R+L = J v. 24

[Lord Martin Stark]

When i first read AGOT I thought R+L=J. When Lyanna says "Promise me Ned' is what make me believe it. I mean if the promise was not to keep Jon safe which is what I take it to be I would like to hear what some of the nonbelievers of it think the promise was about then??

Another one is when Ned is in the dungeon and starts thinking bout Jon and says to hisself "If i could just talk to the boy" or something like that. Not sure why but that just sticks out to me also......

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

why would he want to spit on his Targ heritage? moreover, why wouldn't he embrace it? the only Targ he's ever met was perhaps the most modest, honorable, and sympathetic character in the books.

Many of the Targ kings of the past seem fairly chivalrous and noble. Sure, some have done some terrible things like Maegor, Aegon III, and Aerys himself, but for every Maegor, there's an Egg, Aegon the Conqueror, and Jaehaerys I.

Why should he embrace it? He was raised as a northerner and as a Stark. The Targaryen legacy doesn't mean anything to him, he has no connection to it.

And I'm pretty sure you're confusing Aegon III with Aegon IV. It happens.

[Alia of the knife]

I've looked into this a bit, but I don't think that the Starks and Targs have ever been tied by blood. Which is strange because some Dorne and Baratheons have the blood of the targs. But not many in the North even after hundred of years. Why is that? Maybe the North never truly accepted the Targs, or the Targs though them less than them, I recall stories of the queens visiting the wall. The song of fire and ice has to do with the targs and starks the central houses in the North and South.

I think there is some stress underlying in their relationship.

Just a couple of things:

- When the Stark King bent the knee, it was the largest of the Seven Kingdoms, (on Roberts journey, he complained that the North was bigger than all the Seven Kingdoms put together.

It seems likely that Stark bent the knee to spare his people, but it doesn't mean the North ever liked it.

And, the North remembers.

- Also, and this goes back to the "Dunk & Egg" Novellas, during the civil war between the Targaryens, the Starks never apparently declared for either side, but stayed neutral. Other Houses that did this received denegration and shame by the victorious Trueborn Targaryens, but the Targaryens did not seem to bother the Starks, and still kept them as their Wardens of the North, which is unusual for that time, because you had to pick a side.

- This is a bit more fanciful, but it appears to be known on some peripheral level that the Starks were "unusual," as in it seemed to be common knowledge that there was something preternatural about them.

Lots of folk tales in the South about the Starks changing into wolves, etc.

Whether that was born of Southron snobbery and stereotype of a culture they looked down on, (though again, this was the most powerful Kingdom before the conquering), or because Stark "weirdness" (see also the legend of the Night King), is just common knowledge is unknown.

But, perhaps the Targaryens realized in the Starks a family whose bloodline was just as "magical," or even more so given their direct ability to psychicaly connect with beasts and Humans on occasion, and just left them alone and didn't bother them, given their continued loyalty.

In other words, the Starks "spooked" the Targaryens.

[Alia of the knife]

There are several families who never married into the Targaryens — Tully, Lannister, Greyjoy, Tyrell, Stark. Arryn, Martell and Baratheon did. I don't think either should be taken as "unusual," it just is.

If you're looking for a lack of precedent as a possible plot point, I'd pay more attention to Torrhen Stark kneeling — ensuring that the Targ dragons would never have to face, say, wargs — than I would the families' marriage habits.

Yes, that would add more of a forbidden element to that mating.

And not just because the Targaryens think they are better, but because of the resulting offspring.

A dragon not controlled by sorcery, but now one with it's own awareness, and perhaps "will," spurred on by the Warg.

Anything controlled by sorcery does not have free will, but something imbued with conscience as a Warg would bring, is a different creature altogether.

[Alia of the knife]

I think there is some stress underlying in their relationship.

Just a couple of things:

- When the Stark King bent the knee, it was the largest of the Seven Kingdoms, (on Roberts journey, he complained that the North was bigger than all the Seven Kingdoms put together).

It seems likely that Stark bent the knee to spare his people, but it doesn't mean the North ever liked it.

And, the North remembers.

- Also, and this goes back to the "Dunk & Egg" Novellas, during the civil war between the Targaryens, the Starks never apparently declared for either side, but stayed neutral. Other Houses that did this received denegration and shame by the victorious Trueborn Targaryens, but the Targaryens did not seem to bother the Starks, and still kept them as their Wardens of the North, which is unusual for that time, because you had to pick a side.

- This is a bit more fanciful, but it appears to be known on some peripheral level that the Starks were "unusual," as in it seemed to be common knowledge that there was something preternatural about them.

