R+L = J v. 24

[Sapphire]

And with Jon, it's a double whammy, because in one fell swoop, he is the legitimate King in the North, (see TZE's post about him being concieved under the annointing of the Old god if Rhaegar married Lyanna under the sanction of the Old gods, rather than Neds kids, because he married under the Seven), and/or legitimized by Robb, as well as being a trueborn son of Rhaegar.

Not to mention some people thinking he's unwittingly made himself king of the wildings and if Aegon proves to be false, his claim to the Iron Throne is stronger than Dany's. Jon's racking up more crowns than he'll know what to with ^_^

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Not to mention some people thinking he's unwittingly made himself king of the wildings and if Aegon proves to be false, his claim to the Iron Throne is stronger than Dany's. Jon's racking up more crowns than he'll know what to with ^_^

I know you're being lighthearted here, but someone in the Azor Ahai interpretations thread suggested that "the dragon has three heads" could be read as "the dragon has three crowns." Similarly to how "crowns" can mean "heads" in the Maggy the Frog prophecy to Cersei, "heads" might mean "crowns" here. So if Jon has the wildling "crown," the "crown" of the North (through Robb's will) and the "crown" of the South (by being Rhaegar's last legitimate child), well ...

[Lord Damian]

I know you're being lighthearted here, but someone in the Azor Ahai interpretations thread suggested that "the dragon has three heads" could be read as "the dragon has three crowns." Similarly to how "crowns" can mean "heads" in the Maggy the Frog prophecy to Cersei, "heads" might mean "crowns" here. So if Jon has the wildling "crown," the "crown" of the North (through Robb's will) and the "crown" of the South (by being Rhaegar's last legitimate child), well ...

Holy Crap, another angle that might be plausable. Of course, if Jon is dead, this is F-ed. I Think he lives though.

[etu]

I know you're being lighthearted here, but someone in the Azor Ahai interpretations thread suggested that "the dragon has three heads" could be read as "the dragon has three crowns." Similarly to how "crowns" can mean "heads" in the Maggy the Frog prophecy to Cersei, "heads" might mean "crowns" here. So if Jon has the wildling "crown," the "crown" of the North (through Robb's will) and the "crown" of the South (by being Rhaegar's last legitimate child), well ...

Not the first time its been mooted - I like it then, and like it now.

[kg1982]

I know you're being lighthearted here, but someone in the Azor Ahai interpretations thread suggested that "the dragon has three heads" could be read as "the dragon has three crowns." Similarly to how "crowns" can mean "heads" in the Maggy the Frog prophecy to Cersei, "heads" might mean "crowns" here. So if Jon has the wildling "crown," the "crown" of the North (through Robb's will) and the "crown" of the South (by being Rhaegar's last legitimate child), well ...

And it takes three times to forge Lightbringer - First, at the Wall fails - ADWD. Perhaps, his second involves trying to forge an army in the North. The third and final one involves using his status as Rhaegar's son to forge the successful light bringer.

[Alia of the knife]

Not to mention some people thinking he's unwittingly made himself king of the wildings and if Aegon proves to be false, his claim to the Iron Throne is stronger than Dany's. Jon's racking up more crowns than he'll know what to with ^_^

I know, poor man, and he'll hate them all.

Kind of like his mother- probably that last girl in the Kingdom dreaming of being a Princess.

I know you're being lighthearted here, but someone in the Azor Ahai interpretations thread suggested that "the dragon has three heads" could be read as "the dragon has three crowns." Similarly to how "crowns" can mean "heads" in the Maggy the Frog prophecy to Cersei, "heads" might mean "crowns" here. So if Jon has the wildling "crown," the "crown" of the North (through Robb's will) and the "crown" of the South (by being Rhaegar's last legitimate child), well ...

Thats brilliant. :wideeyed:

[Natalie_S]

I'm a total n00b to this theory- I thought it was too far-fetched at first, but after I read all these clues I'm starting to believe it must be true!

This has probably been written tons of times before (I confess, I didn't read also all the other 23 threads) but I have some thoughts:

-In ASOIAF a couple of times there are people who look a lot like their uncle/aunts. There is Arya who looks like Lyanna, but also Gendry, whom Brienne mistakes for Renly. Could this be a hint?

-Ned feels extremely guilty about whatever promise he had made to Lyanna. If the promise is that he should keep Jon safe and hidden, why does he feel so guilty all the time? I mean, he did it.

