R+L=J v 58

[the_one_who_was_promised]

As for Jon's looks, I believe he was purposely kept away from anyone who might have known Rhaegar.

I agree with you. Another poster here said something about the shape of one's eyes in Westeros - implying that Jon could well have inherited some of Rhaegar's looks after all.

On a recent re-read of Game of Thrones, I did get the impression that there was more than one reason for shielding Jon away from the King's feast at Winterfell.

[Muggle]

Game of Thrones Chapter 39 Ned 10

"I looked for you on the Trident," Ned said to them.

"We were not there," Ser Gerold answered.

"Woe to the Usurper if we had been," said Ser Oswell.

"When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were."

"Far away," Ser Gerold said, "or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells."

"I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege," Ned told them, "and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them."

"Our knees do not bend easily," said Ser Arthur Dayne.

"Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him."

"Ser Willem is a good man and true," said Ser Oswell.

"But not of the Kingsguard," Ser Gerold pointed out. "The Kingsguard does not flee."

"Then or now," said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

"We swore a vow," explained old Ser Gerold.

Ned's wraiths moved up beside him, with shadow swords in hand. They were seven against three.

"And now it begins," said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.

"No," Ned said with sadness in his voice. "Now it ends." As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming. "Eddard!" she called. A storm of rose petals blew across a blood-streaked sky, as blue as the eyes of death.

"Lord Eddard," Lyanna called again.

Is this the birth of Jon ?

Is the the cries of a new born Jon? Or the cries of Lyanna in Labor ?

Does any one have a better interpenetration of this sentence.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

<snip>

I actually think that's part of the dream that is symbolic and not literal. Tying the blue rose motif to Lyanna's death. It never really occurred to me that it was symbolic of Jon himself.

[Jon Icefyre]

Ageon is dead, there was no baby switch, and YG is a fake. Like others have said, I find it very odd that Elia would choose to cling on to a 'fake' baby Aegon, instead of doing whatever she could to keep her 'actual' child(Rhaenys) safe. No matter what way some of you are trying to spin it, the text shows that Ned clearly thinks Aegon is dead. After everything GRRM has shown us with false identities, the power of ppl's perception(think Varys power speech),and imposters sitting on the throne(Joffrey and Tommen), I think GRRM's writing style is much more likely to give us a fake Aegon trying to claim the throne in his pretend father's name aka YG, than to give us this baby swapping business as the actual truthful outcome. If R+L=J is true then again, I really don't see GRRM bringing both of Rhaegar's sons into the fold late and have both of them be the real deal. No, IMO GRRM's style is more suited to have one of the those sons actually be an imposter, furthermore, the imposter would happen to be the one that is claiming to be the son who by birth would have the greatest claim to the throne(Aegon/Faegon/YG). Ya I'd say that's right up GRRM's alley, but the baby swap? Not so much.........

[J. Stargaryen]

I actually think that's part of the dream that is symbolic and not literal. Tying the blue rose motif to Lyanna's death. It never really occurred to me that it was symbolic of Jon himself.

I suggested exactly that in my rosetta stone thread, which I know you've read. Maybe you skipped that part. ;)

---

Game of Thrones Chapter 39 Ned 10

"I looked for you on the Trident," Ned said to them.

"We were not there," Ser Gerold answered.

"Woe to the Usurper if we had been," said Ser Oswell.

"When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were."

"Far away," Ser Gerold said, "or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells."

"I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege," Ned told them, "and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them."

"Our knees do not bend easily," said Ser Arthur Dayne.

"Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him."

"Ser Willem is a good man and true," said Ser Oswell.

"But not of the Kingsguard," Ser Gerold pointed out. "The Kingsguard does not flee."

"Then or now," said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

"We swore a vow," explained old Ser Gerold.

Ned's wraiths moved up beside him, with shadow swords in hand. They were seven against three.

"And now it begins," said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.

"No," Ned said with sadness in his voice. "Now it ends." As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming. "Eddard!" she called. A storm of rose petals blew across a blood-streaked sky, as blue as the eyes of death.

"Lord Eddard," Lyanna called again.