Lots of folk tales in the South about the Starks changing into wolves, etc.

Whether that was born of Southron snobbery and stereotype of a culture they looked down on, (though again, this was the most powerful Kingdom before the conquering), or because Stark "weirdness" (see also the legend of the Night King), is just common knowledge is unknown.

But, perhaps the Targaryens realized in the Starks a family whose bloodline was just as "magical," or even more so given their direct ability to psychicaly connect with beasts and Humans on occasion, and just left them alone and didn't bother them, given their continued loyalty.

In other words, the Starks "spooked" the Targaryens.

(sigh), would love a "delete" function......

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Also, and this goes back to the "Dunk & Egg" Novellas, during the civil war between the Targaryens, the Starks never apparently declared for either side, but stayed neutral. Other Houses that did this received denegration and shame by the victorious Trueborn Targaryens, but the Targaryens did not seem to bother the Starks, and still kept them as their Wardens of the North, which is unusual for that time, because you had to pick a side.

I think this is interesting. The Wiki has House Arryn and House Lannister — Wardens of the East and West — on the list of Targ loyalists during the Blackfyre Rebellion. The Tyrells aren't listed, but you can infer that they probably stayed loyal, given that they were still Targ loyalists ~90 years later during Robert's Rebellion. Interesting point about the Starks, and how the Targs, despite accepting Torrhen's surrender, generally just left them alone.

[Maxpey]

When i first read AGOT I thought R+L=J. When Lyanna says "Promise me Ned' is what make me believe it. I mean if the promise was not to keep Jon safe which is what I take it to be I would like to hear what some of the nonbelievers of it think the promise was about then??

Another one is when Ned is in the dungeon and starts thinking bout Jon and says to hisself "If i could just talk to the boy" or something like that. Not sure why but that just sticks out to me also......

While I wouldn't call myself a non-believer in R + L = J (there is a significant amount of circumstantial evidence supporting this theory that I cannot ignore), for personal reasons I am routing for N + A = J. As such, I am in the non-believer camp. Generally speaking, I would say that we non-believers would admit that Lyanna's promise to Ned did involve him protecting her child with Rhaegar. Where we would differ is that we choose to believe that that Lyanna and Rhaegar's child is not Jon, but is instead another child, possibly Little Griff/Aegon. That having been said, the evidence to support the non-believers position in the text is minimal, compared to the evidence supporting R + L = J.

[lojzelote]

Why should he embrace it? He was raised as a northerner and as a Stark. The Targaryen legacy doesn't mean anything to him, he has no connection to it.

And I'm pretty sure you're confusing Aegon III with Aegon IV. It happens.

Maybe. But he´s obviously a huge fan of Daeron the Young Dragon. He might mourn the "lost" Stark heritage (1. considered to be a bastard he was never truly a Stark, 2. he´s still a "half-Stark" through Lyanna), but simultaneously he gains another. It´s a while since I´ve done a reread, so feel free to correct me if I´m wrong, but I don´t remember anything which would suggest that he has negative feelings about the Targaryens as the dynasty. Sure, he probably isn´t be charmed by Aerys, who killed his uncle and his (other) grandfather, or by Rhaegar himself, who according to Ned´s story "kidnapped" and "raped" Lyanna. (I´ve always found it funny that Ned´s official story for his children was that that Aerys "only" beheaded Rickard, but that Rhaegar raped Lyanna.), but we don´t see him think about it. Nor does he has any thoughts about the Targaryens being the incestous fuck-ups, or anything of that sort. So while I don´t think that he will begin to embroid his black clothes with red three-headed dragons, I also don´t think that he will be miserable about it, or "spit" at it. Long story short, I think that he will be happy to have the kings for ancestors, not some peasants nobody cares about (he thinks that his mother was probably a whore, doesn´t he?). It´s quite natural.

[Harlaw's Book]

I think the revelation will cause Jon to mourn what he has lost instead of embracing the new. Being Ned Stark's son is the one part of his identity he has never questioned. Losing that will be devastating.

[tripleseq]

I think the main problem with discounting and criticizing this theory is that in the context of writing the first book and the intended original story arc this ending would not be cliche at all. Do you really think that GRRM was really anticipating this kind of hyperanalysis of his work when he set out to write this story back in 92? Besides, based on the original book cover GRRM seems to have some affection for fromage :). When my friend handed it to me way back and said it was the best fantasy novel he had ever read I picked it up looked at the cover and wondered why fabio wasn't on the horse. LOL, YCJABBIC!

