Jump to content

R+L=J v 37


Stubby

Recommended Posts

That must be how Robb worded it, that he legitimized Jon as a true born Stark, and named him to succeed him until Bran or Rickon came of age. (This is really a guess, don't add it to the app!)

Robb thought they were dead, and named Jon so that neither Sansa nor Arya could be used as a pawn to steal the North. IF Jon is named, it is as King, and cuts out the other Stark Children.

I bet GRRM proves us all wrong and it's Ned + some fishmonger woman ala DwD = Jon Snow.

What is that? Your third completely different theory in 4 days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice that she doesn't actually confirm or deny the theory. She simply asks if people think George would do something so basic, thereby planting the idea in people's heads that she's denying the theory without actually denying it. It's a classic maneuver for avoiding the issue without seeming to avoid it.

I agree that she neither denies nor confirms the theory but clearly characterizes it as basic idea, kind of a negative term (like anticipated).

Would she use this term to characterize it if it actually proves to be Martin’s original concept? Not that I take the reply as a huge hint, I simply wonder….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parris reaction to a R+L=J question has also been discussed in the first R+L=J thread (it´s the post from Werthead) the discussion goes on at the next page

Just thaught that some of you are maybe interested in this.

I´ve read all R+L=J threads since v. 29 (since I joined this forum), but I also want to read the old ones, some of them point out really interesting stuff. Their is for example a good analysis of R+L=J in the first thread. But it will take years before I´ve finished going through all these threads, because I don´t have much time :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parris reaction to a R+L=J question has also been discussed in the first R+L=J thread (it´s the post from Werthead) http://asoiaf.wester...d/page__st__40. the discussion goes on at the next page

Just thaught that some of you are maybe interested in this.

I´ve read all R+L=J threads since v. 29 (since I joined this forum), but I also want to read the old ones, some of them point out really interesting stuff. Their is for example a good analysis of R+L=J in the first thread. But it will take years before I´ve finished going through all these threads, because I don´t have much time :(

You are brave enough to even try it. Good luck! :bowdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just came across this reading through some So Spake Martin:

(7) TREBLA COMMENT OF R&L THEORY TO PARRIS: Trebla proceeded to talk about the R&L theory and how he believes it, hoping for a tidbit.

HER REPLY (paraphrasing): Do you really think George would do something so basic as Jon being the son of R&L? *Trebla's jaw dropping open*

It would be nice if this So Spake Martin was more than just a bit of paraphrasing. We don't know what "Trebla's" question was exactly or exactly what Parris's answer was. For all we know, "Trebla" may not have outright asked if Jon's parents are R&L and could have asked if Jon being the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna means that he will sit the Iron Throne and Parris was responding to that. In essence, all we really learn from this is that Parris neither confirmed nor denied whatever it was that "Trebla" was asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read somewhere that when the idea of making the HBO show popped up, GRRM asked the showrunners who they think Jon's mother is. It was a test to find out how much they care about the slightest hints and did they ever tried to work out small mysteries within the books. So they answerd what they thought was true, and they got the permission to make the show. Obviously, in this interview they never told us who they named as Jon's mother - but it means that it can definitely be worked out from hints. I don't think it was Wylla or Ashara, as both of them are named by someone as Jon's mother. It just has to be Lyanna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What some people call basic or cliché I define archetype. What they call fairytale I'd rather call mythology.

I don't think Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides' tragedies can be disgarded as cliché. Nor the immortal legacy of the Greek-Roman 'mythverse'. They represents the very base of the Western thought both philosophical and psychological. Their characters survives the tide of time and change because they are... well, archetypal. Powerfully symbolic.

For a 'Classics aware' reader it's all there. As I have already pointed out, ASOIAF, once divested of its fantasy/medieval setup, has got a classical core. Paris, Oedipus, Theseus, Aeneas, Romolus and Remus are all fate-bound (anti)heroes with highborn/prophecy-haunted/secret ancestry and an inescapable burden to carry on: their own destiny.