Is this the birth of Jon ?

Is the the cries of a new born Jon? Or the cries of Lyanna in Labor ?

Does any one have a better interpenetration of this sentence.

Here's my take from the aforementioned thread:

Mentioned here are: rose petals - Jon; blood - childbirth; death - Lyanna's. Which could be another reminder that Jon's birth led to Lyanna's death.

An alternate take for this passage, which is arguably more consistent with the text, is that "storm" and "blood-streaked sky" are referencing the battle between the Northmen and KG. The battle itself is a result of the KG upholding their vow to protect the king. The king is Jon, and Jon is the blue winter rose.

MtnLion has come up with a take which had not occurred to me. That this bit of text represents the baby Jon crying, which he explains here and here. I add my two cents here. You might like this part. :)

[Muggle]

I actually think that's part of the dream that is symbolic and not literal. Tying the blue rose motif to Lyanna's death. It never really occurred to me that it was symbolic of Jon himself.

I might be over thinking it, But i dont think its symbolic of her death, Because she is able to call out after the "storm" passed And we know Ned went to her "bed of blodd" side and had a short conversation with her. after the battle. And the "storm" started at the first sword strike

A storm of rose petals blew across a blood-streaked sky, as blue as the eyes of death.

I took it as symbolism of two things.

1. Jons birth. (Jons new born infant cries were like a storm across a blood streaked sky "from the battle blood flying off the swords") And the blue rose obv a symbol for jon / first born son of female stark line etc..

2. Foreshadowing that John is the PTWP ( Jon is the storm that blew across a blood streaked sky, in the fight against the others" Just like the Last Hero was the force that won the war.

I also think its important to note that the sword Dawn was present, Cause im pretty convinced Dawn is Lightbringer

[Twinslayer]

For the third time recently, Aegon being alive does not =/= Aegon being at the ToJ.

Now I think I follow your point. It looks like you and I are using the words "hint" and "clue" differently.

I am not saying that Aegon being alive = Aegon being at the Tower of Joy. I am saying that Aegon being alive is the first piece of information in a series of pieces of information that could lead to the conclusion that Aegon was at the TOJ. It naturally leads to the question: if he wasn't in Elia's chamber when the Mountain arrived, where was he?

Let me offer an analogy. We know Lyanna died in a bed of blood. This does not mean that Jon Snow is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. It is, however, one piece of information in a series of pieces of information that could lead to the conclusion that R+L=J. It naturally leads to the question: what caused her to be in a bed of blood? So I would call the "bed of blood" a "hint" or a "clue" concerning R+L=J, just like I would call Aegon being alive a hint or clue concerning his presence at the TOJ.

We think that Rhaegar thought Aegon was the PtwP when he was born, according to the HotU. Beyond that, you're speculating.

We think Rhaegar thought Aegon was the PWWP when he was a baby and we have no reason to think he changed his mind about that in the months between that scene and his death. I think it is appropriate to remain open to the possiblity that he did not change his mind during that time. It is also appropriate to remain open to the possiblity that he did change his mind but there is nothing in any of the books that suggests that happened.

Also, why are you assuming Rhaegar had a contingency plan for losing? He seemed awfully confident that he was going to be victorious against the rebels. AFfC, Jaime I:

I think you are giving Rhaegar too little credit. I would not expect him to tell his troops on the eve of battle that he expected to lose. He was, however, leaving to meet the greatest threat to House Targ since Daemon Blackfyre. If he did not even consider -- privately, at least -- the possibility he might lose, he was as crazy as his father.

As I already explained, the conversation focuses on locations. Since Aegon was supposed to be KL, his location was covered by the "When King's Landing fell..." line. There is no need to ask about Aegon and Rhaenys since the answer is the same as it is for Aerys; the KG were "Far away."

The logical continuation of Ned later asking about Viserys is that he's considering the Targaryen succession, which means he thinks Aegon is dead.

This is a little confusing to me. You are saying the conversation focused on locations, but at the same time that it was about the succession. I think it was about both, and there is one location and there is one heir that is not discussed in this conversation: the place is the TOJ and the heir is Aegon. This could be interpreted as a hint or clue that Aegon is at the TOJ.