[Alia of the knife]

I think this is interesting. The Wiki has House Arryn and House Lannister — Wardens of the East and West — on the list of Targ loyalists during the Blackfyre Rebellion. The Tyrells aren't listed, but you can infer that they probably stayed loyal, given that they were still Targ loyalists ~90 years later during Robert's Rebellion. Interesting point about the Starks, and how the Targs, despite accepting Torrhen's surrender, generally just left them alone.

Perhaps in the beginning, when Aegon the Conquerer and his Sisters came, they did have a Mage, or a Sorcerer who helped with the dragons, and he detected something about the Starks that the Sorcerer warned the Targaryens not to get too close- keep them in the North, keep them Wardens of the North, keep them loyal, but generally stay away from them- until the Madness of King Aerys.

Maybe in the mythos of the Valyrians, something such a s Warg would be considered "evil."

Anyway, the lack of a Stark presence given the rebellion just seemed strange, and thats why I looked at the Wiki.

And yes, they were not metntioned as taking a side.

As you say, a couple of other Houses were not mentioned either, but given their closer proximity to KL, the inferrence is that they had a presence at the rebellion where the Starks aren't mentioned at all.

The only time the Starks are mentioned in relationship to the Kingdom, are a few passages.

Paraphrasing:

Jon the Fiddler to Dunk: "you don't want to go North, there are vicious wolves in the forests."

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a Stark in the Golden Company?

Though, in Brans vision it seems pretty certain the tall Knight kissing the girl are Dunk and Nan, so at least those two made as far North as Winterfell, but it seems Egg was the last Targ. we know of to go North since Aegon.

I suppose we'll know more from SWoW in the next Dunk & Egg installment

[kg1982]

Or maybe wargs can control dragons?

[Alia of the knife]

Or maybe wargs can control dragons?

I think that is the assumption.

And to a people like the Valyrians who control the Dragons through magic, it would make sense that in their own mythos, that a rival magic such as Warging might be perceived as a threat.

At least as long as the Targaryens retain their sorcerous abilities.

But, we know it seems to die out at some point, so maybe to later Targaryens, warging would be a "shortcut" once they brought the dragons back, as they seemed destined to do.

And, warging seems to be considered the same negative as "witchcraft" did in real history, in the South.

Who started that precedent?

The Targs, or The Seven?

The Starks would also be considered "pagans" under the Targs,, and The Seven, which is another negative for them in the South, whereas the Wildings, though fearing Wargs, respected them.

However, it seems the Starks themselves, (if Ned is an example), can't control, or are unaware of themselves as Wargs, and perhaps no longer believe those tales anymore either

But, perhaps that is because Ned is perhaps the most "Southron" of Rickards children being fostered as he was with Robert, and married to Cat in the traditon of The Seven.

[Zimar]

I find it extremely interesting that people assume a warg will be able to infiltrate a dragon. I am not saying it is impossible but dragons are magic and fire and flame. In the grand scheme of things I see them at the top of the pyramid on difficulty to warg. John's warging skills are not of that caliber, not yet at least. Dragons were brought back to "balance" the resurgence of the Others. If we believe a dragon can be warged, why not an Other? If R+L=J then John would have Targ blood, but he is not a "dragon" such as Dany, he CAN be burned.

[Serie]

I find it extremely interesting that people assume a warg will be able to infiltrate a dragon. I am not saying it is impossible but dragons are magic and fire and flame. In the grand scheme of things I see them at the top of the pyramid on difficulty to warg. John's warging skills are not of that caliber, not yet at least. Dragons were brought back to "balance" the resurgence of the Others. If we believe a dragon can be warged, why not an Other? If R+L=J then John would have Targ blood, but he is not a "dragon" such as Dany, he CAN be burned.

IMHO if humans can be warged (which is true since Bran wargs Hodor) then everything can. But I agree it must be a difficult task.

Targaryens get burned no matter how pure their blood is. Dany included. Happened before. :)

(A drink for Apple Martini on the way..... :cheers: )

[King Doug]

IMHO if humans can be warged (which is true since Bran wargs Hodor) then everything can. But I agree it must be a difficult task. Targaryens get burned no matter how pure their blood is. Dany included. Happened before. :) (A drink for Apple Martini on the way..... :cheers: )

So the cycle starts again.....HAHA

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

I think the revelation will cause Jon to mourn what he has lost instead of embracing the new. Being Ned Stark's son is the one part of his identity he has never questioned. Losing that will be devastating.

