R+L=J v.22

[Independent George]

Wylla and Ashara might not necessarily know the whole truth, but because there is an above-average chance that they would remember being impregnated by Ned and bearing his child, they could presumably eliminate themselves from contention. They would naturally assume one of the other rumors they'd heard was true, but wouldn't have the whole picture, but the reader would.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Wylla and Ashara might not necessarily know the whole truth, but because there is an above-average chance that they would remember being impregnated by Ned and bearing his child, they could presumably eliminate themselves from contention. They would naturally assume one of the other rumors they'd heard was true, but wouldn't have the whole picture, but the reader would.

But Wylla at least is corroborating Ned's story, i.e. that she's his mother. That implies collusion between the two of them, which also implies that Wylla probably knows more specific details.

[Screaming Knight]

But Wylla at least is corroborating Ned's story, i.e. that she's his mother. That implies collusion between the two of them, which also implies that Wylla probably knows more specific details.

Yes, Ned uses her name rather matter-of-fact when Robert is trying to remember the name of the woman he is thinking of. He must have faith in her. If the day ever comes, or has ever come previously, where she had to answer a few questions about Jon, she would need to know what not to say. I always assumed she was one of the people who knew everything and would possibly be the one to enlighten everyone.

[Sven Wonders]

One big thing that hits my mind in this debate, is that GRRM originally only had 3 books in mind when he started. The first book had so many clues to L + R =J. Since the first book the clues have become more scarce. Is that becuase GRRM has changed his mind or has he realized the series is going to be much larger, thus requireing the clues to be more spread out?

[Noelle Snow]

I think he dropped the majority of the clues in book 1 partly because it was supposed to be a trilogy and partly because the only POV character who knows about Jon is Ned who dies in the first book. So other clues are scarcer because no POV who knows or thinks about Jon knows the story. We only get random clues such as the blue rose in the wall of ice type events and random recollections of the remaining people who were there (Selmy, Cersei, Jamie). So yes, GRRM I'm sure is spreading them out more as the series got longer. But most of the clues came from Ned who's now a head shorter.

[a free shadow]

One big thing that hits my mind in this debate, is that GRRM originally only had 3 books in mind when he started. The first book had so many clues to L + R =J. Since the first book the clues have become more scarce. Is that becuase GRRM has changed his mind or has he realized the series is going to be much larger, thus requireing the clues to be more spread out?

I think you don't have to worry, he realy did not change his mind. Once in a while he patienty repeats that he has known his story from the start. Jon's parentage is such a big thing that it would change the whole story in too many ways. And I do not even know if there are so little clues in the later books. He is just in a place where no one could give any clues. But in the second book we have a story about the Knight of the Laughing tree, in later books three or more times Jon thinks about and sees shapes of "ice dragons" for second example. And I am sure there's more.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I think he dropped the majority of the clues in book 1 partly because it was supposed to be a trilogy and partly because the only POV character who knows about Jon is Ned who dies in the first book. So other clues are scarcer because no POV who knows or thinks about Jon knows the story. We only get random clues such as the blue rose in the wall of ice type events and random recollections of the remaining people who were there (Selmy, Cersei, Jamie). So yes, GRRM I'm sure is spreading them out more as the series got longer. But most of the clues came from Ned who's now a head shorter.

Yes, I think this is it. It's a combination of the expanded narrative and the loss of Ned as a POV.

[Lady Octarina]

So, I was flipping through AGoT and paid more attention to some details that escaped my first reading... nothing new, really, just that I'm more convinced than ever before that Benjen knows about Jon, just by the way he behaves when Jon tells him he wants to take the black. Just like I'm more convinced than ever that Ashara had a part in Ned finding Lyanna, at least, and also knew the truth - what other reason would he have to get that angry when Catelyn mentioned her name when asking who Jon's mother was?

Also, how could we ever doubt he is Rhaegar's son? Really, three mentions of crying on his part in his first two chapters! That sounds like sensitive Rhaegar to me... :laugh:

[Elito]

I do believe a lot inthe R+L=J theory. I have some coments questions about that thought.

1. Jon got burned... while Dany is not affected by fire... I know this fact does not mean that John is not a Targ, because Viserys got burned by gold, however it is interesting right... maybe the no burning runs only on the female side. I think I recall another Targaryen shouting their sisters in a tower maybe he was scared that they wire fireprobed and he was not.

