R+L=J v.55

[Alia of the knife]

I agree that this is a great catch! Given the nature of prophecy and what we know of GRRM it seems like one of the most plausible interpretations I've seen here.

I thought of Val too... Doesn't she actually call Shireen "the dead girl"? Are there other examples of Val "seeing"?

Yes, she does. As for other incidents, I'll have to do some research. :)

[Alia of the knife]

Oh god sacrificing Shireen is so cringe worthy to the point that it's definitely right up GRRM's alley :devil: lol. Awesome find, I too never even considered Shireen but it totally makes sense seeing as though GRRM is indeed a sick and cruel bastard. I mean Jon and Davos have stopped attempt after attempt of Mel trying to sacrifice innocent children with "king's blood" so far in the story, but you have to think at some point she's gonna find a way to get the sacrifice she wants right?

And to some degree, you see the gradual build up to her death with her condition being almost a reflection of death itself. To some, she is likely an abomination to begin with, as in the case of Val.

There is also Patchface, who will likely become truly unleashed over her death, so another transitional plot device.

[Old-Growth]

I think this is a potentially excellent catch, and one that has even been proposed before, iirc. However, I have my doubts based on the way the lines read:

It's the last part that bothers me. It seems to be saying that AAr will wake dragons from stone, rather than AAr will be a dragon who is awoken from stone. In principle, I like the idea though. It works on other levels. It's just that one part that troubles me.

On the first part, of course it has: in the course of more than one discussion of the part of Dany's vision in the HOTU that reads "From a smoking tower, a great stone beast took wing, breathing shadow fire ...." The stone beast has been connected to something that Melisandre does in an effort to conjure up a dragon---if that requires King's blood, then it has been proposed that sacrificing Shireen is how it will be done. This is nothing new, tho' that Stannis Lives appears to have arrived at it independently is worthy of note.

On the second if that one bit about AAR is all that bothers you about the Jon is AAR theory..... Even in that one passage there is rather more to ponder. The idea that any old place where your AAR candidate and some salt and smoke are found together is best fit to be the place of salt and smoke is just arbitrary: that could be just any old where and any old time. If that is what you think may I suggest that you reread what Archmaester Marwyn has to say about the nature of prophecy. That goes double for the bizarre idea of combining the stars above and the sigil of a bleeding Ser Patrick to get the bleeding star: risible at best.

[Old-Growth]

I don't know about that last part, because it says that AA will be reborn to wake dragons out of stone. Almost as if waking dragons out of stone is AAr's purpose.

No, saving the world from a great danger is the purpose of AAR/TPtwP, as it was for the original AA, or last hero, or whatever is the proper name.

[Old-Growth]

Only Tom Brady cheats, I however, do not. :o

Just kidding, :P ( well actually I don't cheat, because I like to be able to sleep at night).

What I mean is that "waking the dragon" is used both metaphorically, or possibly literally, which would be true in the case of prophesy, and "stone dragons" are truly awakened.

In the metaphorical sense, it's been used to as an example of temper, or an understanding of some truth, which would be the case for both Rhaegar and Jon at pivotal moments in their life as in Rhaegars meeting Lyanna, and Jons moment of betrayal.

It is still "dragons" plural. Now if you want to claim that Jon has more than one inner dragon :) If you want two inner dragons, it will have to be Dany as well as Jon, or perhaps Young Griff as well or in place of one or the other. That you omitted Daenerys in your list speaks volumes, however, have you forgotten that she is a dragon in the metaphorical sense? If so, are you not just begging the question at issue?

Anyway, sorry about "cheating", I should have found a more polite word.

[corbon]

I think it is wierd that Daenerys says that Rhaegar carried Lyanna off at swordpoint in a way that kind of implies that it was a rescue rather than a kidnapping.

The wierd part is, where did Daenerys hear this story? Viserys? It's unlikely Viserys made that up, so he must have heard it from Rhaegar when Rhaegar returned to King's Landing before the Battle of the Trident. Which makes sense, because Aerys certainly would have asked.

But why didn't Rhaegar mention Lyanna being pregnant? If Rhaegar had done that, Rhaella surely would have known about it, and she would not have gone along with proclaiming Viserys to be the new king once she found out that Aerys and Aegon were dead.

Becasue its doesn't make sense in the first place.

Why would Rhaegar, busy with urgent the war effort, be tellig a 7 year old ratbag kid about Lyanna? And as you say, why is nothing else known?

Its blatantly obvious that Dany's story is merely Robert's story, drifted across to Essos, and 'adapted' to make it more palatable for young Targaryen ears.

[J. Stargaryen]

No, saving the world from a great danger is the purpose of AAR/TPtwP, as it was for the original AA, or last hero, or whatever is the proper name.