Does it ring any bells? There's nothing fairytale-ish in Jon's undisclosed ancestry, in the long shadow of his legacy, in the reluctant acceptance of the burden of his fate. It's called Tragedy (emphasis on capital T). It's called Myth.

It's usually a tormented, multi-layered, complex character that defies time. Because he/she has a story to tell, a routine to break, a dream to gift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I should have. I understood what you said and agreed with you and the "Think about, makes sense" was directed to nonbelievers, I was just expanding on your point :)

:cheers:

It's kind of a double standart. Take the Blackfyre rebellion for example. They are part Targs (even more Targs than Robert) but if they had won, the next Blackfyre would have been heir, not any Targ or half-Targ that ever pops up. The Robert is part Targ I've always interpreted more that he is not a nobody and a self-proclaimed king than anything.

Also there is the point that Ned was utterly appaled with Tywin killing Elia and the kids, and of course, Dany and Vyseris, and there was a debate whether they should be killed, so it doesn't mean that all Targs shoud be eradicated. Robert would have done it out of hatred, but after winning the throne and the support of the most part of the realm, the Targ thing in Robert's blood was a secondary thing. That's how I've always viewed it.

Me too.

There are certainly plenty of scenarios that could play out that would put Jon in contention for the throne, assuming he gets out of the NW vows. Lets say, Jon is not dead but held captive by the userpers who stabbed him and siezed his power. They don't kill him for whatever reason, Melisandrem Queensmen, not upsetting other NW members etc.

100 Northern men arrive behind a Mormont van carrying Robb's will and trade Jon for 100 men Robb said he would give to release Jon from his vows. They go for it and release Jon to Robb's men and he is installed as King of the North.

At the same time, Aegon takes Kingslanding and maybe takes a wound. As he is concerned for his new Kingdown, and has no heirs, JonCon tells him he does have an heir. You see Rheagar confided in him that Lyann was pregnant, and JonCon puts it all togther. Aegon, you have a half brother, named after me, he was raised the bastard of Winterfell, but rose to LC of the NW.

Aegon thinks this is a good plausible heir, since Dany has yet to show up and names Jon Snow his heir.

Maybe thats the point of Aegon and JonCon, to win the throne for Jon.

I don’t think they would have such a big trouble just to put Jon in the IT (which I hope will never happen), nah, no way. I also don’t think that Connington knew about Jon, the only ones that knew it were the 3 KG, Lyanna, Rhaegar, Ned and his men, which only Howland Reed remains.

I don’t think Aegon is the real Aegon but I believe the ones involved in the scheme may do.

I have my doubts about your theory.

Do you believe that Aegon is real?

I think he is fake, but if he is real Aegon has the better claim to the IT, because he is older than Jon why should he step aside for Jon? He has made it pretty clear that he wants to rule the 7 Kingdoms so i doubt that he would step aside for his younger half brother.

I don´t know how much Jon Con knows, but Aegon definitly thinks that he´s Rhaegar´s son. He´s Varys and Illyrio´s puppet do you think they just use him to put Jon on the IT? I don´t I think the realvation of Jon beeing a Targ has the potential to mess up their plans.

I agree. I think that the point of Jon being a Targaryen has nothing to do with the IT politics. It’s more of a mystical point to me, Jon fighting the Others for example. And I also think that the fight for the throne isn’t the books’ key point.

But then Jon wouldn’t need to be a legit Targaryen to do so, which leads me to a question: why would it matter so much for Jon to not be a bastard? My view on this is his comfort to know who his parents were and that he is not a bastard, a thing that always hunted him. I know this is part of his character but I also feel that this was sort of annoying to him, his half-siblings cousins loved him (at least Arya, Robb and Bran did) but he hardly felt very comfortable. I don’t know if this is the point of not but that’s just how I see it. His parentage is something that he always looked for so it would be a closure for him, plus the fact that being a Rhaegar’s bastard wouldn’t make it any easier: he is used to be Ned’s bastard and that was painful enough so let alone knowing he’s someone else’s bastard.

This might be compltely wrong but... when Robb made Jon his heir as the King of the North, wouldn't that legitimize Jon?

As a Stark I think.

