R+L=J v.39

[Dr. Pepper]

Where is that like button when you need it? :crying:

I was going to say the same thing. I never really think about or often use the like button. Then when it's gone, it's all I can think about.

[Arya Wargface]

At this point, I take R+L=J as a fact that is all but explicitly confirmed. If it turned out to not be true, I'd be fine with it. But Martin would have to make it convincing and it would have to align with evidence we can find in previous books. It can't just come out of thin air, it has to match the timeline and the facts we already know. R+L=J works best because it aligns with the evidence we already have.

I definitely agree that this theory makes more sense and ties up several mysteries, as theguyfromthetheVale stated. I also agree that it would be dificult to create a different Jon-parentage story in two books when so much is going down. However, if the story ends with an acceptable conclusion to Jon's path (AAR for some, just being alive for others), but does not touch on his parentage, would that ruin the series for you? Sorry to be so hypothetical, but we are talking about theories, and I'm curious what others believe.

[MostInterestingManWesteros]

Quick question, whats the consensus on what R+L=J makes Roberts Rebellion (and the fifteen year peace followed by the events we see in the books)? The single biggest tragedy to ever happen in Westeros? Or What?

[Bear Island Bruiser]

Let me put it this way: If the theory turns out not to be true, GRRM will have a hell of a lot to explain. More than I can see him explaining in two more books. This theory, on the other hand, ties a large number of mysteries/open questions/issues together.

If I was a lawyer, I would say R+L=J is true beyond reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt, of course, but most rebuttals of the theory I have seen have not made much sense to me. I'd love to see such a theory, but none exists (yet?)

Yeah I've commented a fair bit on these section, mainly as a detractor from the theory. Seeing how much some people believe it (some already accept it as canon) there would definitely be upset if it didn't turn out to be correct.

I see it as the most likely outcome but I'd say their is room for doubt at this point. Some evidence is circumstantial, some coming from witnesses under the influence of hallucinogenic substances and all put together by a wily perpetrator who has the habit of leading people astray.

There are still some questions I've never had answered to my satisfaction. Mainly:-

1. Why does Ned ride straight for Starfall after the ToJ incident? OK he's going to return Dawn and he's an honourable guy. However this smacks me of a cover story. He's just made the promise to Lyanna and taking Jon straight there risks exposing the secret. He could easily have arranged for Howland or a trusted other to return the sword at any time but he decides to do it then, in person. It's also exactly the wrong way than the way he'd want to go. He's prepared to let his his honour slide to protect Jon for ages in the face of his King, wife and others but not at that point? Hmmm bit fishy.
   
2. The KG reaction at the ToJ. Straight attack of Ned and his party. Ned would be the uncle to their King and no attempt to talk about it seems a big risk. If they think they'll win then no harm in it, if they think there is a chance they could lose then they have a good opportunity to avoid this prospect. OK there may be a bit of 'dead men tell no tales' about it but it still seems odd
   

Now these to me don't necessarily remove the idea of R+L=J but do need a bit more explanation.

[Dr. Pepper]

I definitely agree that this theory makes more sense and ties up several mysteries, as theguyfromthetheVale stated. I also agree that it would be dificult to create a different Jon-parentage story in two books when so much is going down. However, if the story ends with an acceptable conclusion to Jon's path (AAR for some, just being alive for others), but does not touch on his parentage, would that ruin the series for you? Sorry to be so hypothetical, but we are talking about theories, and I'm curious what others believe.

It depends. If Jon is dead from his stab wounds and his story over AND everything he was working for completely disappears (like if Bowen Marsh's plan prevails instead), yeah, it would ruin the series for me a bit, but it really wouldn't be due to his parentage. I'd be really disappointed if his parentage turns out to be used to validate him for something stupid, like the Iron Throne. I don't think that's part of Jon's story at all.

I don't think I'd care at all if his parentage is never definitely stated or explicitly explored. I think the evidence speaks well enough for us to know beyond a reasonable doubt who Jon's parents are and I rather prefer not being spoonfed the answers by the author. I've found that we receive the answers to most mysteries in the series by working it out ourselves. There are a few answers that are spoonfed (like Lysa killing Jon Arryn or Joffrey sending the assassin) and while it's nice to get confirmation, as a reader I felt it sort of took the magic out of the fun of figuring it out myself.