Jon is safe and sound at the Wall (well, as safe as someone who's fighting wildlings and zombies in a hostile climate can be) and nobody suspects he's a Targaryen.

Could it be that Lyanna asked him to promise him something else, and he didn't keep this promise?

If she was in love with Rhaegar, she could have asked him to betray Robert and pass to Rhaegar's side, eventually win over the rebels so that Jon could live as a prince and maybe one day have a claim over the iron throne.

But Ned didn't do this, so that could be the reason why he feels so guilty towards Lyanna's memory and why he sees her crying blood and stuff.

-There's one thing I don't understand: how can Jon be legitimate?

He was born as the result of an affair between a married man and a bethroted woman, and Elia was still alive.

I read about the poligamy theory because the Targs used to do it, but it sounds a bit far-fetched since it doesn't seem to be a possibility in Westeros (nobody else mentions it as a possibility in "modern" era -except creepy Craster, but he's beyond the Wall anyway) and I can't see a Stark happily agree to share her husband/lover with his legitimate wife.

I believe that Rhaegar's intention was to legitimize Jon (hence the presence of the KG) but he didn't have the time to do it (he wasn't there when Jon was born and right after Ned made him disappear). I wonder if he did even know that his son had survived the birth.... so technically Jon would be still a bastard.

The King coult legitimize it so... assuming that Dany will eventually win the throne, I can't really see her saying "oh right, he's the rightful heir since male descendants come before females. Here, let me legitimize you and give you this iron throne..."

I've probably written things that have already been discussed over and over, so forgive me!

[Dragonfish]

-In ASOIAF a couple of times there are people who look a lot like their uncle/aunts. There is Arya who looks like Lyanna, but also Gendry, whom Brienne mistakes for Renly. Could this be a hint?

Maybe, though it is said that Renly looks like a young Robert, which would explain why Gendry looks like him even though he's not his son. Of course, by the same token, we can point to the fact that Arya is said to look like Lyanna as well as Jon, which is likely a hint that Jon also looks like Lyanna.

-Ned feels extremely guilty about whatever promise he had made to Lyanna. If the promise is that he should keep Jon safe and hidden, why does he feel so guilty all the time? I mean, he did it.

Well, he is still lying to his family and his king, the latter of which constitutes treason. This would of course be a source of shame for someone as rigidly honorable as Ned. Now, Ned does recall something about "broken promises" during a fever dream, but it's not clear if he is thinking of his promises to Lyanna, or something else. And in contrast to this quote, we do have Ned saying directly to himself that he paid a price to keep his promises to Lyanna.

-There's one thing I don't understand: how can Jon be legitimate?

He was born as the result of an affair between a married man and a bethroted woman, and Elia was still alive.

I read about the poligamy theory because the Targs used to do it, but it sounds a bit far-fetched since it doesn't seem to be a possibility in Westeros (nobody else mentions it as a possibility in "modern" era -except creepy Craster, but he's beyond the Wall anyway) and I can't see a Stark happily agree to share her husband/lover with his legitimate wife.

Just because polygamy has fallen into disuse doesn't mean it's illegal or prohibited, at least for the Targaryens. I have no doubt that if Rhaegar decided he needed to marry Lyanna, he would have done so. He obviously didn't worry about what the rest of Westeros thought when he ran off with her in the first place, after all.

Now, it's still an open question whether or not Lyanna would have accepted the arrangement. Personally, I see no reason why she would have objected. You mention she would have trouble "sharing" Rhaegar with Elia, but I don't think there would have been any sharing going on at all. Rhaegar and Elia's marriage was purely political, and was arranged solely for the purpose of producing heirs. In addition, there doesn't appear to have been any love between them, only a certain "fondness." So, since Elia could no longer produce any heirs, it stands to reason that Rhaegar would no longer have to "lie" with her, something which she may not have necessarily minded. Under this arrangement, Elia would still legally be Rhaegar's wife, but Lyanna would be his only de fact wife, thus avoiding the need for any "sharing."

I believe that Rhaegar's intention was to legitimize Jon (hence the presence of the KG) but he didn't have the time to do it (he wasn't there when Jon was born and right after Ned made him disappear). I wonder if he did even know that his son had survived the birth.... so technically Jon would be still a bastard.

Here's the main issue with this: why were the Kingsguard still at the Tower of Joy after the Sack, when it would have been their duty to protect Viserys?

[Natalie_S]

The KG can also protect the king's family, as long as at least one of them is protecting the king.

