R+L=J v 58

[Twinslayer]

What? No it doesn't, all it indicates is that Ned brought Jon home and raised him as his own. It in no way indicates that Ned was literally going around saying the words "Jon is my son" on a regular basis or calling Jon 'son' to his face when directly speaking with him on a regular basis. The biggest issue Cat has with Jon is that he is raised at Winterfell therefore Cat's quote is a direct reflection of Jon's presence at Winterfell. Again that quote is not meant to be taken literally as if Ned was actually referring to Jon literally as his son. That quote is meant to further point out Cat's resentment towards Ned for raising Jon in Winterfell, nothing more. This is further proven when Cat also quotes a situation in which Ned specifically avoids calling Jon his son when Cat is questioning him about Jon's parentage and instead says Jon is his 'blood' and that's all she needed to know.

If Cat was speaking figuratively, she could have said: Ned treated him like a trueborn son. Instead, she said: Ned called him "son." That is Cat quoting her husband.

It's a small point but an important one. When Ned called Jon "son," that was one of the lies he told for fourteen years.

[Jon Icefyre]

If Cat was speaking figuratively, she could have said: Ned treated him like a trueborn son. Instead, she said: Ned called him "son." That is Cat quoting her husband.

It's a small point but an important one. When Ned called Jon "son," that was one of the lies he told for fourteen years.

No you said the quote indicates that Ned called Jon his "son" on a "regular basis" and I'm sorry but it doesn't at all. Obviously Ned would have had to call Jon his son at some point when he first brought him home in order to explain to ppl who Jon is, but it doesn't indicate that he was doing this on a regular basis, and the original argument wasn't if Ned had ever called Jon his son pre-GOT, it was whether Ned had ever individually referred to Jon as his son in the text, which he flat out doesn't. Also the part where Cat says, "for the world to see" is simply talking about the fact that Ned raised Jon as his own out in the open with his actual true born children at Winterfell. You say Cat could've said Ned treated him like a trueborn son, well I say Ned could've simply said Jon was his 'son' instead of saying Jon was his 'blood' when Cat confronts him about Jon's parentage. Again Cat's biggest problem was that Jon was being raised at Winterfell and not that Ned had supposedly fathered a bastard.

[LadyMary]

In terms of Aerys, my problem with his intentions ultimately are his actions.

He sends Rhaella and Viserys away to Dragonstone, (and he's not even fond of Rhaella), yet he keeps Aegon and Rhaenys at KL. It seems he recognizes enough danger to send away his immediate family but not the rest, because he could have sent the children with Rhaella and just kept Elia.

I wondered if Aerys kept Elia and the children not just as a threat to the Martells but to Rhaegar as well, if Aerys believed that Rhaegar was plotting a coup d'etat.

[Alia of the knife]

-

I'm not saying it proves anything, but both Elia & Aegon were definitely kept as hostages by Aerys after the Trident:

ASOS-Jamie Chapter 37- "Rhaegar met Robert on the Trident, and you know what happened there. When the word reached court, Aerys packed the queen off to Dragonstone with Prince Viserys. Princess Elia would have gone as well, but he forbade it. Somehow he had gotten it in his head that Prince Lewyn must have betrayed Rhaegar on the Trident, but he thought he could keep Dorne loyal so long as he kept Elia and Aegon by his side. The traitors want my city, I heard him tell Rossart, but I'll give them naught but ashes. Let Robert be king over charred bones and cooked meat. The Targaryens never bury their dead, they burn them. Aery's meant to have the greatest funeral pyre of them all. Though if truth be told, I do not believe he truly expected to die. Like Aerion Brightfire before him, Aerys thought the fire would transform him....that he would rise again reborn as a dragon and turn all his enemies to ash."

I just wanted to step in and say I love your Elizabeth Woodville avatar :)

[Alia of the knife]

I wondered if Aerys kept Elia and the children not just as a threat to the Martells but to Rhaegar as well, if Aerys believed that Rhaegar was plotting a coup d'etat.