[Wun Wun's Wife]

Let me put it this way: If the theory turns out not to be true, GRRM will have a hell of a lot to explain. More than I can see him explaining in two more books. This theory, on the other hand, ties a large number of mysteries/open questions/issues together.

If I was a lawyer, I would say R+L=J is true beyond reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt, of course, but most rebuttals of the theory I have seen have not made much sense to me. I'd love to see such a theory, but none exists (yet?)

Heehee, I am a lawyer (go figure). The R+L=J theory is the most solid theory out these, imo. I'm in the middle of a re-read of the Eddard chapters and it seems pretty clear Jon isn't his son.

On another note: I really think Jon would have a hard time changing his name to Jon Targaryen, even if it's his actual name. His identity is clearly that of Jon Snow. He might, if he felt he needed to, but I think there would be a lot of foot dragging and inner turmoil on his part... and lots of wishing he could talk to Maester Aemon about all this.

I wonder if there is stuff buried in Lyanna's tomb (or with Howland Reed) about Jon's legitimacy and just what the heck Rhaegar and Lyanna were up to... Lyanna does not strike me as the type of person to buy into the prophesy business, but she did have many facets to her personality.

And how on earth could Brandon think Lyanna was "kidnapped" without a fight... he knew his sister, maybe LF got word to him that she was horribly injured? The LF-revenge theory is one I haven't thought of, but then I wouldn't have thought LF would have had Lysa poison Jon Arryn either.

[Wun Wun's Wife]

Yeah I've commented a fair bit on these section, mainly as a detractor from the theory. Seeing how much some people believe it (some already accept it as canon) there would definitely be upset if it didn't turn out to be correct.

I see it as the most likely outcome but I'd say their is room for doubt at this point. Some evidence is circumstantial, some coming from witnesses under the influence of hallucinogenic substances and all put together by a wily perpetrator who has the habit of leading people astray.

There are still some questions I've never had answered to my satisfaction. Mainly:-

1. Why does Ned ride straight for Starfall after the ToJ incident? OK he's going to return Dawn and he's an honourable guy. However this smacks me of a cover story. He's just made the promise to Lyanna and taking Jon straight there risks exposing the secret. He could easily have arranged for Howland or a trusted other to return the sword at any time but he decides to do it then, in person. It's also exactly the wrong way than the way he'd want to go. He's prepared to let his his honour slide to protect Jon for ages in the face of his King, wife and others but not at that point? Hmmm bit fishy.
   
   
2. The KG reaction at the ToJ. Straight attack of Ned and his party. Ned would be the uncle to their King and no attempt to talk about it seems a big risk. If they think they'll win then no harm in it, if they think there is a chance they could lose then they have a good opportunity to avoid this prospect. OK there may be a bit of 'dead men tell no tales' about it but it still seems odd
   

Now these to me don't necessarily remove the idea of R+L=J but do need a bit more explanation.

I agree - I really don't understand the KG reaction to Ned showing up at the TOJ. And Arthur Dayne's "And so it begins." comment. Very mysterious.

[Bear Island Bruiser]

And how on earth could Brandon think Lyanna was "kidnapped" without a fight... he knew his sister, maybe LF got word to him that she was horribly injured? The LF-revenge theory is one I haven't thought of, but then I wouldn't have thought LF would have had Lysa poison Jon Arryn either.

This is always one of my reasons to doubt the L+R=J theory. Not that it's got anything to do with it but along the way it's supposed to be so clear that Cersei or some Lannister agent poisoned Jon Arryn to stop him spreading the word about the incest. Then bang GRRM flips it round. Exactly what I think could be happening here.

[Budj]

I always read "and so it begins" as the 'start' of the new King's reign and / or marking the occassion with the KG first defense of their new King.

On a side note - I think it would be sweet if the KotLT's shield was in Lyanna's tomb and Jon took that up for his sigil... For those present at the Harranhal tourney it may be a nice tie in to 'oh...now it makes sense.'

[Dr. Pepper]

Why does Ned ride straight for Starfall after the ToJ incident? OK he's going to return Dawn and he's an honourable guy. However this smacks me of a cover story. He's just made the promise to Lyanna and taking Jon straight there risks exposing the secret. He could easily have arranged for Howland or a trusted other to return the sword at any time but he decides to do it then, in person. It's also exactly the wrong way than the way he'd want to go. He's prepared to let his his honour slide to protect Jon for ages in the face of his King, wife and others but not at that point? Hmmm bit fishy.

