R+L=J v 59

[Ser Creighton]

You see as a Kid I was :shocked: cause nobody transformed into Lynda Carter and would get really upset :bang: cause I wanted to see Wonder Woman.

She may have ruined me for women, for ever :wacko:

But then I got his :idea:

What if I gave them the costume to wear :leer:

You would think women would want to wear the outfit :drool:

But you hand it to them and ask them to spin and this :tantrum:

became :box:

and I would end up :owned:

[J. Stargaryen]

Yeah, I haven't seen anyone claim that Lyanna lived for "weeks" after Jon was born. If she did die of puerperal fever, that would probably give her 10 days at the maximum and probably less than that. But like you said, even if Lyanna did give him a name, it's moot because Ned named him Jon.

I believe there was a discussion around here a while ago that it was possible. I'm not sure I recall anyone taking a firmer stance than that.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I believe there was a discussion around here a while ago that it was possible. I'm not sure I recall anyone taking a firmer stance than that.

Fair enough. I still say 10 days tops and that's pushing it. And it doesn't "wreck" anything given that we know Ned named Jon regardless of whatever name Lyanna may or may not have lived long enough to give him.

They're getting desperate, aren't they? :dunce:

[Twinslayer]

Or Ned gave him the name Jon. It's not out of the question that he has a Targaryen name. And I don't think Ygrain has argued that Lyanna definitely lived for weeks after Jon was born. Just that it's possible. Which I'm sure you're well aware of.

I think the theory that the KG were guarding the "King" at the TOJ requires that the KG learned that Jon was a boy -- so he was born -- before they learned that Aerys was dead. If not, it is said, at least one of them would have to go to Viserys in case Jon was a girl because that would make Viserys king.

All this had to happen before Ned arrived, which happened before Lyanna died. Meaning Lyanna was alive for some time after Jon was born. My understanding is that this problem is solved by saying Lyanna died of fever a few days or weeks after Jon was born. The amount of time doesn't matter to my question. The question is whether Lyanna died in childbirth like Tyrion and Dany or later on.

Having said that, I take your point: GRRM said Ned named Jon. He didn't say Ned was the only person who named Jon.

A while ago we discussed what "name day" means. Did anyone figure out if this is the same as birthday?

[Jon Icefyre]

I don't watch the show so tell me if this idea is crackpot. I understand that there are a number of show vs book differences, like people who are alive in the books have diedin the show. Is it possible that R+L = J will be true in the books but not in the show? Are the show writers required to be faithful to the books? Just curious.

Ya there's definitely some deviation that goes on in the show vs the books but the main story plots from the books definitely remain true in the show. The deviations more have to do with the show simplifying the road they take in order to get to the main plot points and eliminating some of the smaller characters, which makes sense due to the fact that they don't have enough episodes each season to cover the entirety of whatever book that specific season is covering. But at the end of the day all the major players, still play their roles as in the books and something as big as the revealing of R+L=J would never be flat out ignored in the show, or changed. Now the way they would decide to do it in the show might be different than in the books, but they would still do it regardless.

[J. Stargaryen]

Fair enough. I still say 10 days tops and that's pushing it. And it doesn't "wreck" anything given that we know Ned named Jon regardless of whatever name Lyanna may or may not have lived long enough to give him.

They're getting desperate, aren't they? :dunce:

The R+L=J thread has been the epicenter of a lot of eye-rolling nonsense lately.

I think the theory that the KG were guarding the "King" at the TOJ requires that the KG learned that Jon was a boy -- so he was born -- before they learned that Aerys was dead. If not, it is said, at least one of them would have to go to Viserys in case Jon was a girl because that would make Viserys king.

Honestly, I have a hard time believing that's what you think we've been saying this whole time. I'm pretty sure you're aware of the historical example Apple provided a while back to counter this idea that any actions are taken in the mean time. Basically, you wait and see if the baby is a boy or girl before any decisions are made.

In any case, no, Jon does not have to be born before Aerys dies.

All this had to happen before Ned arrived, which happened before Lyanna died. Meaning Lyanna was alive for some time after Jon was born. My understanding is that this problem is solved by saying Lyanna died of fever a few days or weeks after Jon was born. The amount of time doesn't matter to my question. The question is whether Lyanna died in childbirth like Tyrion and Dany or later on.

Having said that, I take your point: GRRM said Ned named Jon. He didn't say Ned was the only person who named Jon.

A while ago we discussed what "name day" means. Did anyone figure out if this is the same as birthday?

Ned says a fever took Lyanna's strength, indicating an infection:

“I was with her when she died,” Ned reminded the king. “She wanted to come home, to rest beside Brandon and Father.” He could hear her still at times. Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smelled of blood and roses. Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister’s eyes. Ned remembered the way she had smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched

his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black. After that he remembered nothing. They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his. Ned could recall none of it. “I bring her flowers when I can,” he said. “Lyanna was... fond of flowers.”

