R+L=J v.43

[Alia of the knife]

Just a few thoughts on the HotU vision ''A King with blue eyes and no shadow raises a red sword in his hand''.

I think it's probably Jon because:

- If he is Targaryen then technically he is the legitimate heir to Aerys, over both Daenarys and Aegon.

- Rhaegar was convinced his son would be tPwwP which is more likely to be Jon than Aegon (because 'his is the song of ice and fire' and Jon has been a PoV character from the start of the series aSoIaF whereas Aegon (if it really is him) has only been part of the series since recently.)

- The Red Comet appears the same year Ghost does, and Melisandre says ''when the Red Star bleeds, and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai will be born again amidst smoke and salt'' (the darkness being the Long Night, which Jon is about to encounter presumably)

- If tPwwP is ''born amidst smoke and salt'' then it could be that Jon is tPwwP because of the events about to occur at Hardhome (smoke from fires that burn there and salt because it is right by the sea.)

- Both Wights and The Others have blue eyes, and if Jon is dead he too could be resurrected with blue eyes. Also, dead men have no shadows.

- The last vision in tHotU is of a blue winter rose blossoming from the wall. Blue Winter Rose = Lyanna and hence also Jon, it appears he has yet to do any ''blossoming'' which could be a parallel with him growing into his true inheritence as Lyanna and Rhaegar's son.

- Azor Ahai (who I believe is also tPtwP) rises up during the Long Night, which is about to happen with Jon right there at the Wall, has a flaming/red sword.

I know some of these theories are a little far fetched, but it's all food for thought. I also considered that it could be Stannis because:

- He has blue eyes (being a Baratheon)

- I read somewhere that Mellisandre really took it out of him when she created those shadows in her womb. So that would explain why he may not have a shadow.

- He already has a flaming sword. (albeit fake)

- Another of the visions was of a stone dragon breathing shadows, which has links to Melisandre and Stannis through the whole thing with Mance Rayders son.

Then again, it is Stannis. I don't think even GRRM would make Stannis the actual PtwP/Azor Ahai.

I realise that probably a lot of what I said has been said already, so sorry for that :/ I'm mainly just trying to get my head back into the whole aSoIaF zone and get some constructive criticism from you guys ;)

Very well thought out. :bowdown:

[Ygrain]

I don't disagree with that, but, the interview with GRRM hints that Aegon also may be real.

Mummers Dragon could mean exactly what it says, Aegon is the Mummers, (Varys), Dragon, (by blood, he is a dragon, and he could be Rhaegars, or not but is a tool of Varys).

But, just because he is a tool of Varys, it doesn't mean he's not Aegon, (playing Devils advocate, because I think he's a Perkin Warbeck-pretender), but he is being groomed under Varys machinations, hence GRRMS never confirming that Aegon is actully dead.

SInce Aegon is such a plot twist, GRRM won't undermine it by saying whether he is true or false - I agree that "mummer's dragon" is not sufficient to claim one or the other and can be interpreted both ways, but in combination with Moqorro's "dragons true and false" which he suppsoedly sees in the flames, I read it as a hint that there will be a false dragon somewhere in the series, and Aegon seems to be the hottest candidate for this, as there are a lot of suspicious details around him.

[Alia of the knife]

SInce Aegon is such a plot twist, GRRM won't undermine it by saying whether he is true or false - I agree that "mummer's dragon" is not sufficient to claim one or the other and can be interpreted both ways, but in combination with Moqorro's "dragons true and false" which he suppsoedly sees in the flames, I read it as a hint that there will be a false dragon somewhere in the series, and Aegon seems to be the hottest candidate for this, as there are a lot of suspicious details around him.

I think thats correct.

[Ghost's Shadow]

I think I read a post of someone who said they heard (?) an interview with GRRM using both titles interchangeably?

[David Mourning]

I understand completely, I didn't mean to imply that Jon had a flaming sword. If anything I assume that's either to come or not. Anyhow, now that I've heard someone else say it I believe that Azhor Ahai and the tPtwP probably could be different people, I guess I was thinking Tolkien for a minute there :s. I honestly haven't read any of the books in months so I could easily be wrong, I just wanted to hear some opinions, just like yours, so thank you :)

Well they are more ideas than opinions! Hah. We see Rhaegar in the HotU only mentioning the tPtwP, but Melisandre seems to think they are the same person. He's kind of left both options open. Dany seems a pretty strong candidate for AA because she basically meets all the conditions as long as you accept that flaming sword could = dragons. I mean, she even killed her own spouse just like AA. But only time and GRRM will tell I suppose.

[Black Crow]

This line of thinking is straying somewhat from the straightforward consideration of whether R+L=J and if so what it means, but I would make a couple of observations on this. First Dany does indeed fit all the criteria, having been born on Dragonstone, the smoking island in the salt sea and killing her husband in order to hatch the dragons.