I think the answer is that it was probably useful in adding to a cover story. I don't really see anything fishy about him going to Starfall considering he couldn't have caught a ship in the Prince's Pass and had to go east or west to reach a port. It's about the same distance to the sea no matter which way one goes. Makes more sense to go to Starfall where presumably Wylla was from and where Ashara lived and who Ned knew than to show up in Wyl with an infant where he presumably knew no one.

2. The KG reaction at the ToJ. Straight attack of Ned and his party. Ned would be the uncle to their King and no attempt to talk about it seems a big risk. If they think they'll win then no harm in it, if they think there is a chance they could lose then they have a good opportunity to avoid this prospect. OK there may be a bit of 'dead men tell no tales' about it but it still seems odd

Doesn't really matter if Ned's the uncle to their king. Ned was also part of the rebel group that deposed the rest of the Targaryen dynasty and was allied in a way with the House that killed Elia's two babes. The KG had vowed to use their lives to protect the Targaryen dynasty. Ned saying "uh, no. I'm just going to take that baby and raise him as my bastard" is a pretty good reason for the KG to decide to fight him.

[Queen of Procrastination]

I think the answer is that it was probably useful in adding to a cover story. I don't really see anything fishy about him going to Starfall considering he couldn't have caught a ship in the Prince's Pass and had to go east or west to reach a port. It's about the same distance to the sea no matter which way one goes. Makes more sense to go to Starfall where presumably Wylla was from and where Ashara lived and who Ned knew than to show up in Wyl with an infant where he presumably knew no one.

Doesn't really matter if Ned's the uncle to their king. Ned was also part of the rebel group that deposed the rest of the Targaryen dynasty and was allied in a way with the House that killed Elia's two babes. The KG had vowed to use their lives to protect the Targaryen dynasty. Ned saying "uh, no. I'm just going to take that baby and raise him as my bastard" is a pretty good reason for the KG to decide to fight him.

:agree:

BTW: Even Lyanna, Ned´s own sister wasn´t sure what Ned would do. She had doubts and was only able to rest after he gave her the promise, but she wasn´t sure if he would do so she was afraid that he would say no.

[Bear Island Bruiser]

I think the answer is that it was probably useful in adding to a cover story. I don't really see anything fishy about him going to Starfall considering he couldn't have caught a ship in the Prince's Pass and had to go east or west to reach a port. It's about the same distance to the sea no matter which way one goes. Makes more sense to go to Starfall where presumably Wylla was from and where Ashara lived and who Ned knew than to show up in Wyl with an infant where he presumably knew no one.

But he doesn't just go there and get a ship, which by the way means he has to sail right the way round the tip of Dorne. He goes there and announces himself in public, turning up with a kid in front of the whole household and it just opens it up a lot more.

I can't say it rules it out. Quite possibly it's part of a wider plan but it just strikes me as suspicion.

Doesn't really matter if Ned's the uncle to their king. Ned was also part of the rebel group that deposed the rest of the Targaryen dynasty and was allied in a way with the House that killed Elia's two babes. The KG had vowed to use their lives to protect the Targaryen dynasty. Ned saying "uh, no. I'm just going to take that baby and raise him as my bastard" is a pretty good reason for the KG to decide to fight him.

Well the KG were the ToJ but they weren't that far removed from the wider situation that if they knew of the deaths they knew it was the Lannisters and their seperation from Ned. So it's hard to think he'd do the same. Plus there are the rules around kinslaying. Letting Ned know he's the kids uncle would make it less likely he'd want to kill him. As I say again it's not a complete refution of the theory but it does require a bit more explanation to me and hints against it.

[Nelapsi]

I definitely agree that this theory makes more sense and ties up several mysteries, as theguyfromthetheVale stated. I also agree that it would be dificult to create a different Jon-parentage story in two books when so much is going down. However, if the story ends with an acceptable conclusion to Jon's path (AAR for some, just being alive for others), but does not touch on his parentage, would that ruin the series for you? Sorry to be so hypothetical, but we are talking about theories, and I'm curious what others believe.

I would be disappointed if we ended up not knowing. If R+L=J isn't right, it would actually be great, so much effort into proving something that is actually wrong !

