason for going to the Wall.

[Eira Seren]

ok. this page http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1328 says Benjen joined the NW shortly after the war, after Ned returned to Winterfell

[DefKhan1]

New here, first post after reading all 17 pages of replies.

1) If Jon is a Targaryen, then why/how does he burn his hand when he grabs the lantern in GoT from the Commander to kill the Wight?

After all, if the dragon has three heads, and Viserys was not one of them because of the golden crown that Drogo gives him, then Jon (Ae-Jon?) should be impervious to fire like Daenarys as well, should he not? Edit: Dammit... Council Member answered this on page 6.

2) Given point 1, above, the fact that Viserys burned, that would mean one of two things... first, that he was NOT really Rhaegar's son, so then whose?

I vote a Lannister, but I think Jaime says he was never with a woman other than his sister. Tywin Lannister knocking up the Mad King's wife/sister? But if he was 100% incestuously Targaryen, but still burned, then what is special about Daenarys that prevents her from feeling the effects of heat/fire? She tells Jorah that because Viserys burned, she knew "he was no dragon..." Jon Snow's hand burning MUST be a relevant point, then, other than it taking both parents being Targaryen to not burn. Although that property would explain the centuries of incest.

3) If Young Griff is another dragon's head, or really the child of Rhaegar and Lyanna, with the idea posted back on like page 3 that Septa Lemore is really Lyanna being a really intriguing thought, along with then the logical extension being that Arthur Dayne remains alive, because his body is never returned to Starfall, but he could have handed the Sword of the Morning to Ned Stark to return, knowing nothing short of that would sell his death?

But this idea doesn't make complete sense because "Aegon" was the name of the infant son of Rhaegar and Elia, so why would Lyanna be with him?

4) I believe a clue to the power of the blood could be Robert Baratheon's bastard Gendry, who conveniently works with hot metals and fire as a blacksmith... House Baratheon has Targaryen blood. If Gendry can't burn, then Jon Stark would definitely NOT be a Targaryen, which would then circle back and make everyone wonder where the hell did Viserys come from?

5) Daenarys didn't burn in Drago's pyre, but remember the scalding bath when Drogo is to arrive to see her for the first time? Or how she picks up the eggs that she had placed in a fire? Or in DwD when she rides the dragon, she catches a face full of fire. It was NOT a one time thing, but rather, at least 3? My apologies as I've been typing as I go along and I see this is a pet peeve for many, but I'm just writing what I understand so far, having only read the books once.

6) Daenarys is mentioned as never giving birth ever again, after the scene where she loses Drogo's son, so I guess she's not hooking up with anyone, not even her nephew Jon Snow, as they cannot make Targaryen heirs.

7) Eddward Stark brought up a great point I had forgotten about the letter Ned handed to Varys...

[The guy from the Vale]

New here, first post after reading all 17 pages of replies.

1) If Jon is a Targaryen, then why/how does he burn his hand when he grabs the lantern in GoT from the Commander to kill the Wight?

After all, if the dragon has three heads, and Viserys was not one of them because of the golden crown that Drogo gives him, then Jon (Ae-Jon?) should be impervious to fire like Daenarys as well, should he not? Edit: Dammit... Council Member answered this on page 6.

2) Given point 1, above, the fact that Viserys burned, that would mean one of two things... first, that he was NOT really Rhaegar's son, so then whose?

I vote a Lannister, but I think Jaime says he was never with a woman other than his sister. Tywin Lannister knocking up the Mad King's wife/sister? But if he was 100% incestuously Targaryen, but still burned, then what is special about Daenarys that prevents her from feeling the effects of heat/fire? She tells Jorah that because Viserys burned, she knew "he was no dragon..." Jon Snow's hand burning MUST be a relevant point, then, other than it taking both parents being Targaryen to not burn. Although that property would explain the centuries of incest.

3) If Young Griff is another dragon's head, or really the child of Rhaegar and Lyanna, with the idea posted back on like page 3 that Septa Lemore is really Lyanna being a really intriguing thought, along with then the logical extension being that Arthur Dayne remains alive, because his body is never returned to Starfall, but he could have handed the Sword of the Morning to Ned Stark to return, knowing nothing short of that would sell his death?