Right, but how exactly is AAr supposed to save the world? Perhaps "waking dragons from stone" -- whatever that means -- is the answer.

[WildBlood]

No, saving the world from a great danger is the purpose of AAR/TPtwP, as it was for the original AA, or last hero, or whatever is the proper name.

I believe they are all acceptable ;)

[Stannis Lives]

On the first part, of course it has: in the course of more than one discussion of the part of Dany's vision in the HOTU that reads "From a smoking tower, a great stone beast took wing, breathing shadow fire ...." The stone beast has been connected to something that Melisandre does in an effort to conjure up a dragon---if that requires King's blood, then it has been proposed that sacrificing Shireen is how it will be done. This is nothing new, tho' that Stannis Lives appears to have arrived at it independently is worthy of note.

On the second if that one bit about AAR is all that bothers you about the Jon is AAR theory..... Even in that one passage there is rather more to ponder. The idea that any old place where your AAR candidate and some salt and smoke are found together is best fit to be the place of salt and smoke is just arbitrary: that could be just any old where and any old time. If that is what you think may I suggest that you reread what Archmaester Marwyn has to say about the nature of prophecy. That goes double for the bizarre idea of combining the stars above and the sigil of a bleeding Ser Patrick to get the bleeding star: risible at best.

You touch upon the "metaphorical sense" of the prophecy below which is really how I believe the prophecy needs to be read. I don't think it's literal and I think it has been sensationalized over thousands of years. There is always truth to GRRM's prophecies but also always exaggeration it seems. There is most certainly metaphor. I don't think there needs to be a "bleeding star" or literal "salt and smoke" or literal dragons out of stone. I realize that this is what you are saying but that's why I also believe that the careful wording of Marsh's tears and Jon's "smoking" wound and Ser Patrick's starry sigl in the night sky are simply the metaphorical sign, symbolizing the arrival of AA. I also don't think it's literally AA who is reborn. It's simply the next great hero. If you read the entire prophecy as simply a guide to watch for the signs coming together, it becomes much like Maggy's prophecy or Dany's visions in the hotu. I do not think it's going to be some supernatural rebirth. For the analytical eye, the signs are simply telling you that the prophecy is about to be fulfilled. It's thousands of years later and nobody knew what it would mean in "today's" terms. It's like saying in 2000BC that "a great iron four legged beast will eat a princess" etc and it turns out to be a car crash. I think it should be extremely subtle. Otherwise it's more of a direct prediction than a prophecy, right? Ser Patrick's bleeding stars, Marsh's salty tears, Jon's smoking wound, Shireen's disease of stone, king's blood, mel's obsession, stannis is gone, jon's near death experience, the arrival of the darkness through the white raven. Many subtle signs all congregating at exactly the same time, within two chapters of each other, at the end of the 5th book. It feels right. The signs are so subtle but GRRM uses the parallel words in each explanation.

It is still "dragons" plural. Now if you want to claim that Jon has more than one inner dragon :) If you want two inner dragons, it will have to be Dany as well as Jon, or perhaps Young Griff as well or in place of one or the other. That you omitted Daenerys in your list speaks volumes, however, have you forgotten that she is a dragon in the metaphorical sense? If so, are you not just begging the question at issue?

[Rhaegar's Love]

New around here though R+L=J has been my favorite theory for a while.

In regards to Jon's legitimacy, to me the only reasonable explanation is that he's trueborn.

One thing that everyone can agree on, despite everything else, is that Rhaegar was obsessed with the prophecy (the dragon needs three heads).

Bastards are looked down upon in Westeros, so I cannot see Rhaegar pretty much saying "eh, the bastard is good enough to be the third head."

I also don't see him taking the chance of being able to legitimize him later, as it is too much of a risk to take (Daddy might live a really long time, he may refuse to do it out of spite, etc). Not to mention I could easily see him freaking out about the "third head" being "tainted" from the start, as in if Jon was conceived before he and Lyanna were properly wed.

No, he would want the third head to be trueborn, no if, ands, or buts about it. He also was a scholar, iirc, so if anyone could find a loophole/precedent/whatever for the whole polygamy I think it would be him.

Add in the 3 KGs at the ToJ and their behavior and words and that it seems he genuinely loved Lyanna and wouldn't want to dishonor her and the question of Jon's legitimacy seems pretty well answered. :-)

I hope that made sense. I have a bad habit of rambling.

Edit: Should have said earlier that this was inspired by J. Stargaryen's brilliant post here:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/93307-rlj-v55/page__st__60#entry4757629

Sorry for not giving proper credit earlier! I really thought I had!

[FrozenFire3]

It is still "dragons" plural.