2. I heard the twins theory in this thread, so what if Jon's twin is YG, is that even possible? Do we know their exact ages? Varys could have done it, right? he could have gotten YG after bird and hide in the ToY until it was safe for him to go... Rather impossible really, just a tought :(

3. Even if John is not fire-prove, if he is the son of the dragon, he might not be burned like QMartell did because he is also a sking changer... that would be great right, that he can skin change into a dragon :) unlike bran when Jon slips into Ghost he is not necesarrily sleeping.

4. So really then the three heads of the dragons would be Dany, Jon, and Aeron right?

[Dragonfish]

1. Jon got burned... while Dany is not affected by fire... I know this fact does not mean that John is not a Targ, because Viserys got burned by gold, however it is interesting right... maybe the no burning runs only on the female side. I think I recall another Targaryen shouting their sisters in a tower maybe he was scared that they wire fireprobed and he was not.

In an effort to prevent Apple Martini from having an aneurism, I'll answer this question for you: Targaryens are not, as a rule, immune to fire. Even Dany's moment of fire immunity was a one-time thing, according to the author himself.

2. I heard the twins theory in this thread, so what if Jon's twin is YG, is that even possible? Do we know their exact ages? Varys could have done it, right? he could have gotten YG after bird and hide in the ToY until it was safe for him to go... Rather impossible really, just a tought :(

Jon is around 16, I believe, while Young Griff is supposed to be 18, according to the appendix. However, it's unclear if this is meant to be his true age or his stated age, so I suppose it's possible he is actual younger than he is claimed to be.

That said, I really don't believe in the twins theory. Personally, I think it's more likely that YG isn't a Targaryen at all, but actually a Blackfyre (there are several other threads devoted to this subject).

4. So really then the three heads of the dragons would be Dany, Jon, and Aeron right?

Maybe, though George has said in the past that the third head need not be a Targaryen.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

In an effort to prevent Apple Martini from having an aneurism, I'll answer this question for you: Targaryens are not, as a rule, immune to fire. Even Dany's moment of fire immunity was a one-time thing, according to the author himself.

Much appreciated.

ETA: Also, the princesses in the tower were locked up to prevent them from "tempting" the king (Baelor Batshit, er, the Blessed), not because they were supposedly "fireproof." The fireproof thing is an inaccurate Targ-fan myth that needs to freaking die (in a fire? :P) already.

[Independent George]

ETA: Also, princesses in the tower were locked up to prevent them from "tempting" the king (Baelor Batshit, er, the Blessed), not because they were supposedly "fireproof." The fireproof thing is an inaccurate Targ-fan myth that needs to freaking die (in a fire? :P) already.

To be fair, it's not just a fan myth, but seemingly a family myth among the Targaryans (given how many of them seem to have set themselves on fire thinking they were immune). The TV show doesn't help, but I think it's mostly a case of unreliable narrator run amok.

[Elito]

mmmm interesting I've heard that the Dany non burned was a one time thing too, but in DWD.. Dany got not burned again while she was with the wip trying to ride Drogon..." his breath hot enough to blister skin(Drogon)" altoght it is not mentioned that her own skin is blistered on the face (I know that from her point of view she has her hands blistered but Drogon's breath was right to her face) i know if the film they make it more than in the books but it is plain that the Targs have some family traids that are very much theirs

Thanks Dragonfish for your answers.... altought who says that I am not trying to give Apple Martini an aneurism????? :devil: :cool4:

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

To be fair, it's not just a fan myth, but seemingly a family myth among the Targaryans (given how many of them seem to have set themselves on fire thinking they were immune). The TV show doesn't help, but I think it's mostly a case of unreliable narrator run amok.

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!"

[Independent George]

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!"

You know, the scene I was waiting for thoughout ADWD was Barristan finally telling Dany all the gory details about Aerys II, Maegor, Aerion the unworthy, etc. I was getting sick of all this 'blood of the dragon' stuff, and really wanted her to finally understand why that's not necessarily something to be proud of.

I was disappointed it didn't happen, but at least Tyrion is now in the vicinity; I think I'd enjoy hearing it from his mouth a lot more than I would Barristan's.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

You know, the scene I was waiting for thoughout ADWD was Barristan finally telling Dany all the gory details about Aerys II, Maegor, Aerion the unworthy, etc. I was getting sick of all this 'blood of the dragon' stuff, and really wanted her to finally understand why that's not necessarily something to be proud of.

