Could Jon Snow be Uncle Brandon's son?

[Fetch me a block]

I want to make it clear now that RLJ is the theory I believe, but here I was just arguing possibilities.

[Runaway Penguin]

BUT IF Jon was actually Brandon's, that could theoretically be a dangerous situation for Ned and Catelyn's kids because Jon would then be the firstborn son (albeit bastard) of the original heir to the North.

While from dynastic PoV it would be dangerous (but you'd need the king to legitimize him), there would be no reason for all the secrecy and years-lasting rift between the husband and wife. Cat didn't kill Jon thinking he's ned's bastard, she won't kill him if he was Brandon's and she may be even more rational about him.

So there really are just few possible reasons for utter secrecy and out of them the most bulletproof is R+L...

[Naathi Prince]

I would actually kind of disagree with that.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in R+L=J.

BUT IF Jon was actually Brandon's, that could theoretically be a dangerous situation for Ned and Catelyn's kids because Jon would then be the firstborn son (albeit bastard) of the original heir to the North.

One of the reasons Catelyn didn't like having Jon around was because she feared that Jon or his future offspring might prove dangerous to Ned's legitimate children. IF Jon was actually the son of Brandon, that potential danger would be even more prominent, in theory anyway. So keeping his identity as Brandon's son a secret would make sense from Ned's perspective, IMHO.

Not really, a bastard can't really inherit, and its clearly been drilled into Jon's head that he doesn't get Winterfell.

[Hodor's Junk]

Is it at all possible that Darkstar is the son of Brandon Stark and Ashara Dayne?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Unless Brandon has a 6-foot member like Ossifer Plumm, no, this isn't possible.

Is it at all possible that Darkstar is the son of Brandon Stark and Ashara Dayne?

Too old. He's in his 20s.

[Woftis]

If R+L=J isn't true, then you don't have a story of ASOIAF.

:bs: Absolute nonsense, I've loved every second of the AFoIaF series and if the RLJ theory is true or not is completely insignificant to the complete story. To suggest it revolves around Jons birth is complete shit.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

:bs: Absolute nonsense, I've loved every second of the AFoIaF series and if the RLJ theory is true or not is completely insignificant to the complete story. To suggest it revolves around Jons birth is complete shit.

Generally I agree with you. But if Jon really is the prophecy fulfillment of "ice and fire," then that's only the case if his parents are Rhaegar and Lyanna. So the top-level plot works no matter who Jon's parents are, but the nitty-gritty sausage depends on him having that specific set of parents.

[Dr. Pepper]

:bs: Absolute nonsense, I've loved every second of the AFoIaF series and if the RLJ theory is true or not is completely insignificant to the complete story. To suggest it revolves around Jons birth is complete shit.

butterbumps! wrote recently about how Jon's parentage matters to the series. It was for another thread where twins, baby switches and other bullshit was theorized, but I think it applies here, especially the last paragraph.

Maybe it's just because of the recent explosion of anti- R+L threads lately that have my hackles up, but I feel inclined to ask what the purpose of all this speculation is?

Martin is a really excellent writer. He's built a very beautiful case-- subtle, as many readers don't see it at first, but also a strong one, such that once you know what to look for, the clues are multiple and persuasively woven. There are endless hints, both through subtle dialogue, basic logic, and carefully woven symbolism that tie together Lyanna, Rhaegar, Jon, supported by Ned's character and resultant shame. R+L=J is an extremely well-crafted development in the plot of ASOIAF; it's a lietmotif, yet still myserious enough to be interesting.

When one picks it apart by obsessing over timelines to come up with the idea of a second baby, the possibility of Elia-Oberyn incest, Mance and/or Benjen (possibly both) as Jon's father, the possibility that Ned killed Lyanna (jfc), it's an extremely faulty sort of logic. It's completely missing the forest for the trees. It completely ignores something that is extremely well crafted by a talented author and suggests a complete ass-pull (and shoddy writing by extension).

An argument in literature is as much about themes, symbols and imagery as it is about logical deduction and seeking additional possibilities. The fact that Jon's arc is reified by R+L (symbolically, analytically), that Ned's actions make sense only if this is true, that even within the relatively "flexible" timeline that Martin gives us R+L makes the most sense, the fact that there is no other character we've been introduced to who could be from this union and add meaning to the story as the product of this union speaks more to the impossibility of the the alternate theories presented here than the "openness" of the timeline allows these alternate theories to be even remotely plausible. Just because something "could" have happened in some empirical sense doesn't remotely suggest that it might have happened in a crafted universe such as this, where symbols and character development are as much a part of the argument as "empirical possibilities."