- AGoT, Eddard I

I'm unaware of any definitive take on the birthday/nameday question.

[Jon Icefyre]

DP sorry

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Honestly, I have a hard time believing that's what you think we've been saying this whole time. I'm pretty sure you're aware of the historical example Apple provided a while back to counter this idea that any actions are taken in the mean time. Basically, you wait and see if the baby is a boy or girl before any decisions are made.

In any case, no, Jon does not have to be born before Aerys dies.

Yep.

The "Do we go to Viserys or not?" issue and the issue of Jon's sex is actually very easily explained. Right up until they found out that Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon were dead, the three guys had every reason to believe that the other four members were guarding the family. So Jon potentially being a girl was moot — no one went without protection for his sake. And I think that Jon was already born when they learned the news (not necessarily that he was born before Aerys died, but that the men learned of the other Targ deaths after Jon was already born) and that's why they ended up staying the entire time. If they had gotten the news before Jon was born, one of them probably would have gone to Viserys, just in case. But by the time it became an issue, Jon had been born male and thus it sorted itself out. I'm also 99% sure I have already explained this position several times. It is sincerely not that big of a head-scratcher unless someone wants it to be.

I'm unaware of any definitive take on the birthday/nameday question.

The wildling custom of waiting so long to name their babies is kind of unusual to Sam and Co., which suggests that babies south of the Wall are either named on the day they're born or soon thereafter.

[Twinslayer]

The R+L=J thread has been the epicenter of a lot of eye-rolling nonsense lately.

Honestly, I have a hard time believing that's what you think we've been saying this whole time. I'm pretty sure you're aware of the historical example Apple provided a while back to counter this idea that any actions are taken in the mean time. Basically, you wait and see if the baby is a boy or girl before any decisions are made.

In any case, no, Jon does not have to be born before Aerys dies.

Ned says a fever took Lyanna's strength, indicating an infection:

- AGoT, Eddard I

I'm unaware of any definitive take on the birthday/nameday question.

I remember the discussion of real life historical examples relating to heirs because it was suggested that when the monarch dies and there is an heir presumptive, there was some kind of universal rule that the heir presumptive does not inherit until it is clear he or she won't be displaced. I thought that theory was abandoned when I pointed out that England's Queen Victoria was proclaimed Queen, but subject to being displaced on the throne in favour of an afterborn heir with a better claim if one came along. I also thought we agreed that even if there was a waiting period, under the "guard the king before anything else" theory, one of the KG would go to Viserys and one or two would stay with Lyanna so whenever they figured out who the new king was they would be covered. So either way, Jon had to be born before the KG found out Aerys was dead or the theory does not work.

I did not think you were saying Jon had to be born before Aerys died. I thought you were saying Jon had to be born before the 3KG found out Aerys was dead, which is different.

Is there still some thought that there might have been an interregnum while the KG waited to find out the baby's gender?

[Varamyr Sixskins]

If R+L=J, why would Barristan not have been informed of this? Is Barristan the Bold finally having a bout of Alzheimer's?

[J. Stargaryen]

I remember the discussion of real life historical examples relating to heirs because it was suggested that when the monarch dies and there is an heir presumptive, there was some kind of universal rule that the heir presumptive does not inherit until it is clear he or she won't be displaced. I thought that theory was abandoned when I pointed out that England's Queen Victoria was proclaimed Queen, but subject to being displaced on the throne in favour of an afterborn heir with a better claim if one came along.

Why would one example cancel out the other? All we're looking for is historical precedent that it could've happened in the way we're suggesting. If they also did it another way some other time, that doesn't disprove anything. No one is claiming that there is only one way to do things.

I also thought we agreed that even if there was a waiting period, under the "guard the king before anything else" theory, one of the KG would go to Viserys and one or two would stay with Lyanna so whenever they figured out who the new king was they would be covered. So either way, Jon had to be born before the KG found out Aerys was dead or the theory does not work.

I did not think you were saying Jon had to be born before Aerys died. I thought you were saying Jon had to be born before the 3KG found out Aerys was dead, which is different.

Is there still some thought that there might have been an interregnum while the KG waited to find out the baby's gender?

I don't know who agreed with you on that, but I don't. I don't even agree with Apple's use of the the word "probably" – I would use "possibly" – when she said: If they had gotten the news before Jon was born, one of them probably would have gone to Viserys, just in case.

Ultimately, the only thing that matters is that the ToJ scene was written the way it was. And what it conveys to a lot of us is that they're guarding the king.

Even if Lyanna was still pregnant, I don't think the KG needed to run off the instant they heard of the sack. What if she was very near due, or even in labor when they found out? The birth may have even happened a few days later, during which time they could have very well struggled with the decision to wait and see what happens with the birth. But then the baby was a boy, which led to them giving a lot of us the impression that they were defending their king when Ned showed up.

So, the theory works just fine either way. Perhaps it's "neater" if Jon is born before they find out about the sack, but it's not necessary for Jon to be legitimate.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

If R+L=J, why would Barristan not have been informed of this? Is Barristan the Bold finally having a bout of Alzheimer's?

Another question easily answered: Barristan didn't know, because he wasn't in Rhaegar's circle. He says as much himself. Rhaegar didn't really trust him that much.

[Dr. Pepper]

I don't watch the show so tell me if this idea is crackpot. I understand that there are a number of show vs book differences, like people who are alive in the books have diedin the show. Is it possible that R+L = J will be true in the books but not in the show? Are the show writers required to be faithful to the books? Just curious.

I don't think the details of the contracts have been revealed, so there's no way to really know if showrunners are required to be faithful. However, even a remote familiarity with tv or film based on books will tell you that showrunners are not necessarily required to be faithful to the source material. It depends a lot on contracts and agreements and such. There are several shows on cable right now or recently ended that are book adaptations and not one of them follows the major plots source material exactly. Often times there are huge changes made, to the point that it alters the entire plot and ending.

[Dr. Pepper]

If R+L=J, why would Barristan not have been informed of this? Is Barristan the Bold finally having a bout of Alzheimer's?

Do you think Jaime is suffering from Alzheimer's?

[Jon Icefyre]

I don't think the details of the contracts have been revealed, so there's no way to really know if showrunners are required to be faithful. However, even a remote familiarity with tv or film based on books will tell you that showrunners are not necessarily required to be faithful to the source material. It depends a lot on contracts and agreements and such. There are several shows on cable right now or recently ended that are book adaptations and not one of them follows the major plots source material exactly. Often times there are huge changes made, to the point that it alters the entire plot and ending.

Ya but when you look at the show in it's first three seasons so far, pretty much every major plot point from the book has been on the show.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Why would one example cancel out the other? All we're looking for is historical precedent that it could've happened in the way we're suggesting. If they also did it another way some other time, that doesn't disprove anything. No one is claiming that there is only one way to do things.

Yep, there are two examples, one in France and one in Spain, where the king died while the queen was pregnant and the throne remained vacant until the babies were born. Not at all like the situation with Victoria, where William IV's wife was very obviously not pregnant but they had to cover their asses legally, a technicality. No one was actually expecting some mystery baby to pop out and upend Victoria's claim. The French and Spanish queens were actually confirmed pregnant.

In any case, I stick by what I said all of this being moot in the case of Jon and Viserys: By the time it became an issue, Jon was already born and born male. So the whole "interim king" discussion really has no bearing whatsoever here. It was not an issue.

Ya but when you look at the show in it's first three seasons so far, pretty much every major plot point from the book has been on the show.

I think they'll probably have to keep changing some stuff, but the overall "endgame" will stay the same. As such any suggestion that R+L=J will be abandoned is downright ridiculous. ETA: To clarify this, I generally agree with DP that they can, but I don't believe for a second that they will.

[Dead Wolf]

Assuming R+L=J is true, and the KG were at the TOJ to protect their true king, why would they need to protect him from his uncle? Ned wouldn't harm his nephew or his sister.

[Dr. Pepper]

Ya but when you look at the show in it's first three seasons so far, pretty much every major plot point from the book has been on the show.

I don't disagree with you. I was only answering the question about whether or not showrunners are required to be completely faithful to the books. They aren't, unless GRRM made this part of the contract. If it's not in the contract or even with any sort of verbal agreement and the showrunners decide to change major things, they can. I'm not saying they will, only that they can.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Assuming R+L=J is true, and the KG were at the TOJ to protect their true king, why would they need to protect him from his uncle? Ned wouldn't harm his nephew or his sister.

You seriously think that's a risk they're going to take? Especially after Rhaenys and Aegon, Jon's half-sister and half-brother, have already been violently killed? And especially when Ned has shown himself to be loyal to Robert, to the point where he might feel compelled to tell Robert about Jon's existence. In any case, it's not just about the (very real) possibility that Ned might kill Jon — he would almost certainly try to deny Jon his right to be king in favor of Robert. And that too is reason enough for the Kingsguard to put up a fight.

[Jon Icefyre]

I don't disagree with you. I was only answering the question about whether or not showrunners are required to be completely faithful to the books. They aren't, unless GRRM made this part of the contract. If it's not in the contract or even with any sort of verbal agreement and the showrunners decide to change major things, they can. I'm not saying they will, only that they can.

Oh ok I see what you're saying and ya, I totally agree with that.