And yet again, even if the real Aegon is alive, that does not in any way place him at the ToJ. I'm going to ask nicely: please stop conflating the two.

I think I covered this -- I'm not saying that just because Aegon was alive he had to be at the TOJ. I'm saying that if he was alive he had to be somewhere other than in Elia's chamber. Once you eliminate the impossible -- in this case, most of the Seven Kingdoms -- you have a short list of possible locations.

Because the KG believed that Aegon was dead, as per reports from KL.

Remember, Ned saw the dead children, so there is plenty of time for that news to reach the ToJ. There's no reason to think that whatever communication the ToJ was receiving wouldn't have passed along news of Aegon's death. That's an unnecessary complication introduced to try and explain why this (non)theory could possibly be viable, when it appears at every turn that it isn't. Good, viable theories don't require these kinds of inventions.

I mentioned earlier that this is right -- it is certainly possible that news of Aegon's supposed death reached the TOJ before Ned did. But it is equally possible that it did not. Also, remember, there is some evidence to indicate that the KG knew that Rhaegar and Aerys were dead, but there is nothing to indicate they believed Aegon was dead.

[Twinslayer]

That Ned labeled Viserys Prince pretty much spells it out for me. That the group acknowledges that Willem is not Kingsguard also confirms it, and that they have knowledge of Aegon's death.

I don't put much stock in Ned calling Viserys a prince for two reasons. First, as far as Ned was concerned, Viserys isn't a king because the Targs were deposed. Note that Cersei refers to Lord Stannis, not King Stannis. Second, you aren't a king until you are proclaimed and crowned. This is demonstrated, among other places, by the fact that Connington refers to Young Griff as Prince Aegon, not King Aegon, and the fact that Prince Aerion Brightflame was never considered to be a king. So the KG wouldn't think that Viserys (or Aegon, or Jon for that matter) became king automatically when Aerys died.

[BryndenStark]

I pray that this theory never sees the light of day in Martin's story...seriously, it's simply too cheesy. I'll probably be bashed for being a non-believer but I feel as though this theory is simply too cliché. A hidden prince destined to save the world and become the boss of everyone else, despite all adversities and lowly status. Most of Martin's characters can be divided into two factions - those who have strived to gain power and those who have gained power via heritage. This theory essentially makes Jon the anomaly - a bastard who essentially destroys the delicate hierarchy of Westeros. If this theory ever does come true, I pray that it does not include Jon's ascension to the Iron Throne - I'll grudgingly accept him becoming KitN, even though Rickon is a much more...suitable choice at one point in his life.

[J. Stargaryen]

Now I think I follow your point. It looks like you and I are using the words "hint" and "clue" differently.

I am not saying that Aegon being alive = Aegon being at the Tower of Joy. I am saying that Aegon being alive is the first piece of information in a series of pieces of information that could lead to the conclusion that Aegon was at the TOJ. It naturally leads to the question: if he wasn't in Elia's chamber when the Mountain arrived, where was he?

For Aegon to have been anywhere, it is a necessary precondition that he is alive. This argument works just as well for any location. It has absolutely no ties to the ToJ though. So, no, that's not a clue.

Let me offer an analogy. We know Lyanna died in a bed of blood. This does not mean that Jon Snow is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. It is, however, one piece of information in a series of pieces of information that could lead to the conclusion that R+L=J. It naturally leads to the question: what caused her to be in a bed of blood? So I would call the "bed of blood" a "hint" or a "clue" concerning R+L=J, just like I would call Aegon being alive a hint or clue concerning his presence at the TOJ.

That's a poor analogy because we know Lyanna gave birth (bed of blood), whereas it's maybe 50/50 that Aegon is even alive.

We think Rhaegar thought Aegon was the PWWP when he was a baby and we have no reason to think he changed his mind about that in the months between that scene and his death. I think it is appropriate to remain open to the possiblity that he did not change his mind during that time. It is also appropriate to remain open to the possiblity that he did change his mind but there is nothing in any of the books that suggests that happened.

