​Is Game Of Thrones Telling Us R+L=J Is False?

At this point in Game Of Thrones, is R+L=J a spoiler? The world of Ice and Fire has inspired many bonkers theories thanks to George RR Martins descriptive writing and his consistent flaunting of narrative convention (theres enough clues in there to suggest that Tommens cat is the destined saviour of Westeros), but few are as seemingly watertight as the series-defining suggestion of who Jon Snows parents really are.

Even show fans who view the books as overpriced descriptions of food and reddit speculation as a needless distraction from the awesome battles have sussed something doesnt add up about the given story, that Ned had sex with a random tavern wench. Instead (and if this is the hundredth time youve read this theory, feel free to skip to the next paragraph) Jon is the son of Lyanna Stark, Neds sister, and Rhaegar Targaryen, son of the Mad King. Contrary to popular belief, Lyanna wasnt kidnapped by Rhaegar (along with the incineration of Neds father and brother the inciting incident in Roberts Rebellion); they ran away together, got married and had a child. The father was killed in the war and Lyanna died in childbirth, but not before making Ned promise to protect his nephew, which led to him taking the baby as his bastard to avoid Jon (who was now heir to the throne) being killed as part of Roberts mass killing of all Targaryen children.

The evidence backing it up is overwhelming. The genesis is rooted in Ned Starks honour - he is too noble and rule abiding to have cheated on Catelyn - but over the course of six season and five novels (or seven when you consider Martin splits several into two books) theres been a barrage of evidence and allusions fans have picked up on and formed into an essential part of the mythology. It also makes perfect sense in the story, making Jon a literal embodiment of the Song of Ice and Fire and explaining why the series has so intricately charted his development despite being completely isolated from the rest of the characters; he may not end up on the Iron Throne and finally crack a smile, but hes certainly more important than just being the bastard.

Book readers have had cause to suspect all this for the better part of two decades, but the shows really amped things up. In Season 5, there were two world-building scenes that would be classed as filler if they didnt explicitly set the groundwork for this seismic twist; Barristan Selmy's final pre-death scene was him recounting how Rhaegar was actually a kind-hearted soul, busking in Kings Landing and donating his takings to beggars and in the Winterfell crypt Littlefinger told Sansa, in detail, the first public show of affection from the Prince to Lady Stark, much to the shock of the pairs betrothed.

There's only really one conclusion you can draw from those and the theory was all but confirmed. Well, until Season 6.

Were only halfway through the current season and yet theres already been two moments that serve to undermine everything the theory is built on. The first came in Episode 3, where in Brans vision of Tower of Joy Ned doesnt defeat Arthur Dane - the Kingsguard holding Lyanna (who in the theory is in the middle of childbirth) - in combat as the legend tells, but killed him unarmed after Howland Reed stabbed him in the back. Then, just last week, while everyone was focused on Wyllis holding the door, we saw Neds father say to his young son remember, you are a Stark, the same line Ned said to Jon when the bastard asked about his mother as the pair departed Winterfell for the last time.

Both of these moments come in pivotal visions of the past and sneakily alter how we should be viewing R+L=J; at the Tower of Joy Bran points out that Ned shows a lack of honour in his felling of Dane, the same honour that motivated the theory in the first place, while the remember line is one of the earliest clues to Neds secret (its what first got me on the scent), which is nullified if its just a tradition Stark phrase. In two separate episodes, theres been a careful dismantling of two of the essential pillars to the entire theory. Without them, were left with a host of evidence that must be correlated through blind faith alone.

So if Lyanna isnt Jons mother, who is? A popular alternative theory to R+L=J is R+L=D, E+A=J (we really need to find a simpler way to convey all these): that Jon is the son of Eddard and Ashara Dane (an alt alt theory suggests it was Ned's older brother Brandon instead, but that's too many spinning plates for one article), a former love interest and Valyrian descendant (so Jon still has Kingsblood and serves as a Song of Ice and Fire) and that Rhaegar and Lyanna's child was actually Dany; or rather, a replacement for the real Daenerys killed in the sack of King's Landing, with Ned having his niece pose as the princess to save her life. Its a bit more out there and the evidence isnt quite as strong (unlike with Jon, the suggestions are all happen-stance, it requires some smudging of the timeline and there's no surprise claim to the throne), but its not without its merits; Rhaegar and Lyanna's love remains and we do know from the books that there's some uncertainty about Danys upbringing. Wouldnt that be a twist - at the climax of Episode 10 Bran finishes his Tower of Joy vision and sees Lyanna bequeath a baby girl with long, silver hair to Ned?

Of course, thats really, really unlikely, because, just as R+L=J appears indisputable, theres conversely nothing to suggest R+L=D; E+A=J in the show (the Dane name is worthless on screen). If were going to get a twist on the theory, a much more likely case is that Meera Reed is Jons twin (so R+L=J+M - keeping up?); theyre the alleged children of the only two survivors of the Tower of Joy, are the same age, share distinctive Stark traits and have both been shown to kill White Walkers (that last one is a little superficial, but it's got fans talking again).

But if were saying, twin or no, that Jon is Lyanna's son, then what is the purpose of all the recent subversion? Why present evidence that goes against the foundation of the theory? It may just be that the showrunners are trying to sway the more clue-hungry fans (let's not forget only the obsessives will pick up on this) before the anticipated reveals, but instead I think it's actually bring about a more subtle, thematic twist on the theory.

Ned killed Arthur Dane dishonourably because the welfare of his sister trumped everything else and the remember line suggests, contrary to how it was presented in Season 1, he never planned to tell Jon the truth; all of these doubting moments makes the twist more about its effect on Ned. And that may be something even smarter than the actual twist itself. The risk with everybody having figured out R+L=J (or read a descriptive summary online) is that when its finally revealed the emotion will be one of smug satisfaction that sidelines the tragedy of the entire situation. Putting focus on the sacrifices made up until this point ensures that the true horror of it is got across obliquely. Dont be happy you got it. Be sad it pushed Ned to such dark places.

What do you think of R+L=J? Is the show setting up an alternative twist or just muddying the waters a little? Have your say down in the comments.