Joffrey is protected by The Hound, but not by all the KG at all times.

I think that Rhaegar considered Lyanna family, but the point is, did Aerys have the time to legitimize Jon?

If so, how can it be proven? Is there a written document? Does he actually have a claim against Daenerys?

I know it's burocratical, but I guess it could be important.

PS: This assuming that Rhaegar wasn't married to Lyanna.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The KG can also protect the king's family, as long as at least one of them is protecting the king.

Joffrey is protected by The Hound, but not by all the KG at all times.

I think that Rhaegar considered Lyanna family, but the point is, did Aerys have the time to legitimize Jon?

If so, how can it be proven? Is there a written document? Does he actually have a claim against Daenerys?

I know it's burocratical, but I guess it could be important.

Aerys was likely dead by the time Jon was born. He wouldn't have legitimized him. But that doesn't matter in my opinion, because Jon is the result of a polygamous marriage. It's clear in several respects — the three-headed dragon, how he named his first two children — that Rhaegar was in some ways emulating the original three Targaryen conquerors. They practiced polygamy.

Your first sentence is the most important one — at least one of them has to be protecting the king at all times. And if Jon isn't legitimate, and Rhaegar, Aegon and Aerys are dead, Viserys should be the rightful king. Yet none of them, not one, go to him, nor do they show the slightest interest in going to him when Ned confronts them. Curious, isn't it?

I honestly don't know how it can be proven, but I'm sure that it can be. Otherwise, what's the point of it? I'm not convinced that it will have any bearing on the Iron Throne, even though, if it is true, Jon's claim is superior to Dany's (although the Targs are no longer the recognized legal dynasty, so that may be moot).

[Ygrain]

So far, there has been no other explanation to ToJ. When Ned arrives, the current situation constitutes from these facts:

1)Viserys is the king, at Dragonstone

2) All the remaining KG are at ToJ

3) The KG keep their vows

However, these facts are mutually incompatible and at least one of them can't be true. If Viserys is king, the KG can't be, or at least not all of them, at ToJ, or else they are breaking their vows. So, if they are at ToJ AND keeping their vows, which they claim they are, then Viserys can't be king; someone else is, who is currently at ToJ.

Could Aerys have legitimized Jon? Technically, I think Rhaegar would have had the time to arrange that before he went to Trident, but I don't think that happened. First, I think that the seclusion of ToJ was not only to hide from the scandal but also for Lyanna's safety, since Aerys would undoubtedly want to use her against Ned, and if the location was disclosed, his orders would override Rhaegar's and KG would have to obey. Even if Aerys could be made to write such a document, there would be no safe way to deliver it to ToJ (though it could be kept elsewhere).

On the other hand, a polygamous marriage would be an easier way. The Targaryen polygamy was never banned (and neither were their incests), and the northern ritual which does not require the septons would come handy.

[Euphail]

The KG can also protect the king's family, as long as at least one of them is protecting the king.

Joffrey is protected by The Hound, but not by all the KG at all times.

I think that Rhaegar considered Lyanna family, but the point is, did Aerys have the time to legitimize Jon?

If so, how can it be proven? Is there a written document? Does he actually have a claim against Daenerys?

I know it's burocratical, but I guess it could be important.

PS: This assuming that Rhaegar wasn't married to Lyanna.

It's been said many times, but the fact the Kingsguard was there and not with Viserys (and made to attempt to get to him) made the point that Jon was the legitimate king. They would have left otherwise.

As to the burden of proof thing, that will be an interesting read. There's no way to say. Anecdotally, we know that Howland Reed will likely know the truth, and that Bran may see their marriage through a weirwood. Some have speculated that there will be a letter from Rhaegar in Lyanna's tomb, or perhaps his silver harp. But beyond that, I say we have to wait until Martin writes it. he'll find a way.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

On the other hand, a polygamous marriage would be an easier way. The Targaryen polygamy was never banned (and neither were their incests), and the northern ritual which does not require the septons would come handy.

My favorite theory for this is that, using Oswell Whent's help, Rhaegar "stole" Lyanna from Harrenhal some time after the tournament. The Whents had a daughter around her age, and the Whents were eventually going to be Lyanna's in-laws, sort of, when Brandon married Catelyn. Lyanna herself was betrothed to Robert, who was being fostered in the Vale, not terribly far to the northeast. With the southern Riverlands wedding coming up, it makes some sense that Lyanna would have just stayed in the south as a guest, rather than hike all the way back up to Winterfell, only to have to hike all the way back down.