Except the fact that he went and had another baby, with another woman. And we also know that Rhaegar used to think that he was the PtwP, but then changed his mind. Regardless, none of this suggests a connection to the ToJ. Hell, none of it even suggests that Rhaegar thought he needed to hide Aegon.

I think you are giving Rhaegar too little credit. I would not expect him to tell his troops on the eve of battle that he expected to lose. He was, however, leaving to meet the greatest threat to House Targ since Daemon Blackfyre. If he did not even consider -- privately, at least -- the possibility he might lose, he was as crazy as his father.

Think what you like, but the text supports my position. I prefer not to pretend to know the mind of fictional characters.

This is a little confusing to me. You are saying the conversation focused on locations, but at the same time that it was about the succession. I think it was about both, and there is one location and there is one heir that is not discussed in this conversation: the place is the TOJ and the heir is Aegon. This could be interpreted as a hint or clue that Aegon is at the TOJ.

That the focus was on the locations – Trident, KL, SE, DS – does not rule out the possibility of conveying other information. We even learn what color sword Jaime used to kill Aerys.

When Ned says: “Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.” -he is implying that he believes Aegon is dead, so there is no reason for him to discuss Aegon with the KG.

I think I covered this -- I'm not saying that just because Aegon was alive he had to be at the TOJ. I'm saying that if he was alive he had to be somewhere other than in Elia's chamber. Once you eliminate the impossible -- in this case, most of the Seven Kingdoms -- you have a short list of possible locations.

Okay great. In which case it should be really easy to find some clues that don't borrow from R+L=J linking him to the ToJ. Unlike the brothers on the Quiet Isle, we are all waiting for the first.

I mentioned earlier that this is right -- it is certainly possible that news of Aegon's supposed death reached the TOJ before Ned did. But it is equally possible that it did not. Also, remember, there is some evidence to indicate that the KG knew that Rhaegar and Aerys were dead, but there is nothing to indicate they believed Aegon was dead.

I don't think the chances are equal that the KG didn't know about Aegon and Rhaenys. They had info about the sack, so it seems far less likely that they wouldn't know about this detail.

[Alia of the knife]

Game of Thrones Chapter 39 Ned 10

"I looked for you on the Trident," Ned said to them.

"We were not there," Ser Gerold answered.

"Woe to the Usurper if we had been," said Ser Oswell.

"When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were."

"Far away," Ser Gerold said, "or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells."

"I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege," Ned told them, "and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them."

"Our knees do not bend easily," said Ser Arthur Dayne.

"Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him."

"Ser Willem is a good man and true," said Ser Oswell.

"But not of the Kingsguard," Ser Gerold pointed out. "The Kingsguard does not flee."

"Then or now," said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

"We swore a vow," explained old Ser Gerold.

Ned's wraiths moved up beside him, with shadow swords in hand. They were seven against three.

"And now it begins," said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.

"No," Ned said with sadness in his voice. "Now it ends." As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming. "Eddard!" she called. A storm of rose petals blew across a blood-streaked sky, as blue as the eyes of death.

"Lord Eddard," Lyanna called again.

Is this the birth of Jon ?

Is the the cries of a new born Jon? Or the cries of Lyanna in Labor ?

Does any one have a better interpenetration of this sentence.

That is a really good catch, and beautiful analogies in your later posts.

[Alia of the knife]

I assume YG's

That's what I thought too.

[Twinslayer]

For Aegon to have been anywhere, it is a necessary precondition that he is alive. This argument works just as well for any location. It has absolutely no ties to the ToJ though. So, no, that's not a clue.

As I said, we're clearly using the word "clue" differently. We have a man with a secret hideout, a toddler in danger, and then what is heavily hinted to be a baby swap. To me that's a clue, but we can just agree to disagree about what to call it.

That's a poor analogy because we know Lyanna gave birth (bed of blood), whereas it's maybe 50/50 that Aegon is even alive.

My interpretation of this is that both are clues but that you think the bed of blood is a stronger clue. Again, maybe we are getting needlessly hung up on the definition of "clue."