Stannis offered the same and he didn’t accept it. I don’t think Jon wants to be legitimized to be used as a ‘political weapon’. (erh, this sounds a bit strange, doesn’t it?)

Gawd, I can't agree more! Daenerys has completely screwed the pooch, but GRRM hid it so well, when she rules. She is shallow and naive. Jon is the true leader of the two.

:agree:

Well, yes and no. I like the screenplay's HotU visions. Not canon, but I think they mean something in particular. Daenerys enters the throne room, which is in ruins and snow is coming in. She approaches the Iron Throne and sees the snow on it, and reaches but does not disturb the snow sitting on it.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Can the snow be Ramsay? (just kidding :P )

I don't take the show as canon, but for the sake of discussion:

I see where you are going with this, but I interpreted that scene differently. Dany approaches the Iron Throne--I feel she will come for the throne eventually, reaches out but does not disturb the snow sitting on it--I feel that scene showed that Dany will never get the throne because there is a bigger threat that will destroy the idea of the Iron Throne, and that threat is 'Winter' and everything that comes with it.

For all we know, Jon may one day sit the Iron Throne, but I would hate to see him in that cesspool of lies and corruption. Unless he can somehow "scour that court clean" as another claimant plans to do.

I prefer this one but just because I don’t want Jon to sit that bloody throne! But if the plot twists and Jon ends up being king I’ll be glad just to see he is alive J (tho I hope he stays alive at The Wall).

Anyway, I think Martin already has the end for the Song done so if he means for Jon to be king, he’ll be. Me liking it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I don't know if this has been already posted here (I joined the forum on the v.36) but I'll share anyway:

Alfie Allen: 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.

http://www.vulture.com/2012/06/game-of-thrones-theon-alfie-allen-interview.html

I'm not a Star Wars fan but Luke was raised by his uncle, wasn't he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I don't know if this has been already posted here (I joined the forum on the v.36) but I'll share anyway:

http://www.vulture.c...-interview.html

I'm not a Star Wars fan but Luke was raised by his uncle, wasn't he?

Yes the Alfie Allen quote has been discussed multiple times.

Yes Luke was raised by his uncle (did not see that similairity between Jon and Luke until you pointed it out). I allways looked on the Luke/Darth Vader Jon/Rhaegar situation. Both hate their fathers, don´t knwo that they are their fathers and think their fathers are bad guys).

:agree:

Shame we dont´t have a strongly disagree smiley in this forum.

:fencing: Dany has the potential to be a great queen and I hope she will win the IT, but that´s a discussion for another thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people keep saying Jon wouldnt want to be king?

I see the opposite when I read. Throughout the books you can tell he wants to go south and fight. He helps Stannis regardless of his vows to take no part. He WANTED to rule Winterfell but didnt want it from Stannis and his terms. He has had an identity crisis from day one and realizes the NW isnt his calling/destiny; the Others are.

After the others are gone and the wall is down, Jon will gladly accept the throne once...

1) He finds out about R+L

2) He finds out about Bran and Rickon

3) The other lords recognize him as the last of the Targ dynasty and offer him the throne for his valor with the others in combonation with his bloodline

People who say knowone will believe he is who he says he is and that they cant prove it...

(Though you are correct) All it will take is Howland and Lyanna's wetnurse to tell the tale. Once that happens people will get it. Ned wouldnt father a bastard because of his honor. That explains why the kingsguard were there and why Lyanna died. The timeline for the story adds up. Etc...

So IMO...unless Jon dies, he will be King.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people keep saying Jon wouldnt want to be king?

I see the opposite when I read. Throughout the books you can tell he wants to go south and fight. He helps Stannis regardless of his vows to take no part. He WANTED to rule Winterfell but didnt want it from Stannis and his terms. He has had an identity crisis from day one and realizes the NW isnt his calling/destiny; the Others are.

After the others are gone and the wall is down, Jon will gladly accept the throne once...

1) He finds out about R+L

2) He finds out about Bran and Rickon

3) The other lords recognize him as the last of the Targ dynasty and offer him the throne for his valor with the others in combonation with his bloodline

People who say knowone will believe he is who he says he is and that they cant prove it...