But this idea doesn't make complete sense because "Aegon" was the name of the infant son of Rhaegar and Elia, so why would Lyanna be with him?

4) I believe a clue to the power of the blood could be Robert Baratheon's bastard Gendry, who conveniently works with hot metals and fire as a blacksmith... House Baratheon has Targaryen blood. If Gendry can't burn, then Jon Stark would definitely NOT be a Targaryen, which would then circle back and make everyone wonder where the hell did Viserys come from?

5) Daenarys didn't burn in Drago's pyre, but remember the scalding bath when Drogo is to arrive to see her for the first time? Or how she picks up the eggs that she had placed in a fire? Or in DwD when she rides the dragon, she catches a face full of fire. It was NOT a one time thing, but rather, at least 3? My apologies as I've been typing as I go along and I see this is a pet peeve for many, but I'm just writing what I understand so far, having only read the books once.

6) Daenarys is mentioned as never giving birth ever again, after the scene where she loses Drogo's son, so I guess she's not hooking up with anyone, not even her nephew Jon Snow, as they cannot make Targaryen heirs.

7) Eddward Stark brought up a great point I had forgotten about the letter Ned handed to Varys...

1) Not all Targaryens are fireproof. Even Dany isn't. She got blisters from Drogo's fire.

2) see 1). Viserys is undoubtedly a Targaryen, as his mother was one. He's also Rhaegar's brother, not his son. Similarly, Dany is Rhaegar's sister.

3) Lyanna is dead. Ned saw it himself, and who would know, if not he? Lemore might be Ashara Dayne, though. Similarly, Arthur Dayne is dead, too. Ned says specifically that only Howland Reed and Ned himself survived the fight at the Tower of Joy. Also, Ned's soldiers know of Ned slaying Arthur Dayne, so they would probably have seen the corpse. Lastly, Aegon is most probably not Rhaegar's son, but Illyrio's.

4) see 1)

5) She surely can deal with heat better than most. That said, I like very hot baths myself, and Drogo's fire didn't damage Dany's clothes (she still has her undertunic in the Dothraki sea). So I'd really doubt she got the full Dracarys treatment. Also, the blisters.

6) Eh... that's how Dany interprets Mirri Maz Dur's curse. But as it turns out, a lot of the 'conditions' for Drogo coming back have been fulfilled over the course of ADwD. Also, Dany had a miscarriage in the Dothraki sea. She's most probably not barren.

7) We don't even know if Ned wrote that letter, or if he did, what's in it. Also, Varys has no interest in informing Jon about his heritage.

[Ygrain]

A couple of details about Dany's fireproofness:

Drogo's funeral pyre and the birth of her dragons was a magical one-time event, as confirmed by GRRM himself.

The case with hot eggs is only in the TV show, not the books, where the situation is reversed - she is the only one able to feel some heat within the eggs. Also, in the book, she likes hot baths but it is not said anywhere that the temperature of the water gives actual scalds to anyone (don't know what's in the show).

In the Pit, she catches a full face of Drogon's breath, not fire. When he does spit fire on her, she ducks underneath it. Her hair is burnt but her clothes are not, so the flame either only licked the hair, or the hair got ignited from exposure to high temperature, without actually being touched directly by the flame. Her hands are badly blistered after removing the spear that was stuck in Drogon's neck (the inside of the dragon being hot enough to start melting the iron tip).

All in all, I think that all this "dragons do not burn" is a misconception, based on some legends that Viserys told Dany, and while she might be more resistant to heat than an average person, she can get burnt like anyone else. Actually, a couple of Targaryens did die in fire, e.g. Aegon V and his son Duncan the Small, in the fire of Summerhall.

[Milcov]

It's been confirmed that Targs aren't fireproof hasn't it?

So Jon's hand getting burned is inconsequential to the possibility of R+L=j

[unRobert]

Let us begin with the direwolves. There was one for each Stark child. Jon got one, so he is a Stark, just not necessarily Ned’s. But…his was white. Targanyen hair is…what color now?

Indeed- and Ghost is specifically an albino direwolf. Much like another legendary Targaryen bastard. (Who has a few other things in common with Jon as well, half Targ/ half First Men, LC of Night's Watch)