[Woftis]

I agree with the above post, and it's not that I disbelieve the R+L=J theory, but I think it's ridiculous to say that there's no story without that theory.

Remember that a theory is a theory, none of us are here today because as it turned out Jon was Lyanna's son. We're here because we absolutely love the story. Look at the TV series, anyone who has ever watched it has no idea who Rhaegar or Lyanna is or gives a shit about the R+L=J theory. Will we all just abandon the series if it turns out Jon actually is Ned's son?....No, of course not.

I do admit though, my wording on my post was quite vague "to suggest it revolves around Jon's birth...". Just want to clarify though, I wasn't trying to make a point about the actual plot, just trying to state that I don't care if Jon is or isn't the result of Rhaegar and Lyanna - regardless, the story is a piece of genius.

Sorry for any confusion guys!

[Techelles]

I agree with the above post, and it's not that I disbelieve the R+L=J theory, but I think it's ridiculous to say that there's no story without that theory.

Remember that a theory is a theory, none of us are here today because as it turned out Jon was Lyanna's son. We're here because we absolutely love the story. Look at the TV series, anyone who has ever watched it has no idea who Rhaegar or Lyanna is or gives a shit about the R+L=J theory. Will we all just abandon the series if it turns out Jon actually is Ned's son?....No, of course not.

I do admit though, my wording on my post was quite vague "to suggest it revolves around Jon's birth...". Just want to clarify though, I wasn't trying to make a point about the actual plot, just trying to state that I don't care if Jon is or isn't the result of Rhaegar and Lyanna - regardless, the story is a piece of genius.

Sorry for any confusion guys!

Well, I saw the show long before I read the books, and the possibility of R+L=J certainly occurred to me (not many of the finer points, mind you, but the broad strokes, yes). The only additional source I tapped was the HBO.com background material. In fact, the lingering mystery of John's parentage is one of the main reasons I decided to pick up the books in the first place. I really wanted to know. That, and I really didn't want to wait a year to meet Mance Rayder.

Anyway, I think the point is just that R+L=J is extremely integral to the story because it explains the actions of many characters along the way and also points towards all kinds of plot potential in the future. All the symbolism and hints pointing to the theory reaffirm this. So if you remove R+L=J, then all of a sudden the story has a lot of superfluous, inexplicable holes in terms of both how certain characters behave and how the narrative itself is structured.

[The Snowman]

I agree with the above post, and it's not that I disbelieve the R+L=J theory, but I think it's ridiculous to say that there's no story without that theory.

Remember that a theory is a theory, none of us are here today because as it turned out Jon was Lyanna's son. We're here because we absolutely love the story. Look at the TV series, anyone who has ever watched it has no idea who Rhaegar or Lyanna is or gives a shit about the R+L=J theory. Will we all just abandon the series if it turns out Jon actually is Ned's son?....No, of course not.

I do admit though, my wording on my post was quite vague "to suggest it revolves around Jon's birth...". Just want to clarify though, I wasn't trying to make a point about the actual plot, just trying to state that I don't care if Jon is or isn't the result of Rhaegar and Lyanna - regardless, the story is a piece of genius.

Sorry for any confusion guys!

Your wording 1st time round wasn't great but I can see where you're coming from. However Jon being the product of a Targaryen (Rhaegar) and a Stark (Lyanna) to symbolise the two major parts of this series, Ice and Fire. So it does make sense for Jon to be the centre piece of this story as he could be the one in the end, that stands between the Others (Ice) and Dragons (Fire).

[Starks Among Us]

A lot of people seem under the assumption that Ashara did not meet with Brandon more than once or twice but GRRM points out is SSM that (my paraphrase) "people assume Ashara was tied down in Starfall- she wasn't, she could travel and go where she wanted"

[Dr. Pepper]

A lot of people seem under the assumption that Ashara did not meet with Brandon more than once or twice but GRRM points out is SSM that (my paraphrase) "people assume Ashara was tied down in Starfall- she wasn't, she could travel and go where she wanted"

A lot of people are under the correct assumption that Jon is around Robb's age. He has to be, in order for Ned to pass him off as his bastard conceived after his marriage to Catelyn. Which means, Brandon is out as Jon's potential father.