I think that is a definite possibility, but I also notice the peculiar references to Aegon being associated more as Elia's child than Rhaegars?

[J. Stargaryen]

As usual your posts and metaphorical analyses are a breath of fresh air.

Working right now on a Red Rubies&Co reprise and expansion. Just trying to gather my erratic and scattered ideas and waiting for the... dragon to stop chewing its own tail ;)

Thank you. :)

I look forward to seeing your additional ruby analysis. Feel free to message me if you'd like some help organizing your ideas, or could use a second pair of eyes, or just need a kick in the butt to get it done. ;)

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

Reference guide

The Tower of the Hand has an excellent analysis of this theory:

Jon Snow's Parents

And Westeros' Citadel also provides a summary:

Jon Snow's Parents

A Wiki of Ice and Fire:

Jon Snow Theories

Frequently Asked Questions:

How can Jon be a Targaryen if he has a burned hand?

Targaryens are not immune to fire. Aerion Brightflame died drinking wildfire. Aegon V and his son Duncan are thought to have died in a fire-related event at Summerhall. Rhaenyra was eaten by Aegon II's dragon, presumably roasted by fire before the dragon took a bite. Viserys died when he was crowned with molten gold. Dany suffered burns from the fire pit incident at the end of A Dance with Dragons. Finally, the author has stated outright that Targaryens are not immune to fire. Jon's burned hand does not mean he is ineligible to be part Targaryen. For more information about the myth of Targaryen fire immunity, see this thread.

How can Jon be a Targ if he doesn't have silver hair and purple eyes?

Not all Targaryens had the typical Valyrian look. Alysanne had blue eyes. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) had the Dornish look. Some of the Great Bastards did not have typical Valyrian features. Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had her mother's Dornish look.

If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him?

Much is made over the fact that Arya looks like Lyanna, and Jon looks like Arya. Ned and Lyanna shared similar looks.

How can Jon be half-Targ if he has a direwolf?

Ned's trueborn children are half Stark and half Tully. Being half Tully didn't prevent them from having a direwolf so there is no reason to think being half Targaryen would prevent Jon from having a direwolf. If Lyanna is his mother, then he's still half Stark. Furthermore, there is already a character who is half Targaryen and half blood of the First Men and was a skinchanger: Bloodraven.

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?

The evidence that Jon is legitimate is that Targaryens have a history of polygamous marriages which makes it a possibility that Rhaegar had two wives. Three Kingsguards were present at the Tower of Joy when Ned arrived. Even after Ned said that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead and Viserys had fled to Dragonstone, the Kingsguard opted to stay at the Tower of Joy stating they were obeying their Kingsguard vow. The heart of a Kingsguard's vow is to protect the king. With Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon dead, the new king would have been Viserys, unless Lyanna's child was legitimate making him the new king of the Targaryen dynasty. For a comprehensive analysis of Jon's legitimacy, see the detailed explanations in the two linked articles.

But polygamy hadn't been practiced in centuries, is it still even legal?

The practice was never made illegal and there may have been some less prominent examples after Maegor, as stated in this SSM. Furthermore, Jorah suggests it to Dany as a viable option.

Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage?

Aerys was sane enough to realize how taking someone hostage works even at the end of the Rebellion, and he would hardly miss the opportunity to bring Ned and Robert in line any time after the situation started to look really serious. Furthermore, regardless of on whose order the Kingsguard might have stayed at Tower of Joy, they would still be in dereliction of their duty to guard the new king.

This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true?

The theory is not obvious to the majority of readers. Some will get it on first read, most will not. Keep in mind that readers who go to online fan forums, such as this one, represent a very small minority of the A Song of Ice and Fire readership. Also, A Game of Thrones has been out since 1996. That's more than 17 years of readers being able to piece together this mystery.

Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother?

Ned doesn't think about anyone as being his mother. He says the name 'Wylla' to Robert, but does not actively think that Wylla is the mother. He also doesn't think of Jon as his son. There are numerous mysteries in the series, and Jon's parentage is one of those. If Ned thought about Jon being Lyanna's son, it would not be a mystery.