Except the fact that he went and had another baby, with another woman. And we also know that Rhaegar used to think that he was the PtwP, but then changed his mind. Regardless, none of this suggests a connection to the ToJ. Hell, none of it even suggests that Rhaegar thought he needed to hide Aegon.

It sounds like you are saying you know the mind of a fictional character there . . .

Think what you like, but the text supports my position. I prefer not to pretend to know the mind of fictional characters.

But not there.

It seems to me that part of the fun of this is to try to figure out what the characters were thinking. We spend a lot of time looking at what Ned is really thinking when he says Jon is his "blood," or when he calls Jon "son" for all the world to see. We try to figure out what Jaime was thinkng when he killed Aerys, or what motivated Stannis with respect to the shadow baby that killed Renly. We try to figure out Lyanna's mind -- was she kidnapped, did she go willingly? What is Barristan talking about when he says that KG protection can be extended to mistresses and bastards? You have created some interesting and thoughtful threads about the symbolism of blue roses, including some analysis of what was in Ned's mind when he thought about those flowers. So I think it's fair to wonder whether before the Trident Rhaegar expressed outward confidence to his troops while at the same time harbouring some private doubts.

That the focus was on the locations – Trident, KL, SE, DS – does not rule out the possibility of conveying other information. We even learn what color sword Jaime used to kill Aerys.

When Ned says: “Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.” -he is implying that he believes Aegon is dead, so there is no reason for him to discuss Aegon with the KG.

I don't get why that implies that anyone thinks Aegon is dead.

Ned also says: "I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege . . . and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them." This shows that Ned certainly would not have been surprised to find the 3KG taking part in the siege of Storm's End rather than following VIserys to Dragonstone.

In fact, now that you mention it, it's interesting that Ned thought the "might" have gone with Viserys but he was "certain" they would be at Storm's End. I'll have to ponder that.

Okay great. In which case it should be really easy to find some clues that don't borrow from R+L=J linking him to the ToJ. Unlike the brothers on the Quiet Isle, we are all waiting for the first.

Now it sounds like you are saying that logic that you think applies to Rhaegar's son by Lyanna would not apply with equal force to Rhaegar's (older) son by Elia? If so, that does not make much sense to me.

I don't think the chances are equal that the KG didn't know about Aegon and Rhaenys. They had info about the sack, so it seems far less likely that they wouldn't know about this detail.

This is a good point. I don't think we know enough to know one way or the other which is more likely. Based on the limited information that is available -- that news of Aerys' death preceded news of Aegon's "death" by a few days; Aerys, Rhaella and Viserys are mentioned in the Ned/KG discussion while Aegon and Rhaenys are not -- I'd say it's a toss up. That said, reasonable people can disagree about this.

[Alia of the knife]

Hi, long time lurker, still can't believe I actually caught up *falls breathless into an untidy heap*

I want to add my 2 c:

About Ashara's mysterious suitor:

Jon Snow calls Bran by name, but calls Robb 'Stark'. Could it be because as the eldest son of lord Eddard Stark, Robb is refereed to by the family name? This could be a clue for which Stark Barristan thinks of.

I don't have time to check right now if there is any other heir that is being referred to by family name only, so I'll put it here just in case anybody else gets any ideas, and will look for it later.

The second is that Jaime could be a witness for Jon being a Targaryen, just as much as Barristan. During Robert's visit Jon was kept away from the princes and the head table, so I doubt Jaime ever gave him more than a passing glance, but if he ever got a good look at him, especially now that Jon is all grown up, it might be a whole different story.

Providing they ever meet, of course, but it is equally uncertain in Barristan's case.

*goes back to lurking*

Very clever catches, and welcome.

This is why I gleefully depend upon others interpretations.

And yes, I have the feeling that when the likes of JonCon or Cersei get a look at an adult Jon, or an adult Arya, there will be a collective breakdown.

JonCon sees in "Ageon" what he's been conditioned to see, but his reaction to Aegon is actually a little indifferent beyond remembrances of "silver" hair. There is something integral and subtle to Jon that's of Rhaegar that will be the shot to the heart and a gut-wrenching recognition.

Much of Martin work deals in mysteries, but then some are hidden right out in the open.

A poster on the "Winter Fell" thread posited that perhaps the prophetic fate of Winterfell was already written openly in it's name, and when it is finally restored, (presumably by Sansa), she might change the name to Winterrose.

One, for the symbolic flower that permeates the story of the Starks, and two, blatantly what it means- to rise again.

[J. Stargaryen]

As I said, we're clearly using the word "clue" differently. We have a man with a secret hideout, a toddler in danger, and then what is heavily hinted to be a baby swap. To me that's a clue, but we can just agree to disagree about what to call it.

But the man with the secret hideout was not in charge of the baby swap.

My interpretation of this is that both are clues but that you think the bed of blood is a stronger clue. Again, maybe we are getting needlessly hung up on the definition of "clue."

I didn't say she gave birth to Jon, only that we know she gave birth. But with Aegon, it's maybe 50/50 that he's even alive.

It sounds like you are saying you know the mind of a fictional character there . . .

But not there.

Nope. Just listing Rhaegar's actions. Iirc, I believe I was replying to your assertion that we had no reason to assume Rhaegar changed his mind wrt to tPtwP, etc. My point was that his actions suggest that he might have.

On the other hand, you're setting up textually unsupported hypothetical scenarios saying things like "If Rhaegar was smart, he would have done X." -to paraphrase.

It seems to me that part of the fun of this is to try to figure out what the characters were thinking. We spend a lot of time looking at what Ned is really thinking when he says Jon is his "blood," or when he calls Jon "son" for all the world to see. We try to figure out what Jaime was thinkng when he killed Aerys, or what motivated Stannis with respect to the shadow baby that killed Renly. We try to figure out Lyanna's mind -- was she kidnapped, did she go willingly? What is Barristan talking about when he says that KG protection can be extended to mistresses and bastards? You have created some interesting and thoughtful threads about the symbolism of blue roses, including some analysis of what was in Ned's mind when he thought about those flowers. So I think it's fair to wonder whether before the Trident Rhaegar expressed outward confidence to his troops while at the same time harbouring some private doubts.

That's not claiming to "know a person's mind" though. I'm simply applying a formula, if you will. Like in math when they say "solve for X." In this case it's "solve for blue roses" and the answer is Jon.

However, I will amend my previous statement to apply to non-POV characters. We do get quite a bit of insight into the mind of the POVs, so my earlier comment wouldn't apply to them.

A character like Rhaegar though – when the text doesn't support your position, it's not fair to say what he should have been doing, according to you, especially in hindsight, and use that as "evidence" for your argument.

I don't get why that implies that anyone thinks Aegon is dead.

If Ned thought Aegon were alive, why would he think the KG would be with Viserys?

Ned also says: "I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege . . . and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them." This shows that Ned certainly would not have been surprised to find the 3KG taking part in the siege of Storm's End rather than following VIserys to Dragonstone.

In fact, now that you mention it, it's interesting that Ned thought the "might" have gone with Viserys but he was "certain" they would be at Storm's End. I'll have to ponder that.

I can hardly stand the wait. :)

Now it sounds like you are saying that logic that you think applies to Rhaegar's son by Lyanna would not apply with equal force to Rhaegar's (older) son by Elia? If so, that does not make much sense to me.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Is this just If the KG were there for Jon, they could have been there for Aegon? If so, my reply is that Jon's mother much more strongly suggests his presence than the KG. In turn, the KG were there for Lyanna, then Jon.

This is a good point. I don't think we know enough to know one way or the other which is more likely. Based on the limited information that is available -- that news of Aerys' death preceded news of Aegon's "death" by a few days; Aerys, Rhaella and Viserys are mentioned in the Ned/KG discussion while Aegon and Rhaenys are not -- I'd say it's a toss up. That said, reasonable people can disagree about this.

Reasonable people might be able to disagree about it, but I think it's awfully generous to call it a toss up. If the KG know about the sack, then knowing what happened during the sack seems like the simplest continuation to me.

[J. Stargaryen]

I might be over thinking it, But i dont think its symbolic of her death, Because she is able to call out after the "storm" passed And we know Ned went to her "bed of blodd" side and had a short conversation with her. after the battle. And the "storm" started at the first sword strike

I took it as symbolism of two things.

1. Jons birth. (Jons new born infant cries were like a storm across a blood streaked sky "from the battle blood flying off the swords") And the blue rose obv a symbol for jon / first born son of female stark line etc..

2. Foreshadowing that John is the PTWP ( Jon is the storm that blew across a blood streaked sky, in the fight against the others" Just like the Last Hero was the force that won the war.

I also think its important to note that the sword Dawn was present, Cause im pretty convinced Dawn is Lightbringer

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Very clever catches, and welcome.

This is why I gleefully depend upon others interpretations.

And yes, I have the feeling that when the likes of JonCon or Cersei get a look at an adult Jon, or an adult Arya, there will be a collective breakdown.

JonCon sees in "Ageon" what he's been conditioned to see, but his reaction to Aegon is actually a little indifferent beyond remembrances of "silver" hair. There is something integral and subtle to Jon that's of Rhaegar that will be the shot to the heart and a gut-wrenching recognition.

Much of Martin work deals in mysteries, but then some are hidden right out in the open.

A poster on the "Winter Fell" thread posited that perhaps the prophetic fate of Winterfell was already written openly in it's name, and when it is finally restored, (presumably by Sansa), she might change the name to Winterrose.

One, for the symbolic flower that permeates the story of the Starks, and two, blatantly what it means- to rise again.

That's a good one. I hadn't seen that before.

[Ygrain]

A couple of thoughts:

First, I don't think that Rhaegar would move Aegon without arranging for Rhaenys' safety because they were both important, they were his two dragon heads. Second, I believe we can take a part of reasoning from Jaime: I never thought he would harm the children. Aerys was predominantly paranoid about traitors and overreacted to perceived slights and treated harshly those he thought guilty; we also know that he was sexually abusive to Rhaella. However, we do not know if Rhaegar knew about Rhaella at all and whether there was a basis on which he could reasonably conclude that Aerys might be able to harm young children of his own blood. Mad or not, making such an assumption about one's own father might be nigh impossible.

[lareine]

That's actually a really good point, imo.

Since when don't yet know all of the details about what exactly happened when, could it be possible that she had told her daughter to go and hide underneath her father's bed right before Clegane came into the room and (if the baby was fake) she was sacrificing herself and the baby in order to give Rhaenys time to get away?

[Rhaegar's Love]

The main issue I've always had with "Aegon was saved via baby swap" is, iirc, we're first introduced to this notion via Jon.

Jon sees the danger that Mance Rayder's son is in and swaps him with Gilly's baby.

Then in the next book we have fAegon popping up with this exact same story.

To me, it just seems like classic GRRM to have the real Targ performing the act that supposedly saved the fake Targ.

A couple of thoughts:

First, I don't think that Rhaegar would move Aegon without arranging for Rhaenys' safety because they were both important, they were his two dragon heads. Second, I believe we can take a part of reasoning from Jaime: I never thought he would harm the children. Aerys was predominantly paranoid about traitors and overreacted to perceived slights and treated harshly those he thought guilty; we also know that he was sexually abusive to Rhaella. However, we do not know if Rhaegar knew about Rhaella at all and whether there was a basis on which he could reasonably conclude that Aerys might be able to harm young children of his own blood. Mad or not, making such an assumption about one's own father might be nigh impossible.

:agree:

[King of Winters]

The main issue I've always had with "Aegon was saved via baby swap" is, iirc, we're first introduced to this notion via Jon.

Jon sees the danger that Mance Rayder's son is in and swaps him with Gilly's baby.

Then in the next book we have fAegon popping up with this exact same story.

To me, it just seems like classic GRRM to have the real Targ performing the act that supposedly saved the fake Targ.

Yes, I remember someone pointed put a while ago that if Aegon was real, then the surprise of Jon as a secret Targ wouldn't have a big impact as it would if Aegon was fake, a Blackfyre. People would think, 'great, both of Rhaegar's sons survived'. It would have more impact on the story, and the readers, if Aegon was a fake and Jon was the [trueborn] son of Rhaegar and Lyanna.