R+L=J v.25

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

Whoever said that the Stark's and Targ's weren't friends since the Age of Heros- the Age of Heros took place a long, long time before Aegon the Conquerer was even born.

The Stark's throughout time, may have had problems with those in the South, way before the Targ's came to Westeros, because those in the South were Andals and destroyed Weirwoods, First Men and the CoF. I think.

[ICE & FIRE bender]

The idea of Robb possibly making him a prince occurred to me too, but then I figured that in order for the prophecy to be correct Jon needed to be a prince through his Targaryen side. I also considered the idea that he was born a king, and not a prince, but I figured the term may be interchangeable. It's good to know that you feel the same, and I wasn't convincing myself that it was okay to keep my theory in tact. :)

Unless Aegon is real. :o

[ICE & FIRE bender]

The idea of Robb possibly making him a prince occurred to me too, but then I figured that in order for the prophecy to be correct Jon needed to be a prince through his Targaryen side. I also considered the idea that he was born a king, and not a prince, but I figured the term may be interchangeable. It's good to know that you feel the same, and I wasn't convincing myself that it was okay to keep my theory in tact. :)

Unless Aegon is real. :o

Isn't it there was a hint in ACOK about Jon Snow being a King?....."King" croaked the raven. "King" it says again. "He likes the word" Jon said, smiling. "I think he means for you to have the crown my lord." "The realm has three kings already......Mormont stroked the raven under the beak with a finger, BUT ALL THE WHILE HIS EYES NEVER LEFT JON SNOW.

[sagaz]

Whoever said that the Stark's and Targ's weren't friends since the Age of Heros- the Age of Heros took place a long, long time before Aegon the Conquerer was even born.

The Stark's throughout time, may have had problems with those in the South, way before the Targ's came to Westeros, because those in the South were Andals and destroyed Weirwoods, First Men and the CoF. I think.

Yes, you're right. I had all mixed up when posting...

[Alia of the knife]

Well, it's the word "right" that gets tricky here, I think. They had a duty to submit to their king's justice. Whether they agreed with anything the Targaryens did, Aerys or Rhaegar, is beside the point if one is talking about the duty one has to fulfill the oath of a vassal to one's king. I totally agree that fighting back against a mad king's "justice" is the "right" thing to do, but it isn't within the "rights" of the Starks to do so. From Aerys's view, they are oath breakers and traitors to the crown, whether or not they actually plotted against Targaryen rule before Lyanna is kidnapped - which I think they did. The problem is, it seems to me, that while Aerys is crazy, and gets crazier, he is "right" in suspecting the Starks of treason, and he has the "right" to brutally stamp out those who rebel against their oaths to the crown. The High Lords - Starks, Arryns, Tullys, and Baratheons - have the real chance of getting rid of a dynasty imposed on them through bloody war and conquest enabled by dragons who now are only the stuff of legend. It is easy to understand rebellion and breaking of one's oath to this king and his dynasty in the circumstances as they existed prior to Lyanna's "abduction." It may even be morally right to rebel. It certainly isn't legally right for them to do so under the system they have pledged their lives to uphold.

None of this really changes once Lyanna disappears with Rhaegar, or even after Aerys brutally murders Rickard and Brandon and calls for Ned's and Robert's heads. Aerys has the "right" to do all this. Ned would have been as crazy as Aerys to submit himself to the block and accept the King's justice - his oath be damned. It was his duty, however to do so. That's part of the complexity of the story Martin writes for us.

There is plenty to suggest it. Rickard's "southern ambitions" as laid out by Lady D, and Ser Barristan's remarks about the days before the Harrenhal tourney certainly can be read in that way. In fact, I think the author is pointing us to that conclusion, imho. One can differ on this question, of course, but I see no reason to dismiss the argument as without any foundation.

Certainly something to keep in mind when trying to decipher the motives of all the High Lords in this period, not just the Starks.

I was agreeing with everything up to "... but it doesn't mean ...". Of course it means the Starks are interfering with Aerys. If Rickard is plotting to overthrow Targaryen rule, he is doing so by making alliances to other Great Houses in order to win them to his side when he rebels. Rickard isn't fool enough to think he can win a war against the united power of the Targaryens AND all of the other Great Houses, no matter the size of the North. That's just suicide. He also isn't fool enough to believe that he can just declare the North's independence and expect the Targaryens and their allies to leave them alone.