Why should we care who Jon's parents are? Will Jon care? Who cares if he's legitimate?

Once one accepts that the evidence is conclusive and that Jon's parents are Rhaegar and Lyanna and that he is most probably legitimate, these become the important questions.

Previous editions:

“Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread” (thread one)

“Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread” (thread two)

“The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon thread (Part III)” (thread three)

“The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon thread (Part IV)” (thread four)

“The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part V)” (thread five)

“The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part VI)” (thread six)

“The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon Thread Part VII” (thread seven)

“The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part VIII” (thread eight)

“The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part IX” (thread nine)

“The Rhaegar + Lyanna =Jon Thread, Part X”(thread ten)

“The R+L=J thread, part XI” (thread eleven)

“The R+L=J thread, part XII” (thread twelve)

“R+L=J Part XXIII” (thread thirteen)

“R+L=J Part XXIV” (thread fourteen)

“R+L=J XXV” (thread fifteen)

“R+L=J v.16” (thread sixteen)

“R+L=J v.17” (thread seventeen)

“R+L=J v.18” (thread eighteen)

“R+L=J v.19” (thread nineteen)

“R+L=J v.20” (thread twenty)

“R+L=J v.21” (thread twenty-one)

“R+L=J v.22” (thread twenty-two)

“R+L=J v.22a” (thread twenty-two (a))

“R+L=J v.23” (thread twenty-three)

“R+L=J v.24” (thread twenty-four)

“R+L=J v.25” (thread twenty-five)

“R+L=J v.26” (thread twenty-six)

“R+L=J v.27” (thread twenty-seven)

“R+L=J v.28” (thread twenty-eight)

“R+L=J v.29” (thread twenty-nine)

“R+L=J v.30” (thread thirty)

“R+L=J v.31” (thread thirty-one)

“R+L=J v.32” (thread thirty-two)

“R+L=J #33” (thread thirty-three)

“R+L=J v.34” (thread thirty-four)

“R+L=J v.35” (thread thirty-five)

“R+L=J v.36” (thread thirty-six)

“R+L=J v.37” (thread thirty-seven)

“R+L=J v.38” (thread thirty-eight)

“R+L=J v.39” (thread thirty-nine)

"R+L=J v.40" (thread forty)

"R+L=J v. 41" (thread forty-one)

"R+L=J v.42" (thread forty-two)

"R+L=J v.43" (thread forty-three)

"R+L=J v.44" (thread forty-four)

"R+L=J v.45" (thread forty-five)

"R+L=J v.46" (thread forty-six)

"R+L=J v.47" (thread forty-seven)

"R+L=J v.48" (thread forty-eight)

"R+L=J v.49" (thread forty-nine)

"R+L=J v.50" (thread fifty)

"R+L=J v.51" (thread fifty-one)

"R+L=J v.52" (thread fifty-two)

"R+L=J v.53" (thread fifty-three)

"R+L=J v.54" (thread fifty=four)

"R+L=J v.55" (thread fifty-five)

"R+L=J v.56" (thread fifty-six)

"R+L=J v.57" (thread fifty-seven)

"R+L=J v 58" (thread fifty-eight)

I think it's time for a new thread. Isn't it?

[LimeCloak]

58 threads? Aren't two or three fairly thought-rich ones proof enough? But I'm not complaining. I like this theory. Adds a new facet to the character of Jon Snow, though I'm surely among thousands of people to remark on that. Carry on. :D

[Ygrain]

Just came across this:

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” (Douglas Adams)

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

58 threads? Aren't two or three fairly thought-rich ones proof enough? But I'm not complaining. I like this theory. Adds a new facet to the character of Jon Snow, though I'm surely among thousands of people to remark on that. Carry on. :D

The discussion continues for a few reasons.

1. New posters wanting to learn more about it or get questions answered.

2. People discussing other aspects of it, like the why and when and whether Jon's legitimate, symbolism, etc.

3. People in denial.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Just came across this:

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” (Douglas Adams)

This is 100% true.

[J. Stargaryen]

Just came across this:

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” (Douglas Adams)

This is 100% true.

:agree:

[shk12344]

3. People in denial.

It really does amaze that there are people who not only refuses to accept R + L =J, but won't accept the central role of Jon Snow in the book. Often than not, they see Jon as just another figure in the book who will play secondary role to more "important" character like Dany, Stannis or Tyrion.

[Andrés Garcia]

There are some new insights here and there, but a lot of the things that are discussed in these threads have been brought up many times before. It would be good if a few people who are very knowledgeable about the theory and its most common objections collaborated to expand the Q&A considerably. That would probably help make the discussions a bit less repetitive.

[FrozenFire3]

Thought you would enjoy this from the other thread I'm on talking about the Blood Motif, the Starks, and Celtic mythology, particularly the worship of trees.

"The story of the grave of Cyperissa, daughter of a Celtic king in the Danube region, from which first sprang the "mournful cypress,"²² is connected with universal legends of trees growing from the graves of lovers until their branches intertwine. These embody the belief that the spirit of the dead is in the tree, which was thus in all likelihood the object of a cult. Instances of these legends occur in Celtic story. Yew-stakes driven through the bodies of Naisi and Deirdre to keep them apart, became yew-trees the tops of which embraced over Armagh Cathedral. A yew sprang from the grave of Bailé Mac Buain, and an apple-tree from that of his lover Aillinn, and the top of each had the form of their heads.²³ The identification of tree and ghost is here complete."- Celtic Twilight.

:)

Thank you :love:

Jungian archetypes (or maybe cliché lol)... They never stop amazing me. There's nothing more universal than myth, cause there's nothing more universal than human soul:

Zeus and Hermes came disguised as ordinary peasants, and began asking the people of the town for a place to sleep that night. They were rejected by all before they came to Baucis and Philemon's simple rustic cottage. Though the couple were poor, their generosity far surpassed that of their rich neighbours, at whose homes the gods found "all the doors bolted and no word of kindness given, so wicked were the people of that land."

After serving the two guests food and wine (which Ovid depicts with pleasure in the details), Baucis noticed that, although she had refilled her guest's beechwood cups many times, the pitcher was still full. Realising that her guests were gods, she and her husband "raised their hands in supplication and implored indulgence for their simple home and fare." Philemon thought of catching and killing the goose that guarded their house and making it into a meal, but when he went to do so, it ran to safety in Zeus's lap. Zeus said they need not slay the goose and that they should leave the town. This was because he was going to destroy the town and all those who had turned them away and not provided due hospitality. He told Baucis and Philemon to climb the mountain with him and Hermes, not to turn back until they reached the top.

After climbing to the summit ("as far as an arrow could shoot in one pull"), Baucis and Philemon looked back on their town and saw that it had been destroyed by a flood and that Zeus had turned their cottage into an ornate temple. The couple's wish to be guardians of the temple was granted, as was their other request. They also asked that when time came for one of them to die, that the other would die as well. Upon their death, the couple was changed into an intertwining pair of trees, one oak and one linden, standing in the deserted boggy terrain.

Sorry, I missed your inclusion in that passgae Frozen Fire3! The eyes observation was certainly very interesting and it made me think that had Maester Aemon not have been blind, he would have seen something in Jon that reminded him of Rhaegar.

I agree, any evidence for any of our assertions should be borne out of the text (a bit like Cannon Law in that sense), which is why I don't buy the Aegon being at the ToJ theory (there is really no foreshadowing for it, or none that I can see anyway). It's also the same principle when we hear people say that Jon will never be able to convince anyone of his heritage because who would believe R+L=J - yet these people forget that all it took Stannis, Jon Arryn and Ned to be convinced of the Lannister children's parentage was one book and the fact that Robert had a number of black-haired illegitimate children. People don't always appreciate that as genetics differ in our world and Westeros, it could be that the standard and threshhold for evidence generally differs!