[Dr. Pepper]

But he doesn't just go there and get a ship, which by the way means he has to sail right the way round the tip of Dorne. He goes there and announces himself in public, turning up with a kid in front of the whole household and it just opens it up a lot more.

I can't say it rules it out. Quite possibly it's part of a wider plan but it just strikes me as suspicion.

Let's see, needs a ship, has the sword Dawn and Arthur's bones, has a baby, possibly has Wylla the wetnurse. Still not seeing anything suspicious when it comes to R+L=J.

Well the KG were the ToJ but they weren't that far removed from the wider situation that if they knew of the deaths they knew it was the Lannisters and their seperation from Ned. So it's hard to think he'd do the same. Plus there are the rules around kinslaying. Letting Ned know he's the kids uncle would make it less likely he'd want to kill him. As I say again it's not a complete refution of the theory but it does require a bit more explanation to me and hints against it.

They likely realized Ned wasn't going to murder his own nephew. It's the fact that Ned had just fought to depose the Targaryen dynasty with allies who had killed the baby heirs. There is nothing to suggest that Ned would then turn around and aid the KG in raising Jon up as King and by doing so fight against the rebels.

This really doesn't require all that much thought in figuring out what's going on and twisting suspicions and evidence just makes it all needlessly convoluted and creates holes in the evidence that just aren't there.

[Queen of Procrastination]

But he doesn't just go there and get a ship, which by the way means he has to sail right the way round the tip of Dorne. He goes there and announces himself in public, turning up with a kid in front of the whole household and it just opens it up a lot more.

I can't say it rules it out. Quite possibly it's part of a wider plan but it just strikes me as suspicion.

Well the KG were the ToJ but they weren't that far removed from the wider situation that if they knew of the deaths they knew it was the Lannisters and their seperation from Ned. So it's hard to think he'd do the same. Plus there are the rules around kinslaying. Letting Ned know he's the kids uncle would make it less likely he'd want to kill him. As I say again it's not a complete refution of the theory but it does require a bit more explanation to me and hints against it.

Just some thaught that I had.

Did they know that it wasn´t Ned? Rumors spread very fast rumours turned the Northmen into canibals who were feasting on the flesh of their fallen foes. I am sure there was some pretty dirty gossip about Ned during the rebelion. Espacially in targ loyal Dorne. So maybe they heard some gossip which turned Ned into a childslayer.

Must not have happened the reasons Doctor Pepper pointed out allready show why they went against Ned, but maybe they had heard such gossip.

Besides they were pretty isolated might not have learned that Ned had no part in the murder of Elia and her children. They will have heard that Elia and her children got killed by the Lannisters/ Robert´s loyalist, but they might not have heard that Ned and Robert had a huge fight about that and that Ned was furious about the murder.

They can´t led Ned know that he´s the kids uncle without revealing that he´s Rhaegar´s son = king and this knowledge was (in their eyes) too dangerous to trust Ned with it. And Ned wasn´t alone even if they would have trusted him, they woudn´t have trusted his companions.

[Queen of Procrastination]

Did they turn the like-system of again or is it just some problem I have with the page?

[Budj]

Let's see, needs a ship, has the sword Dawn and Arthur's bones, has a baby, possibly has Wylla the wetnurse. Still not seeing anything suspicious when it comes to R+L=J.

I could be wrong, but I thought he buried everybody but Lyanna at the ToJ?

Not that that detracts from your point!

[MtnLion]

I could be wrong, but I thought he buried everybody but Lyanna at the ToJ?

Not that that detracts from your point!

Correct, Arthur's bones are in a cairn at the tower. Ned had Dawn and wanted to return it to House Dayne, as an honorable gesture. Was Wylla or another midwife that was from Starfall at the tower? It seems likely that there would be some thralls at the tower, and Ned had just torn it down. Perhaps they all wanted to see the port city of Starfall, and Ned tagged along to catch a ship from there, after returning the sword. A ship would be the fastest way back to Winterfell, and kept him off the roads that rumor of him travelling with an infant would get back to Robert or Varys.