(Though you are correct) All it will take is Howland and Lyanna's wetnurse to tell the tale. Once that happens people will get it. Ned wouldnt father a bastard because of his honor. That explains why the kingsguard were there and why Lyanna died. The timeline for the story adds up. Etc...

So IMO...unless Jon dies, he will be King.

I am inclined to believe the same. I always go back to one of Jon's first chapters (maybe the first?). While he is watching the Royal procession move in, he reflects how Robert doesn't fit his image as a King, but rather Jaime does.

Then I start to think what Jon is likely to look like with all his scars and battlewounds by the time he would take the throne. It's weak I know, but that little bit of foreshadowing does it for me and gives me hope he will be King. He would be the best King we've seen so far. Better than Dany/Robb/Renly/Robert and even Stannis. Though I think Stannis is a just King, the whole religious right wing nut thing turns me off. Jon for King!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I don't know if this has been already posted here (I joined the forum on the v.36) but I'll share anyway:

http://www.vulture.c...-interview.html

I'm not a Star Wars fan but Luke was raised by his uncle, wasn't he?

And every time it gets brought up, somebody goes all "secret twin theories", and Meera as the mostly likely.

Someone had a nice piece about it. It was about what they thought Alfie meant. How his real father, is thought to be the evil, but end the end wasn't. There are many different things he could have meant by the Star Wars thing, but most do point to R+L=J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And every time it gets brought up, somebody goes all "secret twin theories", and Meera as the mostly likely.

Someone had a nice piece about it. It was about what they thought Alfie meant. How his real father, is thought to be the evil, but end the end wasn't. There are many different things he could have meant by the Star Wars thing, but most do point to R+L=J.

IT ALL POINTS TO R+L=J! Yet there ill be a number 38, 39, 40 and so on debating it. I almost wish Marin just says it on the first page of the proluge in WOW, Jon doesn't have to find out then, but we just find out, yep its true! Unfortunaley the big reveal will liekly come when Jon finds out.

Aslo, @ G Varotti - You misunderstood me. I dont' think Aegon and Jon Con meant to put Jon on teh throne but rather the results of their conquest will put Jon on teh throne. Aegon will become king (fake or real it doesn't matter as long as he thinks he's real) he will name Jon his heir before he dies. Then Jon becomes king. If he ever sits the throne in KL or not doesn't matter. But how great would it be if Jon finds out he was names heir as King in the North and then also in the South?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame we dont´t have a strongly disagree smiley in this forum.

:fencing: Dany has the potential to be a great queen and I hope she will win the IT, but that´s a discussion for another thread

I'd not mind to see Dany as queen, I'm ok with that. But I think she isn't a great ruler due to her job at The Free Cities, she looked so lost and hardly knew what to do quite often. Maybe that'll change after she meets the right people to help her.

The only person that I absolutely do not want at the IT is Jon.

And every time it gets brought up, somebody goes all "secret twin theories", and Meera as the mostly likely.

Someone had a nice piece about it. It was about what they thought Alfie meant. How his real father, is thought to be the evil, but end the end wasn't. There are many different things he could have meant by the Star Wars thing, but most do point to R+L=J.

Secret twins!? Nevermind.

I only saw his interview this week (mostly because I wasn't searching for anything until I have finished a Dance) and the first thing that popped up in my mind was how Luke was raised and not the evil dad thing or twins :)

I don't know but maybe that was what Alfie meant, that Luke and Jon were both raised by their uncles, nothing more.

Aslo, @ G Varotti - You misunderstood me. I dont' think Aegon and Jon Con meant to put Jon on teh throne but rather the results of their conquest will put Jon on teh throne. Aegon will become king (fake or real it doesn't matter as long as he thinks he's real) he will name Jon his heir before he dies. Then Jon becomes king. If he ever sits the throne in KL or not doesn't matter. But how great would it be if Jon finds out he was names heir as King in the North and then also in the South?

Ah ok, got your point now :).

