SoIaF: R+L=J? (Serious Spoiler Discussion)

[ssampier]

No doubt it may be presented as such.

Jon is different because - if true - Jon is not the Usurper - Dany is. Primogeniture applies and his claim is better than hers.

The Dragon blood would prove the truth of it; moreover, a deal with Jon (i.e. marriage) will be to her overall advantage.

Somehow I expect - by the time of the Long Night - Westeros will have bigger fish to fry

Excellent point - something I haven't considered; those darn monarch "birthright" is confusing.

The Others could spell disaster for Westeros. What of the Others in a warm climate, can they survive? Unless, of course, as hinted, Winter is coming.

 

[The_lurkeR]

No doubt it may be presented as such.

Jon is different because - if true - Jon is not the Usurper - Dany is. Primogeniture applies and his claim is better than hers.

The Dragon blood would prove the truth of it; moreover, a deal with Jon (i.e. marriage) will be to her overall advantage.

Somehow I expect - by the time of the Long Night - Westeros will have bigger fish to fry

I'm not sure if I agree with that, since Jon would still be a bastard. Rhaegar was married to Elia Martell at the time. Plus Dany is a daughter of the last T king, while Jon would be a grandson. Also don't forget (yoda voice)... there... may .. be ... another... tar..gar..yen. (/yoda voice) Aegon

Here is a quote from So Spake Martin (where GRRM answers questions)

Q:Are Aegon and Rhaenys, Elia’s children, well and truly dead?

A: All I have to say is that there is absolutely no doubt that little Princess Rhaenys was dragged from beneath her father’s bed and slain.

Check out this site for some interesting ideas. "ASoIaF FAQ"

http://www.angelfire.com/ma4/mlarchives/faq/index.html

 

[Berandor]

So... is Hodor Aegon?

 

[nikolai]

Jon is different because - if true - Jon is not the Usurper - Dany is. Primogeniture applies and his claim is better than hers.

This is very complicated, but for the sake of completeness let me spell out the rest of the theory.

If Rhaegar just ran off with Lyanna and impregnated her then Jon is still a bastard (through from Rhaegar-Lyanna, not Ned-?), and has no claim over a legitimate Targaryen. But this would make him Dany's heir - assuming there are no more legitimate Targaryens out there.

If Rhaegar married Lyanna, then Jon would be legitimate. As has been pointed out Rhaegar was already married to Elia Martell. But this may not be a problem, Targaryens have been known to have polygamous marriages in the past - Aegon the Conqeror and his sisters are one example. So it is certainly feasible for Rhaegar and Lyanna to have married.

If this is the case things are still very complicated. Jon had not been born when Aerys and the rest of the Targaryens were killed. Viserys and Dany (and their mother) were the only Targs around at that time. This has implications in terms of line to the throne - as despite being the future eldest son of the King's (dead) eldest son, Jon didn't yet exist, and may not have been able to become king. At this point it's really unclear what the official rules say, or even if there were any. And it is hard to say who has the best claim out of Dany and a (legitimate) Jon.

 

[Steel_Wind]

This is very complicated, but for the sake of completeness let me spell out the rest of the theory.

If this is the case things are still very complicated. Jon had not been born when Aerys and the rest of the Targaryens were killed. Viserys and Dany (and their mother) were the only Targs around at that time. This has implications in terms of line to the throne - as despite being the future eldest son of the King's (dead) eldest son, Jon didn't yet exist, and may not have been able to become king. At this point it's really unclear what the official rules say, or even if there were any. And it is hard to say who has the best claim out of Dany and a (legitimate) Jon.

Actually this may not be correct. Dany was born on Dragonstone sometime after the sacking of King's Landing.

We don't really know when she was born in relation to Jon. It may have been before - and it may have been after - and it may have been the same night.

She is said to have her fourteenth "name day" during the course of GoT. At about the same time as Jon turns 15. (Name day is on the first birthday I think).

What we do know is that if they marry - there are no questions as to who is the legitimate King and Queen - nor as between their offspring. Perhpas a good enough reason to marry on its own.

 

[nikolai]

Jon had not been born when Aerys and the rest of the Targaryens were killed. Viserys and Dany (and their mother) were the only Targs around at that time. This has implications in terms of line to the throne - as despite being the future eldest son of the King's (dead) eldest son, Jon didn't yet exist, and may not have been able to become king.

Actually this may not be correct. Dany was born on Dragonstone sometime after the sacking of King's Landing.

We don't really know when she was born in relation to Jon. It may have been before - and it may have been after - and it may have been the same night.

You're entirely correct that Dany wasn't born when the Targaryens were killed. That's an (enormous) error on my part. It doesn't effect the argument I've set out though. We do know that Jon was born before Dany. Lyanna died, and Jon was born, pretty soon after the Sack of King's Landing, as soon as Ned could get to her. Dany was born a whole nine months after the Sack of King's Landing.

 

[Nifft]

Let's not forget that Jon was legitamized by King Robb.

It's actual paper signed by a dude with a crown on his head... so maybe that means nothing. But it struck me as an odd point when re-reading Storm of Swords.

-- N

 

[Steel_Wind]

Let's not forget that Jon was legitamized by King Robb.

It's actual paper signed by a dude with a crown on his head... so maybe that means nothing. But it struck me as an odd point when re-reading Storm of Swords.

-- N

I don't think Jon ever got that paper though and I do not believe he was aware of it. Does anyone know of it? Did Greyjoy or the Bolton's intercept it?

I expect if Jon had known that Robb had legitimized him as heir, he would have had a lot less soul-searching to do when Stannis asked him to take Winterfell.

As well, I believe this was signed on the understanding that Bran and Rickon were dead - Robb was under a whole series of false assumptions that lead him to name Jon his heir.

 

[nikolai]

Is far as I know Jon's legitimisation by Robb goes like this:

(1) There's no evidence it was actually written. Jon said he was going to do it. But at no point in the books does it say he did it. He may have done it, or may not.

(2) The legitimisation would make Jon a legitimate Stark. He'd be the rightful Lord of Winterfell, in front of Bran and Rickon and Sansa and Arya. Does it make him a legitimate Targaryen? A Targaryen loyalist would say Robb wasn't the King so couldn't legitimise a bastard. A Lannister/Baratheon loyalist would say the same. It'd only be binding to Northmen.

 

[Endur]

I don't buy 5 and 10 and 13 of your theory. The rest seem plausible, even likely.