And it could still be a generalization and/or a conceptual substitution. I'm thinking about a specific figure of speech, the synecdoche: in this context, a general class name (dragons) is used to denote a specific member of that class (Jon as a true dragon i.e. a Targaryen).

I wouldn't discard any interpretation (literal dragons, metaphorical dragons or a metaphorically conceptualized dragon). None of us has direct access to GRRM's minderland. Yet... ;)

You touch upon the "metaphorical sense" of the prophecy below which is really how I believe the prophecy needs to be read. I don't think it's literal and I think it has been sensationalized over thousands of years. There is always truth to GRRM's prophecies but also always exaggeration it seems. There is most certainly metaphor. I don't think there needs to be a "bleeding star" or literal "salt and smoke" or literal dragons out of stone. I realize that this is what you are saying but that's why I also believe that the careful wording of Marsh's tears and Jon's "smoking" wound and Ser Patrick's starry sigl in the night sky are simply the metaphorical sign, symbolizing the arrival of AA. I also don't think it's literally AA who is reborn. It's simply the next great hero. If you read the entire prophecy as simply a guide to watch for the signs coming together, it becomes much like Maggy's prophecy or Dany's visions in the hotu. I do not think it's going to be some supernatural rebirth. For the analytical eye, the signs are simply telling you that the prophecy is about to be fulfilled. It's thousands of years later and nobody knew what it would mean in "today's" terms. It's like saying in 2000BC that "a great iron four legged beast will eat a princess" etc and it turns out to be a car crash. I think it should be extremely subtle. Otherwise it's more of a direct prediction than a prophecy, right? Ser Patrick's bleeding stars, Marsh's salty tears, Jon's smoking wound, Shireen's disease of stone, king's blood, mel's obsession, stannis is gone, jon's near death experience, the arrival of the darkness through the white raven. Many subtle signs all congregating at exactly the same time, within two chapters of each other, at the end of the 5th book. It feels right. The signs are so subtle but GRRM uses the parallel words in each explanation.

With due caution, I tend to agree LOL

Same metaphorical approach applies to 'The Prince that was Promised': more than semantically promised he is literally promised (Promise me, Ned [...] the Lord Commander saw much promise in him. As do I.)

New around here though R+L=J has been my favorite theory for a while.

In regards to Jon's legitimacy, to me the only reasonable explanation is that he's trueborn.

One thing that everyone can agree on, despite everything else, is that Rhaegar was obsessed with the prophecy (the dragon needs three heads).

Bastards are looked down upon in Westeros, so I cannot see Rhaegar pretty much saying "eh, the bastard is good enough to be the third head."

I also don't see him taking the chance of being able to legitimize him later, as it is too much of a risk to take (Daddy might live a really long time, he may refuse to do it out of spite, etc). Not to mention I could easily see him freaking out about the "third head" being "tainted" from the start, as in if Jon was conceived before he and Lyanna were properly wed.

No, he would want the third head to be trueborn, no if, ands, or buts about it. He also was a scholar, iirc, so if anyone could find a loophole/precedent/whatever for the whole polygamy I think it would be him.

Add in the 3 KGs at the ToJ and their behavior and words and that it seems he genuinely loved Lyanna and wouldn't want to dishonor her and the question of Jon's legitimacy seems pretty well answered. :-)

I hope that made sense. I have a bad habit of rambling.

It does. And it echoes J. Stargaryen's conceptual analysis here: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/93307-rlj-v55/page__st__60#entry4757629

Welcome to the boards, btw :)

[Ygrain]

Becasue its doesn't make sense in the first place.

Why would Rhaegar, busy with urgent the war effort, be tellig a 7 year old ratbag kid about Lyanna? And as you say, why is nothing else known?

Its blatantly obvious that Dany's story is merely Robert's story, drifted across to Essos, and 'adapted' to make it more palatable for young Targaryen ears.

Not necessarily. Rhaegar was at KL for some time prior he left for the Trident, and Rhaella, who probably would have been one to whom Rhaegar might have confided at least some of what had happened, was a possible source for passing the version "Rhaegar died for the woman he loved" to Viserys (definitely adapted, yes).

New around here though R+L=J has been my favorite theory for a while.

In regards to Jon's legitimacy, to me the only reasonable explanation is that he's trueborn.

One thing that everyone can agree on, despite everything else, is that Rhaegar was obsessed with the prophecy (the dragon needs three heads).

Bastards are looked down upon in Westeros, so I cannot see Rhaegar pretty much saying "eh, the bastard is good enough to be the third head."