I was disappointed it didn't happen, but at least Tyrion is now in the vicinity; I think I'd enjoy hearing it from his mouth a lot more than I would Barristan's.

Yes. Dany needs to know that the Targaryens who were the most up their own asses about being "dragons" were the ones who met the messiest ends. I somehow can't picture Jaehaerys I, Viserys I, Daeron II or Aegon V going around preening about their genetic superiority, and two of them actually had dragons. And Jon reminds me more of those four than Dany does. She strikes me as sort of a Daeron I type — good at conquering, awful at keeping.

[Screaming Knight]

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!"

Is there any kind of extraordinary relationship between fire and targaryens? Or dany and fire? I know the obssesion is there and about the fatal delusions some targaryens had, but what did dany mean by fire can not kill a dragon, when viserys was killed. Or was she just acknowledging that viserys was just another delusional one? Something makes me think that the targaryens that a 'true dragons' (another term used quite a bit in the books) are possibly wargs but since, until now, the dragons have been dead, and there are so few targaryens that it hasn't been applied yet.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Is there any kind of extraordinary relationship between fire and targaryens? Or dany and fire? I know the obssesion is there and about the fatal delusions some targaryens had, but what did dany mean by fire can not kill a dragon, when viserys was killed. Or was she just acknowledging that viserys was just another delusional one? Something makes me think that the targaryens that a 'true dragons' (another term used quite a bit in the books) are possibly wargs but since, until now, the dragons have been dead, and there are so few targaryens that it hasn't been applied yet.

Whatever the Targs do with their dragons, I don't think it's warging. Dany doesn't actually possess Drogon the way that the Starks do with their wolves. I think that warging is tied to old god worship and/or First Men blood and wouldn't really be a Valyrian trait. If that were the case, the Valyrians wouldn't need horns and spells and whatever else to control the dragons. Such "true dragons" have been shown in visions in the D&E stories, but that didn't save them from a mace to the head (Baelor Breakspear) or a fire at Summerhall (Aegon V).

Anything that Dany and Viserys say about "dragons," including their immunity to disease and flame retardant-ness, should be taken with a huge heaping spoon of salt, given that we know from examples that neither is true. They are unreliable narrators and they each have a vested personal and political interest in furthering myths about their family having godlike powers. I don't know why any stock is put into Dany's "fire cannot kill a dragon" line, when fire has killed "dragons" and non-dragons alike and will probably do so again. The only thing her delusions of grandeur will bring her is an eventual Darwin Award-winning fiery death. As I pointed out above, the Targs who are extremely fixated on fire and dragon imagery are the crazy ones. :P

[Lady Octarina]

I was disappointed it didn't happen, but at least Tyrion is now in the vicinity; I think I'd enjoy hearing it from his mouth a lot more than I would Barristan's.

Well, Tyrion helped Jon accept who he was, so why not do the same for Daenerys? I only fear he might end up a bit burned after that; being the Kingslayer's brother certainly won't count in his favor.

Is there any kind of extraordinary relationship between fire and targaryens? Or dany and fire? I know the obssesion is there and about the fatal delusions some targaryens had, but what did dany mean by fire can not kill a dragon, when viserys was killed. Or was she just acknowledging that viserys was just another delusional one? Something makes me think that the targaryens that a 'true dragons' (another term used quite a bit in the books) are possibly wargs but since, until now, the dragons have been dead, and there are so few targaryens that it hasn't been applied yet.

I really don't understand this "the dragon", "true dragon" thing - it seems to me that's just another of Viserys' stories that Daenerys took too seriously. Or... the first indication she's following the same path as her dear father :P

[Screaming Knight]

Well, Tyrion helped Jon accept who he was, so why not do the same for Daenerys? I only fear he might end up a bit burned after that; being the Kingslayer's brother certainly won't count in his favor.

I really don't understand this "the dragon", "true dragon" thing - it seems to me that's just another of Viserys' stories that Daenerys took too seriously. Or... the first indication she's following the same path as her dear father :P

Yea. Definitely quite possible. 'true dragon' could just be something fabricated throughtout history by the targaryens. It would be contemplative of barristan to forewarn dany on her family's history of madness and how much of it was associated with their fascination with fire.