The three last Kingsguards at a precise moment are confronted by one of the rebellion's generals and a small force. The rebellion has seen the death of all Targaryens with the exception of Rhaella (pregnant) and Viserys who had made their way to Dragonstone before King's Landing was sacked. They are guarding what has recently been revealed to be a Targaryen heir, Prince Rhaegar's son. They dare not say so, and reveal the value of what they guard. They dare not surrender, because the rebellion slays heirs. They dare not flee, because Lyanna and child may not survive being moved. All they can do is stand their ground. Ned offers them a chance to surrender, they decline. Ned offers them a chance to retreat to Dragonstone to guard what Ned thought was the heir, they again decline. So it begins, those three Kingsguard had nothing to fear from larger groups of normal men. So it ends, Ned leads northmen who are battle seasoned.

I really see no problems with perspectives from either side regarding that final battle. The Kingsguard had no reason to suspect that they might fail to survive. The men that accompanied Ned were his most trusted, and he thought; that even though he had a high opinion of the three; that they would easily fall before he and his men.

[Jon Icefyre]

Heehee, I am a lawyer (go figure). The R+L=J theory is the most solid theory out these, imo. I'm in the middle of a re-read of the Eddard chapters and it seems pretty clear Jon isn't his son.

On another note: I really think Jon would have a hard time changing his name to Jon Targaryen, even if it's his actual name. His identity is clearly that of Jon Snow. He might, if he felt he needed to, but I think there would be a lot of foot dragging and inner turmoil on his part... and lots of wishing he could talk to Maester Aemon about all this.

I wonder if there is stuff buried in Lyanna's tomb (or with Howland Reed) about Jon's legitimacy and just what the heck Rhaegar and Lyanna were up to... Lyanna does not strike me as the type of person to buy into the prophesy business, but she did have many facets to her personality.

And how on earth could Brandon think Lyanna was "kidnapped" without a fight... he knew his sister, maybe LF got word to him that she was horribly injured? The LF-revenge theory is one I haven't thought of, but then I wouldn't have thought LF would have had Lysa poison Jon Arryn either.

If Jon becomes a King there's no way in hell he keeps the last name Snow, in fact he can't keep it. Snow is not just his last name, it's also the last name of ever single bastard in the North so Jon keeping the last name Snow would be almost as dumb as Aegon lV legitimizing all his bastards. Especially if you consider Jon surviving and then going on to have children and they have children and so on as the years go by and Jon's bloodline grows it would eventually become a big problem of who was royalty and who was just a bastard of the North. If he becomes a king or even a lord he might not change his name to Jon Targaryen but he won't keep Jon Snow either that would be the height of stupidity. There's a reason why Daemon Blackfyre didn't keep his surname of "Waters" when he declared himself king and decided to take "Blackfyre" as his house name, and there's a reason why Ramsey Bolton didn't keep the surname "Snow" it's just not logical.

As for the KG, how does fighting with Ned at the TOJ not make sense? Jon was the King in they're eyes and yes everyone in the realm including the KG knew how honorable Ned was but the fact is he was still Robert's best friend and a crucial leader of the rebellion, Roberts second in command. The KG didn't fight Ned with the fear that Ned would harm Jon, they fought him out of fear that Robert would harm Jon. From the KG's pov after what happened with Elia and Rhaegar's children why the hell would they ever give Jon to the best friend of Robert regardless of his relations/intent with Jon? In the KG's pov giving Jon to Ned would be the dumbest thing to do in that situation. Even if they had sat down on peaceful terms and let Lyanna talk to Ned, I think Ned would have still ended up making that promise to Lyanna because I think she feared for Jon's life and would rather see him safe than be proclaimed a king, which would have still put Ned in direct contradiction with the KG and their intent with Jon. Look this isn't like the KG of current Westeros, this was still in the KG glory days when they took their vows seriously and bent the knee to no one other than who they viewed as their true King. The KG had no intent of seeing Jon raised as a bastard of Ned in Winterfell, Jon was their king in their eyes and they mean't to raise up for him as king of Westeros and sit him on the iron throne. Regardless of what could have been explained or what measures could have been taken the fact is a battle with the KG was pretty much inevitable at the TOJ. There's just no way in hell the KG let's Ned walk away with their king regardless of what Lyanna wanted or what Ned promised her. To the KG Jon was their king and they don't serve Ned Stark or Lyanna they serve Jon, the only person they meant to bend the knee to.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

Did they turn the like-system of again or is it just some problem I have with the page?

Likes are gone :(

But we still have :thumbsup: