R+L = J v 62

[MtnLion]

Who ever said a Warg is limited to one type of animal?

Just for clarity, skin changing is accomplished with many types of animals. Many fear wargs because they skin change with wolves, which not all skin changers can do.

[Dio Forel]

Rhaegar wasn't sleeping at the time. He was talking with Elia.

It was more in reference to the concept of dreams and visions.

[Dio Forel]

Who ever said a Warg is limited to one type of animal?

Good question, I know I didnt lol. Affinity isnt implying exclusivity...

[Yeade]

[F]irstly, absent explicit statements from GRRM to that effect (and I do mean a SSM or something much less contestable than what is in Melisandre's POV chapter), I will not believe that Jon is AAR.

At best, I'm willing to say Jon is a candidate for AAR/PTWP, along with Dany, but then I have a view of prophecy being flexible in expression--the better to accommodate within the same narrative both the free will essential to characterization and the inherently deterministic concept of foreshadowing--that others may not agree with.

My thinking goes as follows: Robert's Rebellion need not have happened and, even if it did, the Targaryens need not have lost the Iron Throne. If Brandon hadn't gone to King's Landing demanding Rhaegar's head, if Aerys hadn't proven he deserved to be named the Mad King quite so well, if Rhaegar hadn't been killed by Robert on the Trident, the loyalist forces defeated... Well, who knows how the war would've ended? Rhaegar may have lived to oust his father and be crowned king of Westeros. Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys may all have lived. Rhaella and Lyanna surviving is somewhat less likely, IMO, since they canonically died in childbirth, but Viserys and Dany wouldn't have been exiled to Essos. Jon could've been an acknowledged Targaryen prince, second in the line of succession after Aegon, and almost certainly wouldn't have been allowed to take the black or even fostered in Winterfell with his uncle and cousins.

So, my question is, in the above counterfactual, just who is AAR/PTWP? Assuming the Others, who probably care nothing for the politics of the Seven Kingdoms, are still coming and, with them, the Long Night, the war for the dawn that humanity needs a savior and champion to win. It's impossible to say for sure, right? Thus, my conclusion is that the identity of AAR/PTWP is fluid until such time as the Others are defeated. Though the Ghost of High Heart's foretelling possibly narrows the current pool of AAR/PTWP hopefuls to Jon, Dany, and Aegriff (but only if he's actually Rhaegar's son), who may each be forging a version of Lightbringer. A joint effort isn't ruled out either, in a similar vein to Anakin Skywalker being the Chosen One but incapable, after his turn to the dark side, of fulfilling the prophecy and destroying the Sith (i.e. Palpidious) without Luke and/or Leia.

On a different note, while I don't necessarily believe Bloodraven has ill intentions, that he's on the side of angels, acting in the defense of the realm against the Others, doesn't mean he's above treating Bran and Jon as pawns, if key pieces he personally cares for, subject to lies and manipulation. Dumbledore, Obi-wan and Yoda, even Gandalf all do the same. Dumbledore may have been hopeful that Harry can survive the destruction of Voldemort's Horcrux, but that doesn't change the fact that he set Harry up as the sacrificial lamb. When were Obi-wan and Yoda going to tell Luke that Darth Vader is his father? If they planned to at all, as opposed to aiming Luke at Vader and his master like a guided missile with some vague notion that it's all the will of the Force. And Gandalf? How convenient for him that Thorin and company were willing to set out on a quite probably fatal quest for Erebor that, by the bye, requires them to rid Middle-earth of Smaug, who might've been troublesome in the later War of the Ring. Underhanded, morally questionable tactics and a philosophy that the ends justify the means are really par for the course when it comes to characters in Bloodraven's presumed position, IMO.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I don’t think that it probably it hasn’t something to add at the conversation but I think that Ned’s decision to bury Lyanna among the old Kings in the North is a nice touch since Lyanna is really a Princess(if you believe that she married Rhaegar) and a Princess should only be buried among Kings. I know that this is not the case but as I said I think that is a nice touch.

[King of Winters]

I don’t think that it probably it hasn’t something to add at the conversation but I think that Ned’s decision to bury Lyanna among the old Kings in the North is a nice touch since Lyanna is really a Princess(if you believe that she married Rhaegar) and a Princess should only be buried among Kings. I know that this is not the case but as I said I think that is a nice touch.

Yes, I've seen that mentioned a couple of times.

[Greymoon]

The problem I have with this theory, is that the origins of the term "three-headed dragon" was always talking about three specific ppl whenever the term was used. The term's origins directly correlates with the creation of the Targaryen house sigil. Aegon l and his two sisters at some point right before, during, or after the conquest of Westeros created a red dragon with three-heads as the Targaryen house sigil in honor of Aegon and his two sisters as the first ruiling Targaryen monarch in Westeros. The three-headed dragon was created to represent their union, each head of the dragon's three-heads represents one of the three members of their marriage, and therefore they would always be remembered as the founders of house Targayen's ruiling monarch in Westeros. So whenever someone would use the term, "three-headed dragon" during that time, they were always referring to three specific ppl, which were Aegon l and his two sisters. I really don't think Dany, "embodies the three-headed dragon all by herself" because the origins of the term three-headed dragon was used to describe three ppl, not one....