We know Lady D viewed Brandon's upcoming wedding to Catelyn as part of Rickard's "southern ambitions." How then can we think his betrothal of his daughter to House Baratheon, and his fostering of his second son with House Arryn are some how exempt from these plans? I would also add the attempted match of Jaime to Lysa as part of this as well. It seems clear to me that the Starks are setting up a bloc of alliances that challenge Targaryen rule. Certainly Aerys thinks so. I find it hard to believe the Starks are somehow unaware of what their marriage alliances mean in terms of the balance of power, or they are doing all of this without a clue of what their actions mean to the Targaryens. What isn't clear is exactly what they plan to do once they get rid of Aerys. Put Rhaegar on the throne? Very unlikely. Set up a new dynasty to rule Westeros? Or to go back to to political structures prior to the Targaryen conquest? I agree with you that the latter is much more likely because I don't see all of the Great Houses involved "just" agreeing to turn over their fealty to a new king. In order to risk everything I think they'd need something other than the pledge of a new Stark, or Baratheon, overlord to be a better king than the Targaryens. I'd argue that the realities of the war that follows force them in that direction, but it wasn't part of Rickard's original plot. The fact that Martin tells us that it isn't decided by the rebels until around the time of the Trident that Robert will become King tends to support this view, imo.

It reads more like rage to me, but, sure, all of this is possible, even if some of it seems unlikely to me.

I don't disagree with any of your arguements from a strictly, Medevalist POV, (I suppose thats my modern POV sneaking into the issues of what "rights" are), but again, I would also say that a King didn't rule without the complete understanding that at least a sane King had to observe certain boundries if he expected his own people to do the same with one another.

From an appearance POV, Rhaegar doing what he did tentatively gave the "red light" for othe Lords to perhaps do the same thing regarding a particular woman they may have wanted.

You hear it in Cersei's POV regarding her and Jaimies incest- if it was good enough for the Targs;, it's good enough for us.

I would also go another step from a historical POV regarding the very harsh reality of Lyanna and her family.

In real history, had Lyanna been returned, whether she was willing or not, whether they loved her or not, Lyanna may have had to join a nunnery, OR even more harsh, her Father and Brothers may have actually had to execute her, PARTICULARLY if she ran away, (if she was kidnapped and raped, then as said, she might get to go to nunnery, or perhaps married off to a desperate bannerman), however, if she ran away, for Rickard, Brandon, Ned or even Benjen to be expected to "lead" the North, they would have to be able to control members of their Household.

A man who could not control the behaviors of what would be considered the least of his Household, could not be expected to be strong enough to control or hold vast territories, or the allegience of the people, which the Boltens might have been happy to point out.

At the least, had she come home, or been returned, she may have been imprisoned, so in some ways, no matter what happened to her, her only path in the end would be to stay, or die with Rhaegar depending upon an alternative outcome, (say had they found Lyanna and Rhaegar at the TOJ)

Yes, that's the idea. I don't think the story would have to follow the Lancelot legend exactly, I mean, of course ASoIaF is full of references to the classic stories, but it rarely emulates them with such precision. But yes, I have seen various suggestions that Lyanna was romantically involved with Arthur after Rhaegar went back to KL, which I find pretty unnerving, tbh - I mean, why do we keep going back to the idea that a Dayne and a Stark had a romantic or sexual relationship? lol

It has been too long since I read ADWD - to what exactly are you referring to when you mention Barristan's thoughts on Rhaegar and Dayne at Harrenhall?

Yes, the idea that Rhaegar ordered her execution seems to be the most popular one after death in childbirth, but, of course, that seems to be Robert's version of what happened. Tbh, I really think this would fit more with Robert's behavior than what we know of Rhaegar's - even if we choose not to trust that he was the perfect prince and actually kidnapped Lyanna to fulfill a prophecy, I don't see why he would have her killed anyway, since in that case he would only be interested in their child, and who better to raise the child to become the savior of mankind or whatever than the kid's mother?

But I agree with you, childbirth is much more likely - though that doesn't mean we have to stick to that theory unchanged for other five or ten years. :cool4:

(Love your observations on so many different concepts, but I always get them on my phone at work, so I can't reply). :)

Anyway, a couple of thoughts and clarifications.