The real problem is that while we have been fed more or less consistent pieces of the Azor Ahai prophecy we don't know what the Prince that Was Promised prophecy is actually about. Mel, as noted, thinks they are one and the same. Aemon seemed to think otherwise although its ambiguous. What may be significant is that Mel refers to the Azor Ahai prophecy going back 5,000 years while the Prince that was Promised appears to be much more recent.

A slightly heretical thought is that perhaps the Prince was Promised to slay Azor Ahai...

Be that as it may, we've been told by GRRM that Mel has her own agenda and its pretty obvious from Master Benero's preaching in ADwD that the mainstream Red Temple thinking on Azor Ahai/Dany is very different from Mel's. They seem to be preaching revolution where they are, rather than meeting an external threat in the far north of Westeros.

[David Mourning]

This line of thinking is straying somewhat from the straightforward consideration of whether R+L=J and if so what it means, but I would make a couple of observations on this. First Dany does indeed fit all the criteria, having been born on Dragonstone, the smoking island in the salt sea and killing her husband in order to hatch the dragons.

The real problem is that while we have been fed more or less consistent pieces of the Azor Ahai prophecy we don't know what the Prince that Was Promised prophecy is actually about. Mel, as noted, thinks they are one and the same. Aemon seemed to think otherwise although its ambiguous. What may be significant is that Mel refers to the Azor Ahai prophecy going back 5,000 years while the Prince that was Promised appears to be much more recent.

A slightly heretical thought is that perhaps the Prince was Promised to slay Azor Ahai...

Be that as it may, we've been told by GRRM that Mel has her own agenda and its pretty obvious from Master Benero's preaching in ADwD that the mainstream Red Temple thinking on Azor Ahai/Dany is very different from Mel's. They seem to be preaching revolution where they are, rather than meeting an external threat in the far north of Westeros.

Well while I do feel we have veered slightly off topic, I think these are reasonable ramifications of what R+L=J might mean, and what else is a discussion board for? R+L=J has been so beaten into the ground that you really have to discuss what it means to have an interesting discussion. I'm certain I could google it but someone says something rather sexual about prophecy and how it could look so good until... it isn't. I think everyone has their own interpretations of the prophecies just as we do as readers. Now that we've seen a Mel chapter we know that she is basically "any means justify the end" kind of character. And who knows, maybe faced with zombie apocalypse we need that.

I've always thought that Jon slaying Dany before the end was quite possible. In DwD she is giving some serious warning signs of Targaryen crazy-taint. I wouldn't take her on a date, red flags! It's interesting you bring that up because I've hedged my bet on Dany being AA and Jon being tPtwP for years before DwD, and it didn't change my opinion. But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if Bran ends up being the Night's King and going hardcore evil. Very little could surprise me at this point beyond actual Jon 100% death before book 7.

[King of Winters]

Well while I do feel we have veered slightly off topic, I think these are reasonable ramifications of what R+L=J might mean, and what else is a discussion board for? R+L=J has been so beaten into the ground that you really have to discuss what it means to have an interesting discussion. I'm certain I could google it but someone says something rather sexual about prophecy and how it could look so good until... it isn't. I think everyone has their own interpretations of the prophecies just as we do as readers. Now that we've seen a Mel chapter we know that she is basically "any means justify the end" kind of character. And who knows, maybe faced with zombie apocalypse we need that.

I've always thought that Jon slaying Dany before the end was quite possible. In DwD she is giving some serious warning signs of Targaryen crazy-taint. I wouldn't take her on a date, red flags! It's interesting you bring that up because I've hedged my bet on Dany being AA and Jon being tPtwP for years before DwD, and it didn't change my opinion. But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if Bran ends up being the Night's King and going hardcore evil. Very little could surprise me at this point beyond actual Jon 100% death before book 7.

I think GRRM said that AA & TPTWT are same person

[King of Winters]

Ok, come on now people lets get back to talking about R+L=J, rather than a prophecy

[Black Crow]

Ok, come on now people lets get back to talking about R+L=J, rather than a prophecy

Well that's up to you, I'm just an occasional visitor to this thread, but it strikes me that its also revelevant to figure out why R+L=J is important

[Greenfyre]

He isn't Ned's son, assuming Ned is genuinely too honourable to sire a bastard which I think is generally accepted. He has to be a son of one of the Starks because otherwise Ned wouldn't go to such pains to keep him safe, and he wouldn't have the Stark look. He's not Benjen's because he was too young to have a child. He's probably not Brandon's because although Brandon (assuming it wasn't Ned) ''dishonoured'' Ashara Dayne at Harrenhal, she later killed herself either with the baby in her womb or because the baby was a stillborn girl. That only leaves Lyanna, and she wasn't with anyone apart from Rhaegar in the year of Jon's birth.

