R+L=J

I think those are two separate issues. Is it relevant? Maybe, maybe not. I agree that it's hard to see his Targ blood having any significant political impact. I expect the impact it has will be magical in nature.

Whether it's a central mystery or not is a different issue. I don't think there's really any question it's a central mystery for the readers. Hello 95,743 threads on the subject. I think I've shown pretty clearly from the analysis of the opening act that Martin presented it in such a way as to make it such a central mystery, in a direct parallel to the Jon Arryn whodunnit.


Martin seems to have dropped the Jon & Arya plot, but kept the Jon's parentage question in. That's a pretty good indicator that he has somewhere else to go with it that he originally planned.

The objection that it's "not for Jon to claim any other titles" really doesn't have any bearing. In this essay I set out to avoid any kind of appeal to an assumed plot direction to justify the R+L theory. Because of that I removed a passage in the intro that was rather dismissive of Good King Jon Targaryen. I agree that his parentage beyond being a Stark has become irrelevant to the course he has chosen in his life, and I personally don't expect that to change. That doesn't mean he's not half Targ. Did you read the Puppets of Fire & Ice essay linked? My guess is that the relevance of Jon's parentage is the dance of the great wolf and the man of fire, not the Iron Throne.


Ned is extraordinarily careful with his wording. His comment about dishonouring himself and his wife is ambiguous. It seems to be about being with another woman, and that's certainly the obvious implication. It's what Ned wants Robert to infer from what he says, to shut him up. It is not what Ned actually says. Take a close look:


Ned's first answer is "Her name was Wylla." That's a direct answer to "...what was her name, that common girl of yours?" He doesn't acknowledge Robert's qualifier "You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother".

His next comment is "Nor will I." A direct response to "You never told me what she looked like..." He then states that he has dishonoured himself and Catelyn, "in the sight of gods and men". That formulation is used for marriage, but also for a confession of truth at a trial. Thus it does not follow that Ned is necessarily talking about cheating on his wife, it could equally be that he was talking about a lie that dishonoured himself and Catelyn.

Ned says things that are not strictly speaking lies but are intended to swing Robert's behaviour in a particular way or make Robert believe he's said something other than he actually intended all the time. The most direct example of that is on Robert's death-bed, where he promises to look after Robert's children. I suggest that this is simply another of those occasions.


Nice parallel, I like it.


Agreed. This is very much where I was going with my "this is not CSI:Westeros" line. This is literature, we shouldn't treat it as forensics. The way the author tells the story is incredibly informative when we want to figure out the story he's telling.


Is it necessarily the death of a child? No. However, keep in mind that what Ned is thinking about is the death of a child.


There's no paragraph break here, it's all one sequence of thoughts. He thinks about Robert's willingness to see children killed for political reasons. Then he thinks about Rhaegar's son being killed, and Robert turning away. Then he thinks about Sansa's pleading for the life of her pup (as Robert turned away) and compares it directly to Lyanna's pleading. It's the context in which he makes that comparison that's interesting.

If you're dubious about the pup=child connection, let me just throw this very interesting choice of words out there -- from a chapter where killing one of the wolf pups is discussed by a Lannister, no less:



There are two separate scenarios being presented. One is what Ned would do, the other is what Cat would do. If Jon is the one he's most worried about, why does he not list Jon amongst the children, when considering what he would do if his children were threatened? If you look at what's being said, in both cases there is an opposition between two sets of children.
In the case of what Ned would do: "some child I did not know" vs "Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon"
In the case of what Cat would do: Jon vs "the children of her body", i.e Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran and Rickon"

In both cases, the "my children" list is the same. Jon takes the role of "some child I did not know" in Cat's calculus, but is omitted from Ned's calculus.


Oh I'm sure Dayne is important. However I don't see why that's an argument against Rhaegar. There are two conflicting stories about Rhaegar, but both versions come to the same conclusion, that Rhaegar is in the frame for Jon's dad. There is no version of events that puts Dayne in that frame, other than that he was present.