On Lancelot and Guineviere, in this I think Arthur was still pure in what he believed about honor and KG, with the one step-out on perhaps siding with Rhaegar rather than staying with Aerys.

I think Arthur would NOT have acted on any feelings about Lyanna he may have been theorized to have, and would would not have betrayed Rhaegar, even when dead.

But, he may have fought to the death for her not knowing what Lyannas fate might be even at the hands of her family, and of course, there's Jon.

But, Whent is an unknown, and may not have been that stalwart in his vows.

As much as the KG meant to Jaimie, he still broke his vows for Cersei, and the same for Renly and Loras.

And I suppose if we were looking at "suspects," if the theory of Lyanna staying with the Whents as guest, (she may have been there even before the Tourney), Whent would have "access" and perhaps longer to nurse a crush.

(I assume that even KG got to go home from time-to-time to visit with family- like being on leave).

It would be ironic if it was Whent who was to Lyanna/Rhaegar what LF was to Cat/Brandon/Ned, and may have betrayed Rhaegar in some manner out of jealousy.

In terms of Selmy and playing GOT, it's when Dany I think has gone missing, and he's trying to hold things together, that he is lamenting, in other words, "he didn't sign up for this."

KG serve and follow orders, they don't have opinions, judgements, etc, and they don't play politics.

And his memories of Daynes role at Harrenhal led him down to that thought process, and seems critical of Daynes part in that.

Rhaegar could do what he wanted, but had he been there, he would have tried to reign Dayne in perhaps,

Thats may take anyway.

On the theory Rhaegar may have ordered Lyanna slain in the event of his death.

We always think love is a 100% positive force, but many times it depends upon the prism of the nature of the person in love.

If Rhaegar did have some issues, (and I do think this is also probable), then the way he loved may have been totally, fatally, and completely possessive, as I don' think he was completey good, or completely bad.

If he was willing to do what he did to get her, and impregnate her, I don't see him then willing in life, or death see her sent to another mans bed, whether it's Roberts, or some desperate bannerman in need of a wife, even a "soiled" one.

He doesn't strike me as someone who might subscribe to the old saying: "if you love something set it free, if it comes back to you it's yours, if not, it was never meant to be" - thats Ned.

But, I suppose thats me suspecting an underlying darkness in Rhaegars nature that doesn't have to make him a wholly terrible person- just flawed in a way that he couldn't see past the shadows in his life as it seems he always sought them out.

As for her caring for their son, I don't think that was ever even a possibility unless he lived.

For all her strength, it's unlikely she'd survive as a single Mother in the free cities, and the KG couldn't really help, so Rhaegar may have had other alternative plans for their child that may NOT have included any of Lyannas family.

But, as I said, I'm still going with childbirth being the most probable killer of Lyanna.

.

[Lady Octarina]

Isn't it there was a hint in ACOK about Jon Snow being a King?....."King" croaked the raven. "King" it says again. "He likes the word" Jon said, smiling. "I think he means for you to have the crown my lord." "The realm has three kings already......Mormont stroked the raven under the beak with a finger, BUT ALL THE WHILE HIS EYES NEVER LEFT JON SNOW.

That's something I've always thought about: could Mormont know, or imagine, who Jon Snow truly was? He was preparing the boy to substitute him (in the long run) in command, for goodness sake! I'm sure there had been other highborn members of the Watch who showed potential and yet he never took under his wing in that manner. Why Jon? And moments like the one you mentioned seem to corroborate the idea. I mean, Jorah seemed to have had some contact with Rhaegar, so why not his father as well? I'm not saying Jeor knew for sure, just that he might have felt something was off.

On the theory Rhaegar may have ordered Lyanna slain in the event of his death.

We always think love is a 100% positive force, but many times it depends upon the prism of the nature of the person in love.

If Rhaegar did have some issues, (and I do think this is also probable), then the way he loved may have been totally, fatally, and completely poccessive, as I don' think he was completey good, or completely bad.

If he was willing to do what he did to get her, and impregnate her, I don't see him then willing in life, or death see her sent to another mans bed, whether it's Roberts, or some desperate bannerman in need of a wife, even a "soiled" one.

He doesn't strike me as someone who might subscribe to the old saying: "if you love something set it free, if it comes back to you it's yours, if not, it was never meant to be" - thats Ned.

But, I suppose thats me suspecting an underlying darkness in Rhaegars nature that doesn't have to make him a wholly terrible person- just flawed in a way that he couldn't see past the shadows in his life as it seems he always sought them out.

As for her caring for their son, I don't think that was ever even a possibility unless he lived.

For all her strength, it's unlikely she'd survive as a single Mother in the free cities, and the KG couldn't really help, so Rhaegar may have had other alternative plans for their child that may NOT have included any of Lyannas family.

But, as I said, I'm still going with childbirth being the most probable killer of Lyanna.

.

I agree there was something darker to Rhaegar than we normally see, but I still think it had something to do with prophecies (namely the indications that he was guided by them, maybe even those dreams some Targaryens seemed to have), and I don't think there would be any prophecy suggesting Lyanna should have to die, so he wouldn't have her killed. Rhaegar doesn't strike me as a cruel character, just a particular type of Targ-crazy. To make things clearer, Rhaegar reminds me more of Daeron the Drunk than Aerion Brightflame.

[Teal'c]

Lady O: Perhaps Jeor was simply acquainted with how astute the bird is, from past experience.

[Faint]

Alfie Allen's comments on the subject (a.k.a. Theon Greyjoy):

What did you ask him about in return?

You know, I asked him about who Jon Snow's real parents were, and he told me. I can't say who, but I can tell you that it involves a bit of a Luke Skywalker situation. It will all come to fruition eventually. The whole thing with all the fight over proper succession is partly inspired by the War of the Roses in the late 1400s, and back then, to ensure pedigree, the monarchies were kind of inbred. It's definitely fucked up, but it definitely happened back then, so that's why there's incest with the Targaryen line. It's toned down, though.

Notice how he brings up the Targaryens out of nowhere and the issue of succession?

The evidence just keeps piling on and piling on and . . .

EDIT: The quote comes from New York Magazine.

[TheLastHero]

Dragon riders = Tyrion = Viserion = It is mentioned at the beginning and throughout the series that Tyrion has a love and want for

a dragon

Aegon = Rhaegal = Is a Targ and the dragon is named after his father

Daenarys=Drogo = Cos she is definitely gonna ride one cos there hers and drogo was her husband

Jon may be Rhaegar and Lyanna's but he is probably Azor Ahai whilst Dany is The Prince Who was Promised. Jon is more northern and he already has a wolf there is no foreshadowing or hint he will get one.

[Sasha Steelsong]

I doubt, very seriously, that Lord Rickard would want to marry Lyanna to Rhaegar. I doubt the Starks had any type of political ambition, but I guess it could be possible. Lyanna marrying Robert was not a stretch considering his ties to the Stark family, so his Targaryen descent most likely had nothing to do with the decision. I also don't see Lord Rickard going along with the abduction plot, or maybe I'm just a Stark loyalist.

:agree: , as shown in my post a few pages back. The magic had disappeared on both sides, and their reasons for giving one another space had probably been forgotten for a while.

What connection between house Baratheon and House Stark? Seriously, aside from Ned and Robert becoming friends as a result of them both spending time as wards of Lord Arryn I'm not really aware of any long history of between the two houses. For the most part the North seemed to stay well out of events south of the neck, for all the houses.

I'm also not talking about why in the past the Targs and the Starks may have not mingled. It is quite possible that warging had something to do with the distance in the past (though frankly it would only serve as a reason for the Targs to keep their distance from the Starks not the other way around as one would think that if they could warg a dragon they'd want to be close to try) but I agree that whatever the old reasons reasons were by Rickard's time they had been forgotten.

Which is why if Rickard did have southern ambitions (and we really don't know the scope of those, it could have been to overthrow the Targs, it could have just been to get more power over Westeros in general, it could have just been something that Lady Dustin heard and liked because it explained why she couldn't marry any of the Stark boys), he may have come around to supporting a Targ/Stark alliance as a way to acheive them. Nothing suggests he plotted quite like the Boleyns but if he became aware of feelings between Rhaegar and Lyanna, it is possible he used those to further his own southern ambitions. If his desire is to overthrow the Targs, having a half-Targ child as an achor for a claim wouldn't be all that bad, and said child also enhances connections with the south if that is just the ambition. Either way I don't think we can say definitively that Rickard would have been against Lyanna and Rhaegar since we don't know what his southern ambitions were. Nor can we say definitely that he didn't know about Rhaegar and Lyanna since Rickard could have been told and it would change nothing because it was Brandon who went to KL and regardless of what Rickard knew he still had to deal with the situtation in KL.

[Buried Treasure]

That's something I've always thought about: could Mormont know, or imagine, who Jon Snow truly was? He was preparing the boy to substitute him (in the long run) in command, for goodness sake! I'm sure there had been other highborn members of the Watch who showed potential and yet he never took under his wing in that manner. Why Jon? And moments like the one you mentioned seem to corroborate the idea. I mean, Jorah seemed to have had some contact with Rhaegar, so why not his father as well? I'm not saying Jeor knew for sure, just that he might have felt something was off.

I've never seen the merit in this argument. Jon swore oaths to the Nights Watch so how can Mormont be grooming him for anything but command in the Nights Watch? There are not many highborn or castlebred youngsters in the Watch at all, several months before Jon there was Waymar Royce and after him was Sam and that seems to be it for the current crop. Perhaps there were a few from mid-rank houses in the previous years that were unnamed officers lost on the great ranging, but if there were they must have finished their phase of squiring for Mormont years before. Mormonts treatment seems natural for a younster with obvious potential but who is too green for even a small command (as Royce was given soon after he arrived at the Wall).

[queenofthewatch]

So was the story that the lord of white harbor told davos just something to boast about or the truth. i just finished dwd and i still have more questions than answers but im leaning on the r+l=j theory

[Budj]

Isn't it there was a hint in ACOK about Jon Snow being a King?....."King" croaked the raven. "King" it says again. "He likes the word" Jon said, smiling. "I think he means for you to have the crown my lord." "The realm has three kings already......Mormont stroked the raven under the beak with a finger, BUT ALL THE WHILE HIS EYES NEVER LEFT JON SNOW.

I love that part...and I think it is pretty significant foreshadowing to future revelations....and I'm not sure if one of the follow up commenters thought the capitalized "his" was referring to LC Mormont or not...but I think that "his" refers to the ravens eyes not leaving Jon Snow...not Mormont's...the way I read the response makes me think they took it as Mormont suspected when I think Mormont is oblivious.

[Dragonfish]

So was the story that the lord of white harbor told davos just something to boast about or the truth. i just finished dwd and i still have more questions than answers but im leaning on the r+l=j theory

I don't think it's a boast, I think it's just a rumor that Lord Godric (who is lord of Sweetsister, IIRC, not White Harbor) passed along. It is most certainly false, for one simple reason: according to the story, Ned fathered Jon early on in the war, before he married Catelyn; yet Ned himself tells Robert that he fathered Jon after he married Catelyn. It's possible Ned is lying (and indeed, he most likely is, if R+L=J is true), but he really has no reason to if Jon's mother really was just a random fisherman's daughter, as Lord Godric would have it. However, it makes far more sense for Ned to lie if Jon is really Rhaegar's son.

[oakenhelm]

That's something I've always thought about: could Mormont know, or imagine, who Jon Snow truly was? He was preparing the boy to substitute him (in the long run) in command, for goodness sake! I'm sure there had been other highborn members of the Watch who showed potential and yet he never took under his wing in that manner. Why Jon? And moments like the one you mentioned seem to corroborate the idea. I mean, Jorah seemed to have had some contact with Rhaegar, so why not his father as well? I'm not saying Jeor knew for sure, just that he might have felt something was off.

It is interesting. I;m sure someone has guessed at this before, but if Jon is to be king, maybe it isn't the Iron Throne he sits on or even Winterfell that he becomes king over. maybe he becomes king of the Wall and beyond, or somehting like it.

[Alia of the knife]

That's something I've always thought about: could Mormont know, or imagine, who Jon Snow truly was? He was preparing the boy to substitute him (in the long run) in command, for goodness sake! I'm sure there had been other highborn members of the Watch who showed potential and yet he never took under his wing in that manner. Why Jon? And moments like the one you mentioned seem to corroborate the idea. I mean, Jorah seemed to have had some contact with Rhaegar, so why not his father as well? I'm not saying Jeor knew for sure, just that he might have felt something was off.

I agree there was something darker to Rhaegar than we normally see, but I still think it had something to do with prophecies (namely the indications that he was guided by them, maybe even those dreams some Targaryens seemed to have), and I don't think there would be any prophecy suggesting Lyanna should have to die, so he wouldn't have her killed. Rhaegar doesn't strike me as a cruel character, just a particular type of Targ-crazy. To make things clearer, Rhaegar reminds me more of Daeron the Drunk than Aerion Brightflame.