And around Harrenhal, you have both the Isle of Faces (weirwood heaven, and northern marriages can be performed in front of a heart tree) and the Quiet Isle (full of conveniently oath-sworn silent septons who could perform a marriage). You also have traveling Septon Meribald knocking around.

[Drogon's Personal Trainer]

I know you're being lighthearted here, but someone in the Azor Ahai interpretations thread suggested that "the dragon has three heads" could be read as "the dragon has three crowns." Similarly to how "crowns" can mean "heads" in the Maggy the Frog prophecy to Cersei, "heads" might mean "crowns" here. So if Jon has the wildling "crown," the "crown" of the North (through Robb's will) and the "crown" of the South (by being Rhaegar's last legitimate child), well ...

Ooh, I love that one, Apple!!!! It's given me a nice warm glow all over. :D

[Lady Octarina]

I honestly don't know how it can be proven, but I'm sure that it can be. Otherwise, what's the point of it? I'm not convinced that it will have any bearing on the Iron Throne, even though, if it is true, Jon's claim is superior to Dany's (although the Targs are no longer the recognized legal dynasty, so that may be moot).

This makes me wonder... if Jon is truly a legitimate Targ, where does he stand in the Baratheon succession? I know Stannis gave instructions to Massey considering Shireen to be his heir, but we all know the girl won't likely be around for that long, and Robert's children are all bastards. Jon is Stannis' what? Third cousin? Who else is on the line?

You also have traveling Septon Meribald knocking around.

That's an interesting way to make him relevant once more. I really don't remember, does he say he was already roaming through the Riverlands before Robert's Rebellion?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

This makes me wonder... if Jon is truly a legitimate Targ, where does he stand in the Baratheon succession? I know Stannis gave instructions to Massey considering Shireen to be his heir, but we all know the girl won't likely be around for that long, and Robert's children are all bastards. Jon is Stannis' what? Third cousin? Who else is on the line?

The problem with that is, Jon would be a relative on the Targaryen side, not the Baratheon side. So he couldn't make a claim in a Baratheon succession, same way that a Hightower can't make a claim just because a Hightower married a Targaryen eons ago.

That's an interesting way to make him relevant once more. I really don't remember, does he say he was already roaming through the Riverlands before Robert's Rebellion?

You know, I'm not sure. He's been at it for a long time, that's all I really know.

[The guy from the Vale]

The Targaryens aren't part of the Baratheon succesion; it's the other way around. Now if house Baratheon were to die out and Westeros wanted to return to Targaryen rule, Aegon or Dany would be the first to inherit, depending on Aegon being real or not, and Jon being legitimate.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The Targaryens aren't part of the Baratheon succesion; it's the other way around. Now if house Baratheon were to die out and Westeros wanted to return to Targaryen rule, Aegon or Dany would be the first to inherit, depending on Aegon being real or not, and Jon being legitimate.

If Jon is legitimate, he would inherit after Aegon but before Dany.

[etu]

Idle (and possibly unnecessary) thought on a marriage of Rhaegar to Lyanna - but the Daynes are said to be an ancient house. Their name would fit in reasonably well as a First Man surname, even if they've lost all look of it. Is it possible Starfall has a Godswood?

And, if Bran were to know Starfall has a Godswood, and gets curious knowing Jon was briefly there, and decides to have a snoop...

[Lady Octarina]

The problem with that is, Jon would be a relative on the Targaryen side, not the Baratheon side. So he couldn't make a claim in a Baratheon succession, same way that a Hightower can't make a claim just because a Hightower married a Targaryen eons ago.

The Targaryens aren't part of the Baratheon succesion; it's the other way around. Now if house Baratheon were to die out and Westeros wanted to return to Targaryen rule, Aegon or Dany would be the first to inherit, depending on Aegon being real or not, and Jon being legitimate.

I was thinking along the same lines as theguyfromtheVale here. Robert never admitted to have his claim based on right of conquest, choosing instead to justify it based on his Targaryen ancestry, so, technically, the Baratheon dynasty substituted the Targ but depending on it to exist. I don't think it's ever stated if they had any male cousin on the Baratheon side who's still alive. Going with the hypothesis that there isn't, and that Stannis doesn't legitimize Edric Storm, wouldn't that put Jon as the first in line also in the Baratheon succession? (I'm considering Aegon to be fake here, and Jon legitimate. Daenerys doesn't matter, because it seems that from any angle he would still come before her),