Being a Stark has always been apart of his identity, but not necessarily being Ned's son, considering he is a bastard, but this is just my view. I don't feel that he will mourn the lost of anything, because he will not lose his Stark heritage. He will become a legitimate Stark, so he should feel better about that part of his identity.

I find it extremely interesting that people assume a warg will be able to infiltrate a dragon. I am not saying it is impossible but dragons are magic and fire and flame. In the grand scheme of things I see them at the top of the pyramid on difficulty to warg. John's warging skills are not of that caliber, not yet at least. Dragons were brought back to "balance" the resurgence of the Others. If we believe a dragon can be warged, why not an Other? If R+L=J then John would have Targ blood, but he is not a "dragon" such as Dany, he CAN be burned.

Maybe this is the reason his parentage will be so important to the story. Being a Stark (ability to warg) and a Targ (blood of the dragon), may give Jon special 'powers' when it comes to warging a dragon. Just a thought...

Dany CAN be burned as well. GRRM has stated that the hatching of the dragon eggs was a one time event. She was protected by the magic of the dragons.

IMHO if humans can be warged (which is true since Bran wargs Hodor) then everything can. But I agree it must be a difficult task. Targaryens get burned no matter how pure their blood is. Dany included. Happened before. :) (A drink for Apple Martini on the way..... :cheers: )

Oh yes...she's coming. :cheers:

[Winter Wasnt That Bad]

Apologies if this has already been brought up in this thread (or the 23 thread ancestors) but I didn't see this mentioned in the messages I read.

My main reasoning for R + L <> J is Catelyn. She clearly believes that Jon is the natural son of Ned, otherwise she wouldn't have hated him so much. Keeping the bastard in the same house as her/Ned's kids was just too much for her to handle. So, it R + L = J, then Ned must have kept this secret from his own wife for all of these years. No way that is going to happen, IMHO. Why would he do this?

+ It's a huge secret so the fewer people who know of it the better (Loose Lips Sink Ships theory)? What we learn about Catelyn, keeping a secret like this would be no problem for her. There's no way she's going to let it slip out when she's out hanging laundry with the gals - 'Oh, have you heard what Nedy's sister and Rhaegar were up to?'.

+ To protect her from harm, in case others suspect the same thing? Sorry, but this isn't very logical if you think it out. Catelyn would never gossip about it, so if the wrong person thinks she may know about this secret, then that person will still try to torture her (if he's of the Lannister/Bolton ilk) regardless of whether she knows or not. She is still in harms way. Not knowing or knowing will still result in her being tortured or harmed, if that is why Ned never told her.

Ned could not have kept this secret from his wife for 14 years. He just wouldn't do this. Ned is the honorable, brave, and physically strong one in the family. But Catelyn is the wise one. He would definitely have consulted with her on this issue for her wisdom alone. Besides, if its protection that motivates him it would be the protection of all of his (and Cate's) children. Again, she would be a great aid to him in protecting their kids.

[Lord Martin Stark]

I can see Ned not telling he truth about Jon to Cat. I mean he hardly even knew her when he left for Roberts Rebellion so why would he. And also goes back to the promise he made Lyanna i think. And what is all this wisdom from Cat you speak of??

[Dragonfish]

@Winter Wasnt That Bad--

This has indeed been discussed many, many times, and I'm sorry to say you are simply wrong. It is objectively true that Ned would keep this secret from Catelyn. Here are his own words in AGOT:

"Some secrets are safer kept hidden. Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust."

Here we have straight from the horse's mouth that Ned thinks there are some secrets that are so dangerous they must not be told to anyone. It is therefore impossible to argue that he would have definitely told Catelyn the truth about Jon's parentage, which is perhaps one of the most dangerous secrets to have under Robert's reign.

But even if this still doesn't convince you, there are plenty of other reasons for Ned to keep this secret from Catelyn:

1) Lyanna made him promise not to tell anyone.

2) Ned does not want to burden Catelyn with the knowledge. This isn't just about her being endangered by the secret; it's also about her being complicit in Ned's own treason and dishonor. I don't think Ned is the type of person to make others shoulder that kind of burden.

3) If Ned tells Catelyn the truth, then she might be more inclined to treat Jon kindly. This might arouse some suspicion, which is something Ned cannot afford.

4) Alternatively, it's entirely possible that Catelyn might actually reveal Jon's identity to the world, under some scenario in which doing so would save her family. Ned does ask himself what Cat would do if she had to choose between Jon's life and the lives of her own children, and he honestly doesn't know the answer. So it's not so much of a stretch to think that Ned didn't divulge his secret to her because he wasn't entirely certain he could trust her with Jon's safety.