As for Rhaegar, how do you explain Hightower's presence at the ToJ if Rhaegar hadn't been there? Or the fact that it was reported that Rhaegar had abducted Lyanna unless someone at least claimed to have witnessed it? Indeed, as you yourself said, "Everywhere that Rhaegar went, Arthur went with him" which makes Arthur's presence at the ToJ indicative of Rhaegar's. 

Sure, we mostly agree. But, as I was suggesting, there is just as much "proof" that Jon is Ned's son as there is "proof" that Dany's purported origins are accurate. Braavosi Lemon Trees alone are enough to make us question Dany's biography, just as the "close as brothers" prayer is enough to make us question Jon's. I think we agree that things are not always as they seem in ASOIAF. Jon and Dany are nothing if not enigmatic, I would argue, in terms of both purpose and birth.

I think it's fair to say that Dany's biography is enigmatic, but that doesn't mean that her birth is. The key difference for me between Jon's birth and Dany's is that the circumstances of Jon's had two witnesses with good reason to keep it secret, while Dany's had many witnesses, and if there was any reason for keeping any secrets, I haven't heard it. On the contrary, many of the witnesses were trying to sell her out to bargain for their lives, and had every reason to be honest.

We are given specific reasons to question the nature of Jon's birth. We are given specific reasons to question the nature of Dany's childhood, but not her birth.

Again, we agree. But the Braavosi Lemon Trees are as much reason to question Dany's origin as Ned's prayer is to question Jon's.

Lyanna's objection was not that Robert had fathered a bastard. Ned tried to convince her that didn't matter because he'd be faithful once they got married. Lyanna's reaction is not to object that it was too late for that, or that fathering a bastard put Robert beyond the pale, but that Robert was unfaithful by nature, and would continue to be unfaithful after marrying her. Remember that Robert frequented brothels, and Rhaegar didn't. The idea that someone being unfaithful to their wife with one other woman is the same as someone who's casually and serially unfaithful is simply a false equivalence.  

This would only apply to Rhaegar if Lyanna felt that it was in Rhaegar's nature to be be a serial adulterer. There is nothing at all to suggest that Lyanna would think that about Rhaegar just because he'd left his wife for her. Everything we know points to the widely-believed affair between Rhaegar and Lyanna being perceived as something extraordinary, quite out of character for Rhaegar. Lyanna only needs to be persuaded that Rhaegar doesn't just see her as another casual conquest on his way to bed half of Westeros, but is actually serious about her.

Think of Lancelot and Guinevere -- a tragic love affair between an otherwise pure knight and a married woman, which lead to Guinevere being abducted and taken to a place called the tower of joy, a bloody rebellion and the fall of a king. It's adultery, but nobody thinks of Lancelot (or Guinevere for that matter) as being a serial adulterer. He's very much the kind of person who wouldn't frequent brothels.

As for whether Lyanna and Rhaegar eventually fell in love? Quite likely, but I'm really not sure. Needs more information. 

Ah you miss my meaning. I know what Lya's "initial"concerns were about Robert.But it lies in the same vein of speculation that gives me pause. To which i'm glad of the reply because it explains.

This theory is speculating a lot about Lya's actions but more and more im seeing no glue.Remember even Lancelot and Quenivere had history a bit of glue that made them stick.

Can you clarify your meaning then? We're told that Lyanna thinks Robert is a bad match, for reasons that we are also told don't apply to Rhaegar. That seems pretty simple and unproblematic to me.



Motivations -- quite intentionally, I'm certain -- remain mysterious. We've been given a romantic love story for motivation, and that we should absolutely be questioning. R+L isn't the big mystery, it's the why of R+L that's the mystery.

That we don't see the glue is no reason to assume there is no glue. Absence of evidence does not necessarily imply evidence of absence. To put it another way, we see no glue for any of the alternatives either, but something happened -- so there must have been some glue somewhere.