Now obviously I think it's possible that GRRM could change up the term a little by maybe having a non Targ as one of the heads of the dragon or by not having all three members be brother and sister, but I highly doubt he's going to completely reverse the meaning entirely and have it as one person instead of three. Again, the original three-headed dragon, had three members, not one....

Well I did say I didn't necessarily agree with that theory either, and I'm more of the board that three heads = three people. but if three dragons = one person, I'd lean towards Dany more than Jon. That's all I meant. Generally speaking, I don't agree with the three headed dragon = Jon theory, as has been discussed on the forums.

[Old-Growth]

Greymoon said:

" I'm not going to claim that Jon is AAR, but the argument about dragons is not sound IMO, for the simple reason that it seems to me, that GRRM did not originally mean to have dragons in the story. He explicitly dedicates book number...? to...? because "she made him put the dragons in".In effect, GRRM had the main plot and AAR pinned before he added the dragons to the story. For me, this means that though it appears that the dragons are important, and might be instrumental to the fight against the Others, they are not, or cannot be lightbringer...and they are not, or cannot be be, the mark of AAR, or his weapon.Literaly, lightbringer is a sword. Literaly then, it might be represented by Longclaw (survived a fire) or by Ice (since it was reforged into Oathkeeper and Widow's Wail.).But lightbringer could also be the Night's Watch or a particular skill such as greensight. When reduced to its purpose, lightbringer is a "weapon", and a "weapon" can take different shapes."

The order is as follows: the dragon eggs appear early in the first book, and the dragons themselves at the end of AGoT. Melisandre and the first reference to AAR appear early in book two, and the part of the prophecy about "waking dragons from stone" not until book three. The dedication you refer to is the one to book three.

Before you take me to task for unsound reasoning again, please get your facts straight.

[Greymoon]

Greymoon said:

" I'm not going to claim that Jon is AAR, but the argument about dragons is not sound IMO, for the simple reason that it seems to me, that GRRM did not originally mean to have dragons in the story. He explicitly dedicates book number...? to...? because "she made him put the dragons in".In effect, GRRM had the main plot and AAR pinned before he added the dragons to the story. For me, this means that though it appears that the dragons are important, and might be instrumental to the fight against the Others, they are not, or cannot be lightbringer...and they are not, or cannot be be, the mark of AAR, or his weapon.Literaly, lightbringer is a sword. Literaly then, it might be represented by Longclaw (survived a fire) or by Ice (since it was reforged into Oathkeeper and Widow's Wail.).But lightbringer could also be the Night's Watch or a particular skill such as greensight. When reduced to its purpose, lightbringer is a "weapon", and a "weapon" can take different shapes."

The order is as follows: the dragon eggs appear early in the first book, and the dragons themselves at the end of AGoT. Melisandre and the first reference to AAR appear early in book two, and the part of the prophecy about "waking dragons from stone" not until book three. The dedication you refer to is the one to book three.

Before you take me to task for unsound reasoning again, please get your facts straight.

I did not mean any offence by it, sorry that you took it that way.

We have one clue that implies that GRRM did not at first mean for the dragons to be part of the story; therefore he did not, or had not envisioned them (at first) to be a part of the main plot. We don't know how far the plot was developed by the time the dragons appeared. Maybe he only thought to have an AAR after he "put the dragons in" but, we don’t know that since we are not in his mind. However, if GRRM had the main plot pinned, that means the plot worked without dragons, hence the reason I don't believe the dragons to be the determining element. Unless, of course, he made up the story as he wrote it without knowing where it was going.

[kermischocolate]

I posted this a little while ago in the wrong thread so sorry if you've read it where it shouldn't have been and thanks for the replies if you did.

As much as I believe R+L=J there have always been a couple of things in particular that have confused me.

Why does no one else in Westeros seem to wonder what Ned does at the ToJ, i.e. why were (arguably) the 3 most prominent members of the KG there and not at The Trident or KL or Dragonstone? Surely someone somewhere must have questioned why they weren't with Aerys in the first place, (then Viserys) and why Ned had to fight them to the death?
I mean the number of threads there are about it on here and it doesn't seem to have been questioned by anyone apart from Ned ever? Surely the more inquisitive brains in the kingdom would wonder why the best Knights effectively missed all the action for an entire war?

Why does no one seem to put the time frame of dead Lyanna and Ned appearing with a newborn baby together? I mean surely someone must think it's a bit of a coincidence that Lyanna is "kidnapped" for a year, Robert assumes she's been raped during the time she's unaccounted for and suddenly the honourable Ned Stark finishes the war with a brand new bastard baby. I can't believe no one thought the two might be connected. It must have crossed someone's mind (Cat? Starfall? Jaime?) when they were wondering where Jon came from. They may have no evidence for anything but surely someone must have wondered about 2 pretty dramatic things happening at effectively the same time?

[Ygrain]

Shall I repost the answer, as well? :-)

[Joe Pine]

I don’t think that it probably it hasn’t something to add at the conversation but I think that Ned’s decision to bury Lyanna among the old Kings in the North is a nice touch since Lyanna is really a Princess(if you believe that she married Rhaegar) and a Princess should only be buried among Kings. I know that this is not the case but as I said I think that is a nice touch.