Nothing to be sorry :) It's good to share and expand.

I agree about Maester Aemon. Ironically it's Melisandre to tell him that the PtwP stands before him though he doesn't have the eyes to see... Obviously she meant Stannis. Not so sure about GRRM though ;)

[FrozenFire3]

Thank you. :)

I look forward to seeing your additional ruby analysis. Feel free to message me if you'd like some help organizing your ideas, or could use a second pair of eyes, or just need a kick in the butt to get it done. ;)

Just what I needed, a good old-fashioned butt kicking :lol:

Feel free to go all Qyburn on it LOL

I was re-reading the Elder Brother passage about Rhaegar's rubies in a AFfC:

We are blessed here. Where the river meets the bay, the currents and the tides wrestle one against the other, and many strange and wondrous things are pushed toward us, to wash up on our shores. Driftwood is the least of it. We have found silver cups and iron pots, sacks of wool and bolts of silk, rusted helms and shining swords . . . aye, and rubies."

That interested Ser Hyle. "Rhaegar's rubies?"

"It may be. Who can say? The battle was long leagues from here, but the river is tireless and patient. Six have been found. We are all waiting for the seventh."

The passage stands out for its peculiar twist, the suspension points effectively introducing it. What's left unsaid in that ellipsis, only Martin knows. Or not. The final statement seems to be directly related to the Elder Brother's little 'hold of breath'. We are all waiting for the seventh. Why would the author choose such a strange and strong wording? The Brothers (or more generally, the people of Westeros) are not simply waiting for the seventh, they are ALL waiting for it. Implying a collective urgency. An anxious wait.

As brilliantly theorized by MarinaC, the six rubies could symbolize Aerys and Rhaella's descendants (Rhaegar, Viserys, Rhaenys, Aegon, Daenerys, Rhaego). The seventh, still to be found, is Jon. The one ALL are waiting for. No need to mention here the Woods Witch foretelling the TPtwP being born of the line of Aerys and Rhaella.

Further analysis by regular contributors to this board highlighted the symbolism of the river, tireless and patient like time. The rubies as blood and life force metaphor. The blood of Rhaegar literally and metaphorically (blood as progeny and legacy) flowing through it. I'd add one more element: the Quiet Isle where these wondrous things wash ashore. Keeper of the symbols of the past, the present, and the future is an isle devoted to silence. And silence is by its own nature secretive.

Let's take a step further. Meribald, another of our not too random characters, tells us the story of the Crossroads Inn:

“The Old Inn, some call it. There has been an inn there for many hundreds of years, though this inn was only raised during the reign of the first Jaehaerys, the king who built the kingsroad. Jaehaerys and his queen slept there during their journeys, it is said. For a time the inn was known as the Two Crowns in their honor, until one innkeep built a bell tower, and changed it to the Bellringer Inn. Later it passed to a crippled knight named Long Jon Heddle, who took up ironworking when he grew too old to fight. He forged a new sign for the yard, a three-headed dragon of black iron that he hung from a wooden post. The beast was so big it had to be made in a dozen pieces, joined with rope and wire. When the wind blew it would clank and clatter, so the inn became known far and wide as the Clanking Dragon.”

“Is the dragon sign still there?” asked Podrick.

“No,” said Septon Meribald. “When the smith’s son was an old man, a bastard son of the fourth Aegon rose up in rebellion against his trueborn brother and took for his sigil a black dragon. These lands belonged to Lord Darry then, and his lordship was fiercely loyal to the king. The sight of the black iron dragon made him wroth, so he cut down the post, hacked the sign into pieces, and cast them into the river. One of the dragon’s heads washed up on the Quiet Isle many years later, though by that time it was red with rust.

Like the Isle, the Inn seems to be another focal point of our analysis. Not only because it's the set of countless pivotal moments of the saga (some of those we still have to read about, imho), but also for some vivid imagery connected to it. While the Isle is the point where 'roads' and destinies end (for saving and keeping, for shedding old skins and getting new ones), the Inn is where roads and destinies cross. It is associated with Targaryen royalty, having been named for a time after King Jaehaerys and Queen Alysanne. It is built in Darry's lands, a House fiercely loyal to the Targaryens both during the Blackfyre rebellion and Robert's rebellion (story within a story). It displays Targaryen symbols, in the form of the three-headed Clanking Dragon hanging in the yard.