Right there with you until your last two sentences.

Please demonstrate how you know that

1) Ashara's baby was a stillborn girl (or unborn fetus)

2) Lyanna never slept with anyone besides Rhaegar in the year prior to Jon's birth

[Ygrain]

Right there with you until your last two sentences.

Please demonstrate how you know that

1) Ashara's baby was a stillborn girl (or unborn fetus)

2) Lyanna never slept with anyone besides Rhaegar in the year prior to Jon's birth

Correct on Ashara, Barristan was hardly an eye witness and we do not know his source or its reliability.

However, concerning Lyanna, you suggest that she slept around? - But good that you have mentioned this, you still owe us those "better" candidates Lyanna might have been with.

[Greenfyre]

Correct on Ashara, Barristan was hardly an eye witness and we do not know his source or its reliability.

However, concerning Lyanna, you suggest that she slept around? - But good that you have mentioned this, you still owe us those "better" candidates Lyanna might have been with.

Oh... there was a response to that? Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore anything, but I don't have time to read all the responses in all the threads (if there are any).

No, I'm not suggesting she slept around, not at all. The theory I've developed is quite a different matter. However, it is so extensively supported, based on evidence from various books, that it would take thousands of words to write up -- way outside the scope of a forum comment like this.

I've been discussing the various ramifications for years with a devout R+L=J supporter and while I'll admit she still hasn't bought it as yet, she admits she would consider it acceptable if I eventually turned out to be right.

Suppose I did write it up, and published it on the Web, and published the URL here. Would anyone read it or comment on it, seriously?

The strong impression I have is that R+L=J has such momentum that people would simply say "tl;dr -- R+L =J anyway." So it really wouldn't matter what I said, or how close (or far) from the truth the theory was.

[Ygrain]

Oh... there was a response to that? Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore anything, but I don't have time to read all the responses in all the threads (if there are any).

No, I'm not suggesting she slept around, not at all. The theory I've developed is quite a different matter. However, it is so extensively supported, based on evidence from various books, that it would take thousands of words to write up -- way outside the scope of a forum comment like this.

I've been discussing the various ramifications for years with a devout R+L=J supporter and while I'll admit she still hasn't bought it as yet, she admits she would consider it acceptable if I eventually turned out to be right.

Suppose I did write it up, and published it on the Web, and published the URL here. Would anyone read it or comment on it, seriously?

The strong impression I have is that R+L=J has such momentum that people would simply say "tl;dr -- R+L =J anyway." So it really wouldn't matter what I said, or how close (or far) from the truth the theory was.

Sure - you have no idea how boring it is to go without any real intellectual challenge.

[The guy from the Vale]

I'm always interested in alternate theories. True, I haven't found any of them plausible yet, but I would definitely read it. From my impression of Ygrain, she's pretty similar in that regard. Don't get discouraged by opposition you might get, but also try to take criticism seriously, and you'll get quite a number of honest answers.

As for extensive evidence - now you really got me hooked - because I simply don't see another plausible theory that's both consistent with the timeline and endowed with even a shred of evidence. So please, share your thoghts with us. :)

[Greenfyre]

so it was very much a spoiler. I'd love to get that element of mystery back, so go ahead.

Oh... I don't know how much help I would be there.

I have in mind a specific father for Jon (Lyanna being his unquestioned mother) and I think I can cite ample evidence to support that candidate, including various issues such as character motivations, consistency with known interests and behavior, the timeline (such as it is -- we have so very little info about that, pertaining to Rhaegar and Lyanna in particular, prior to Rhaegar going to King's Landing to deal with Robert), visions/prophecies, etc. etc.

So even if I am right... it might only be another spoiler! You wouldn't get much mystery per se, except in the sense that you might have two theories to ponder instead of only one.

Tell you what. If anybody reading this would actually have the patience to sit through perhaps... two-four thousand words... of an alternate theory, as described above, a theory that is not discussed in traditional analyses like the Citadel's... send me a PM. If I get even ten PMs, I probably will write it up and post the URL in this thread.

[The guy from the Vale]

You already got three requests here within half an hour. Really, what do you need the PMs for? Just go ahead and do it. I promise I won't bite your head off :)

[FittleLinger]

Just write it up. We want to read it, trust me.

[Ygrain]

Gosh, don't pull a Ned here and just present it, the worst case scenario, we won't agree :-)

[Budj]

I would read it. Worth your time to write it up. I'm definitely open to a different father if you have some solid textual evidence. I for one would be excited to get support for Arthur Dayne as the father, haha, just as one example.