If the Winterfell crypts extend beneath the godswood, the placement of her tomb may have another meaning.

[Ser Creighton]

Just for clarity, skin changing is accomplished with many types of animals. Many fear wargs because they skin change with wolves, which not all skin changers can do.

Right, but ummm prologue of dance, you get a good idea of what a skinchanger can do. And I am going to say Bloodraven is pretty good at what he does, probably just a little but better than old Vamy 6 skins.

[Ser Creighton]

The problem I have with this theory, is that the origins of the term "three-headed dragon" was always talking about three specific ppl whenever the term was used. The term's origins directly correlates with the creation of the Targaryen house sigil. Aegon l and his two sisters at some point right before, during, or after the conquest of Westeros created a red dragon with three-heads as the Targaryen house sigil in honor of Aegon and his two sisters as the first ruiling Targaryen monarch in Westeros. The three-headed dragon was created to represent their union, each head of the dragon's three-heads represents one of the three members of their marriage, and therefore they would always be remembered as the founders of house Targayen's ruiling monarch in Westeros. So whenever someone would use the term, "three-headed dragon" during that time, they were always referring to three specific ppl, which were Aegon l and his two sisters. I really don't think Dany, "embodies the three-headed dragon all by herself" because the origins of the term three-headed dragon was used to describe three ppl, not one....

Now obviously I think it's possible that GRRM could change up the term a little by maybe having a non Targ as one of the heads of the dragon or by not having all three members be brother and sister, but I highly doubt he's going to completely reverse the meaning entirely and have it as one person instead of three. Again, the original three-headed dragon, had three members, not one....

I am with you and sticking with three, it goes along with his theme of not having one main character. Aside from the fact it actually fits 3 people better than one person with three aspects, as people always have more than 3 aspects. Plus 3 is the magic number with this guy, it's all over the books. It's simpler, it's cleaner and it makes more sense and goes along with pretty much everything he has done with the number 3, which I am guessing is his favorite number ever. May go back to his days at Northwestern when he and his buddy Jon I think his name was lived with a woman and Martin has very fond memories of those days.

[Ser Creighton]

It was more in reference to the concept of dreams and visions.

That is fine what does it have to do with the text examples given? How were you relating it to those?

[MtnLion]

Right, but ummm prologue of dance, you get a good idea of what a skinchanger can do. And I am going to say Bloodraven is pretty good at what he does, probably just a little but better than old Vamy 6 skins.

Mmmm, I don't think that wargs are necessarily better than greenseers, nor do I think that being a greenseer makes one a warg. So, comparing apples and oranges is not going to get the job done. ;)

[Ser Creighton]

Good question, I know I didnt lol. Affinity isnt implying exclusivity...

I know you didn't say it but you did state you agreed with this "First, how would Bloodraven know about the will. There was no weirwood and no raven nearby when Robb signed the will."

So if you agree with that statement then what is the implication? Which is why I asked the question.

[Ser Creighton]

Mmmm, I don't think that wargs are necessarily better than greenseers, nor do I think that being a greenseer makes one a warg. So, comparing apples and oranges is not going to get the job done. ;)

What? Apples and Oranges? Bloodraven is both a greenseer and can skin change, so what am I missing? Is he not using animals anymore? How is there a conflict? He does both so I can address both subjects with him.

[Dio Forel]

I know you didn't say it but you did state you agreed with this "First, how would Bloodraven know about the will. There was no weirwood and no raven nearby when Robb signed the will."

So if you agree with that statement then what is the implication? Which is why I asked the question.

My apologies, that part I wasnt agreeing with. I just was saying that it was likely meaning KotIT not KitN that legitimizing Jon would grant.

[Ser Creighton]

According to the books, 1 person in a 1000 is a warg, and 1 skinchanger in a thousand is a greenseer and that greenseers are all in fact wargs. While the common use for warg is wolf or dog, that does not mean they are limited to one animal. Martin said all the Stark children were Wargs, that did not stop Arya from skinchanging with a cat. While some wargs are limited to an affinity with one animal that does not relate to all skinchangers and it comes down to the individual and warg tends to be a general term tossed around. Jon is a warg but does that mean Jon is limited to one type of animal, or Sansa? Probably not, given the strength Jon is said to have. Arya and Bran both have used multiple types animals but were referred to as Wargs by the writer himself. So while warg should be a specific thing it is often tossed around in a less specific manner.

How this is apples and oranges I am not sure? As it's stated Skinchngers are in fact related to greenseers and warg is tossed around in a general manner by the author. How any of this means Bloodraven can only use a raven I do not know. Because that was the original point I was making, I don't doubt he can do pretty much any animal he wants.

Sixskins entered a person for a short time, a weirwood, a sparrow, a squirrel an oak. A horned owl, a hare, earthworms, "I am the wood and everything that is in it." Then finally his wolf One eye. All listed in the prologue of Dance. I am just going out on a rather strong limb and saying Bloodraven is more powerful than him.