One of the dragon's heads washes up on the Quiet Isle after many a year. In the in-text tale Lord Darry 'mistakes' it for a Blackfyre's sigil. But what if rather than with a black dragon we are dealing with a dragon in black? Jon, son of a dragon prince, wearing and taking the black. Lost for many years, pushed towards us by the currents and tides of time, until resurfacing (the snow falls up) from secrecy: Rhaegar's seventh ruby, the Prince that was Promised, awaited by all and sundry. His old skin peeled away (the black) and a new-old one (the red) finally emerging.

[finger]

Aerys sent Rhaella to Dragonstone after the Trident, not before. Aerys kept Elia close so the Dornish wouldn't betray him, as they would have reason to after Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna. Prince Lewyn then led 10,000 Dornish to the Trident...

Hightower was sent by Aerys to find Rhaegar after the Battle of the Bells, as Aerys realised that Robert was not just some rebel Lord, but the greatest threat to the Targs since the Blackfyres. Hightower then found Rhaegar at the Tower of Joy, eventually; but Rhaegar didn't think or have moved Aegon to the Tower as Rhaegar thought he'd win the Trident. His conversation with Jaime makes that clear. And as other have said, Rhaegar wouldn't just move Aegon away and keep Rhaenys there, if he though they were in danger as he thought his children were the three heads of the dragon.

And Rhaegar didn't deprive Aerys of "hostages", he wanted Jaime to stay with him as Aerys' "crutch". And Rhaegar even said not even him would take Jaime away from Aerys at this point.

No, not Jaime. I mean those hostages that Rhaegar minded.

Aerys wouldn't let Elia go because he needed her to keep the Dorne in check.

Rhaegar would have tried to get both Rhaenys and Aegon. It's logical to expect a negotiation and Aerys would concede to sent Aegon undercover. That wiil be a price he'd be willing to pay, since he was planning to burn KL out, and he would have spared his grandson. In sum, taking Aegon away was in the interest of both Aerys and Rhaegar.

This happens sometimes in negotiations. It seemed Rhaegar was taking advantage from Aerys but, in fact, it was the other way round.

[finger]

Mormont.

I take away that it's possible to group together some posts after they've been sent.

Where is it explained?

[white wolfpack]

So has anyone seen the latest Entertainment Weekly, which has an interview with Benioff and Weiss about the tv show?

Apparently, at the end of their first meeting with GRRM he asked them who Jon Snow's mother was. They say that they had a theory and it turned out to be right.

So, at the very least, this confirms that Jon's parentage is important (duh, but nice to have that confirmed), and it's something that two dedicated fans of the books could put together. With R+L=J being the best supported theory out there I think this lends its adherents some additional hope.

[King of Winters]

No, not Jaime. I mean those hostages that Rhaegar minded.

Aerys wouldn't let Elia go because he needed her to keep the Dorne in check.

Rhaegar would have tried to get both Rhaenys and Aegon. It's logical to expect a negotiation and Aerys would concede to sent Aegon undercover. That wiil be a price he'd be willing to pay, since he was planning to burn KL out, and he would have spared his grandson. In sum, taking Aegon away was in the interest of both Aerys and Rhaegar.

This happens sometimes in negotiations. It seemed Rhaegar was taking advantage from Aerys but, in fact, it was the other way round.

I don't think Aerys cared about Aegon and Rheanys, since he was going to burn Elia and them along with him. And Rhaegar was sure he'd win the Trident so he didn't have them moved or talked about having them moved. He was so sure he'd return from the Trident in victory.

And it's just like asking a parent which of their children they'd prefer to live. It's just not right if he agreed to have Aegon smuggled out and survive, but let his older daughter die with his wife.