Oh, I totally agree that he is nothing like Aerion, Viserys, or any of the bad Targs., just tragic.

In that theory, definitely Rhaegar would be more of a gothic figure who might see the world as a lesser place for Lyanna to be.

Do we know what the death traditions of the Targs. were?

Do we know of any of the Targ. Queens surviving their Husbands as Dowagers, or might they have gone with them, leaving the Crown Prince to become King?

Anyway, these are far and away totally different concepts to speculate on, but fun nonetheless. :)

[nothatso]

Alfie Allen's comments on the subject (a.k.a. Theon Greyjoy):

Notice how he brings up the Targaryens out of nowhere and the issue of succession?

The evidence just keeps piling on and piling on and . . .

EDIT: The quote comes from New York Magazine.

It can be found here.

On one hand the mention of Targaryens and royal succession seems telling, on the other the "Luke Skywalker" thing is... confusing.

Of course this is Alfie "smoke pot erry day" Allen, if his sister's song is to be believed :P

[Faint]

The very fact that he even brings up the Targaryens at all, and then goes into the succession, it seems like a total give-away to me. His reference to Luke Skywalker can be taken to mean that the revelation will be shocking -- which, in itself, is more evidence that Ned is not Jon's father.

I mean . . .

Howland Reed: Jon . . . Ned Stark is your father.

Yeah, that's not creating any tidal waves.

[Alia of the knife]

What connection between house Baratheon and House Stark? Seriously, aside from Ned and Robert becoming friends as a result of them both spending time as wards of Lord Arryn I'm not really aware of any long history of between the two houses. For the most part the North seemed to stay well out of events south of the neck, for all the houses.

I'm also not talking about why in the past the Targs and the Starks may have not mingled. It is quite possible that warging had something to do with the distance in the past (though frankly it would only serve as a reason for the Targs to keep their distance from the Starks not the other way around as one would think that if they could warg a dragon they'd want to be close to try) but I agree that whatever the old reasons reasons were by Rickard's time they had been forgotten.

Which is why if Rickard did have southern ambitions (and we really don't know the scope of those, it could have been to overthrow the Targs, it could have just been to get more power over Westeros in general, it could have just been something that Lady Dustin heard and liked because it explained why she couldn't marry any of the Stark boys), he may have come around to supporting a Targ/Stark alliance as a way to acheive them. Nothing suggests he plotted quite like the Boleyns but if he became aware of feelings between Rhaegar and Lyanna, it is possible he used those to further his own southern ambitions. If his desire is to overthrow the Targs, having a half-Targ child as an achor for a claim wouldn't be all that bad, and said child also enhances connections with the south if that is just the ambition. Either way I don't think we can say definitively that Rickard would have been against Lyanna and Rhaegar since we don't know what his southern ambitions were. Nor can we say definitely that he didn't know about Rhaegar and Lyanna since Rickard could have been told and it would change nothing because it was Brandon who went to KL and regardless of what Rickard knew he still had to deal with the situtation in KL.

I've always felt that the Targs. were somewhat "spooked" by the Starks and stayed out of their way.

Maybe when Aegon the Conquerer arrived, "something" happened that made the Targs. aware that the Starks had their own brand of magic, and wanted to keep their dragons out of their reach, because they might take control of them.

Absent sorcery, and the hope the dragons would be awakened, perhaps Rhaegar figured for himself that fusing the bloodlines of Targs. and Wargs/Starks, would enable them to have a shortcut, no matter what the Starks were aware of themselves about their past.

To the degree that Lyanna herself had any warging abilities, within her bloodline lay the ability- it also didn't hurt that she was beautiful and he was in love with her.

[Alia of the knife]

The very fact that he even brings up the Targaryens at all, and then goes into the succession, it seems like a total give-away to me. His reference to Luke Skywalker can be taken to mean that the revelation will be shocking -- which, in itself, is more evidence that Ned is not Jon's father.

I mean . . .

Howland Reed: Jon . . . Ned Stark is your father.

Yeah, that's not creating any tidal waves.

I always knew there were twins- and Meera is Jons sister, not Jojens.

Did Reed have time to father a daughter the same age as Jon?

(I say that jokingly, but only half).