I also don't see him taking the chance of being able to legitimize him later, as it is too much of a risk to take (Daddy might live a really long time, he may refuse to do it out of spite, etc). Not to mention I could easily see him freaking out about the "third head" being "tainted" from the start, as in if Jon was conceived before he and Lyanna were properly wed.

No, he would want the third head to be trueborn, no if, ands, or buts about it. He also was a scholar, iirc, so if anyone could find a loophole/precedent/whatever for the whole polygamy I think it would be him.

Add in the 3 KGs at the ToJ and their behavior and words and that it seems he genuinely loved Lyanna and wouldn't want to dishonor her and the question of Jon's legitimacy seems pretty well answered. :-)

I hope that made sense. I have a bad habit of rambling.

Welcome to the boards :-)

And yes, this is the sense most of us R+L believers read into it.

[Morienthar]

Not necessarily. Rhaegar was at KL for some time prior he left for the Trident, and Rhaella, who probably would have been one to whom Rhaegar might have confided at least some of what had happened, was a possible source for passing the version "Rhaegar died for the woman he loved" to Viserys (definitely adapted, yes).

Didn't Rhaella leave for Dragonstone about 7 or 8 months before Dany's birth does that make it before or after Rhaegar's death?

[Ygrain]

Didn't Rhaella leave for Dragonstone about 7 or 8 months before Dany's birth does that make it before or after Rhaegar's death?

IRRC, Rhaella was evacuated to Dragonstone after the news of the defeat at the Trident reached KL, nine months before Dany was born.

[J. Stargaryen]

Didn't Rhaella leave for Dragonstone about 7 or 8 months before Dany's birth does that make it before or after Rhaegar's death?

After. It was the loss at the Trident that prompted Aerys to move Rhaella and Viserys to Dragonstone.

[MtnLion]

I am going to cast some bread upon the water.

Daenerys seems to be incapable of bearing children. One can easily say her womb is stone. Along comes Jon and rises to "wake dragons" (Targryens) from Daenerys' womb. hmmm.

Back on topic: Rhaegar's Love Well reasoned. ;)

[J. Stargaryen]

I am going to cast some bread upon the water.

Daenerys seems to be incapable of bearing children. One can easily say her womb is stone. Along comes Jon and rises to "wake dragons" (Targryens) from Daenerys' womb. hmmm.

Back on topic: Rhaegar's Love Well reasoned. ;)

This makes sense. It could also fit into the idea of AAr being two people:

When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone.

We've all been looking for one scenario where we have both "smoke and salt". But, for example, what if AA was reborn in Dany amidst smoke, the pyre, and will reborn in Jon amidst salt, snow?

It's a little bit crackpot :) but it doesn't hurt to look at these prophecies from all different angles.

[The guy from the Vale]

"Raise dragons from stone" could also mean, quite literally, reviving the Targaryen dynasty and continuing the Targaryen line. If so, both Dany and Jon could still be candidates - although I usually preferthe more subtle candidate here ;)

[sabrecmc]

Stannis Lives' theory about Shireen being sacrificed by Mel and this somehow involving Jon being reborn makes the most sense of the theories I've read of why GRRM would have included her character, given her greyscale and gotten her to the Wall. I mean, otherwise, from a story-telling perspective, what purpose is served by all that? Also, fair point that Jon got the other people with King's blood (except himself) away from Mel, but probably never thought Stannis would allow his own daughter to be burned. Too bad Daddy's away and crazy zealot Mom is there. And I can see Mel thinking, if Stannis was dead or hurt or in trouble, that the sacrifice of AAR's own child would be even more powerful.

Yeah, so I'm totally sold on this.

If that does happen, or something similar, I wonder if Jon is reborn with the knowledge of who his parents really are, perhaps from some Ghost/Bran conversations/visions? I mean, does he come back fully aware of who he is and all that? Or does he not yet get the implications? I've been assuming Howland Reed must show up at some point, but perhaps that isn't necessary for Jon to know so much as the Realm/North.

[Rhaegar's Love]

Thanks for the warm welcome everybody! :)

And thanks FrozenFire3 for pointing out J. Stargaryen's post. I meant to credit but spaced apparently :bang: It's been corrected now.

I should have known it had already been covered but it was just a "EUREKA!!" moment for me (normally I'm good at catching this stuff but that flew right over me for a long time) I got all excited. :rolleyes:

Just throwing it out but could the "waking dragons from stone" in any way be a reference to Jon (assuming he is AAr) being the one to actually control Dany's dragons, and thus have people believing he's the true Targ heir (before all the other stuff is found out)? I know it's a stretch but Lady Stoneheart (of all people lol) mad me think of her singular mindset of "destroy, destroy, destroy" and if Jon can actually reign the dragons in, it would be waking them from their "stone" mindset?

Yeah maybe just ignore this.