Uhn, I'm not sure about Aegon being the one to name Jon his heir. If we get Howland Reed and Wylla to prove that Jon is a legit Targ, Aegon naming him or not will make no difference because Jon would be (erh, have the right to be) king anyway. Unless Aegon has some kids.

Winds can't come soon enough!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only just joined this forum but let me say this:

(first I'm not a native speaker, so a apologize for spelling errors!)

I think it's great the topic of Jon being Lyanna's child is so alive.

Personally I'm not that into playing detective I just had a gut feeling when reading. It just came to me when I was reading the part when they visit the catacombs at Winterfel * BAM* O my, Jon is the son of Lyanna. I really don't know why, it just came.

And when I found out others think alike, makes me only respect the author even more!

Thank you mister Martin for giving us your wonderful world!

Other than that: your arguments are pretty solid.

Mine afterwards has always been: Ned has too much honor to father a natural child.

And it is always said how much Ned loved his sister and how spirited she was.

For her to be taken against her will, I rather doubt it.

Also: Lyanna was not thé lady of Winterfel, though she does have a statue.

Couldn't this be an argument for her to have wedded Reagar?

Not only out of love for his sister but also remembering her as the wife of the late prince?

Since he is so dutiful. Anyways, love to read more about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IT = Iron Throne?

For a moment, I wondered what the Indoctrination Theory had to do with Westeros :D

IT, hmm I used to be an Instrument Technician, oh wait, now I work in Information Technology . . . Am I getting warm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only just joined this forum but let me say this:

(first I'm not a native speaker, so a apologize for spelling errors!)

I think it's great the topic of Jon being Lyanna's child is so alive.

Personally I'm not that into playing detective I just had a gut feeling when reading. It just came to me when I was reading the part when they visit the catacombs at Winterfel * BAM* O my, Jon is the son of Lyanna. I really don't know why, it just came.

And when I found out others think alike, makes me only respect the author even more!

Thank you mister Martin for giving us your wonderful world!

Other than that: your arguments are pretty solid.

Mine afterwards has always been: Ned has too much honor to father a natural child.

And it is always said how much Ned loved his sister and how spirited she was.

For her to be taken against her will, I rather doubt it.

Also: Lyanna was not thé lady of Winterfel, though she does have a statue.

Couldn't this be an argument for her to have wedded Reagar?

Not only out of love for his sister but also remembering her as the wife of the late prince?

Since he is so dutiful. Anyways, love to read more about it!

First of all, kudos for figuring it out, A lot of people who I wouldn't consider shallow readers (me included) didn't get it the first time round. All your arguments are pretty solid, discussed, and supporters of the theory generally agree, so good job. The only one that can be quite bashed is her statue. That's because he made his brother Brandon a statue too, although he was never lord of Winterfell. I think this is just Ned commemorating his tragically deceased siblings he loved.

About the Parris thing. First, I thought she was being sarcastic. It's not simple and it's not obvious, only when it's laid out and synthesized it becomes obvious.

One thing that people tend to overlook when discussing whether R+L is "easy", aside from the obvious that it's scattered throughout the books, indirect and ambigious, is that it's an action packed epic. It's exactly the same as Martin describes food, landscapes, castles etc. - it's normal to think it's for richness. It's normal for Ned to remember some things from the past, because he's a human being. It's normal for him to have a fever dream, because he is badly wounded. And when he drops some people from the past we don't know anything about, well, you move on, cause you either think it's not important, or that it will be revealed later, especially in AGOT, when we are not so familiar with the style of the series. And eventually, you are so captivated by what is actually happening, that you kind of forget about these things.

It's not a detective mystery, where they are staying in a room trying to figure out the truth. It's packed with action, and these things are minor compared to what's really going on. So it's not obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only just joined this forum but let me say this:

Also: Lyanna was not thé lady of Winterfel, though she does have a statue.

Couldn't this be an argument for her to have wedded Reagar?

Not only out of love for his sister but also remembering her as the wife of the late prince1?

Since he is so dutiful. Anyways, love to read more about it!

Welcome to the boards,

1 That is one theory, I can't find fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...