[Starks Among Us]

A lot of people are under the correct assumption that Jon is around Robb's age. He has to be, in order for Ned to pass him off as his bastard conceived after his marriage to Catelyn. Which means, Brandon is out as Jon's potential father.

I'm not arguing anything other than Ashara could travel too...that's all.

I don't think Jon is Brandon's or Ashara's.

I was just saying it's not as though she couldn't have gotten knocked up (with another kid) at some point if they were meeting after HH and before his death. That's all. Some people seem to think the only potential possiblity of their meeting was once, and at HH. I'm just saying, Ashara could travel too.

[Greenfyre]

The reason RLJ makes sense is it solves the answer of why Jon's mom needs to be a secret

Oh, this is not difficult.

Westeros at the time of Robert's Rebellion widely believed Rhaegar either ran away with, or kidnapped and raped, Lyanna. (In this, Westeros closely resembles the fanbase.)

If it were known that Lyanna had a child at the ToJ -- owned by the Targaryens, defended by three Kingsguard -- what do you suppose Westeros would conclude about that baby's father?

What do you suppose Robert would conclude?

Do you think any alternate story would be considered believable, even if it were the truth? I think Westeros would just chuckle and say "Whatever, he's a Targaryen." (In this, again, Westeros closely resembles the fanbase.)

And Robert, in particular, would take steps following that conclusion.

I think Lyanna was also sharp enough to foresee all of that.

[Woftis]

Your wording 1st time round wasn't great but I can see where you're coming from. However Jon being the product of a Targaryen (Rhaegar) and a Stark (Lyanna) to symbolise the two major parts of this series, Ice and Fire. So it does make sense for Jon to be the centre piece of this story as he could be the one in the end, that stands between the Others (Ice) and Dragons (Fire).

Agreed, I didn't really understand why people were arguing until I read it back and realised it didn't come across the way I intended it.

I appreciate it is a crucial theory to tie many unexplained events together, but I do argue strongly against the initial point: "there's no story of ASOIAF without R+J=L".

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

Wasn't Brandon known for taking what he wanted? Ashara Dayne is rumored by some to be Jon's mother, and the two did meet. Though, Ned may have wanted Ashara, so I don't think Brandon would do this. Doubtless someone has thought of this before though.

Note: RLJ is the theory I actually believe.

Why ask if you believe something else? It's one thing to post hypotheticals, but it makes no sense.

Ned could have made his and Jon's SO MUCH easier by saying Jon is Brandon's kid. Hell, Cat might have even treated him good because he was not a threat and did not represent another woman to Ned (who she came to love more than Brandon).

[Tini]

No one could argue against Ned claiming Jon was his. If Ned claimed the child was Brandon's, he would have to present proof. Which he could not present.

As was pointed out by other posters above, Jon is too young to be Brandon's son. Some people would have realized that, Catelyn among them. So why would Ned lie to her, unless he had been cheating on her with another woman? Jon and Ned's situation would have been worse.

[Jaime FTW]

i'm new on this forum, but i'm already tired of Jon's parenting topics :bang:

stop it! i will be so happy if Jon is just a Ned's bastard and some whore's

[The Mountain That Flies]

Honestly, part of me kind of hopes this question is never answered. Jon's actions throughout the series have been as Ned's son, acting as his father had taught him and making his major life decisions based off of the teachings he received as a half-sibling to Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran, and Rickon (all of whom he was raised as a brother with, not a cousin).

I believe R+L=J, but people tend to focus on it too much when talking about Jon's arc. Yes, he could be relived of his NW duties now, defeat the Others, and take the Iron Throne, but most of that doesn't fit with the character we've seen for five books. Jon had the choice of leaving the NW and getting what he always wanted (Winterfell), but felt this would go against his father's memory, and so didn't do it.

Regardless of who Jon's biological parents are, he is Ned Stark's son, and his story will continue as such. I'm sure Martin will eventually spell out the answer to Jon's parentage (Benjen or Howland Reed are the most likely sources), but I hope when this does happen, Jon will still be the same character we've grown to root for, not some fanboy wet dream.