Am I the only one that would prefer Jon being Ned's bastard?

[House Balstroko]

I would prefer if he is not Ned's bastard, but it doesn't have to be R + L.

[Moonray]

Then why so much attention on Jon's parentage, why doesn't Ned call him son in his head, only his blood.

What does "Promise me Ned" menans and what does the fear that was in Lyanna's eyes but left when he made that promise, what is lie that he is living for the same amount of years that is Jon's age?

Why he doesn't tell Jon who his mother is?

With your

The ToJ scene doesn't have anything to do with Jon, it just suggests that Lyanna had a baby at the ToJ. The baby could be anyone, or even have been stillborn. Meera's tale has absolutely nothing to do with a child, and merely suggests that Lyanna was moved by a song that Rhaegar sang. All the other information on Rhaegar and Lyanna suggest that they ran away together, but does not suggest that Jon is the fruit of their union.

it doesn't answer those questions (and probably some more of them), which is why I think, Ygrain doesn't bother.

It dose came across just as wanting to be true, without foundation while RLJ has that. you just need to read it more carefully, since its masterfully hidden within the story.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

Then why so much attention on Jon's parentage, why doesn't Ned call him son in his head, only his blood.

What does "Promise me Ned" menans and what does the fear that was in Lyanna's eyes but left when he made that promise, what is lie that he is living for the same amount of years that is Jon's age?

Why he doesn't tell Jon who his mother is?

With your

it doesn't answer those questions (and probably some more of them), which is why I think, Ygrain doesn't bother.

It dose came across just as wanting to be true, without foundation while RLJ has that. you just need to read it more carefully, since its masterfully hidden within the story.

I don't want this to turn into a R+L=J discussion. I've had that discussion. I'm not going to convince anyone, and they're not going to convince me. I've answered all those questions, and my answers aren't any more satisfying to the R+L=J supporters than their answers are to me.

In this specific case, we were talking about two passages and one theme which purport to show that Jon is the son of R+L. However, Jon isn't mentioned in any of them. They do show R+L, but they do not show J. For example, you have to interpret the imagery in the ToJ scene in order to get J. But it is just that, an interpretation. The reader is guessing at the literary intent of the author. It is not proof, nor is it directly hinted at.

[DavosSeaworthy]

It's not about me prefering Jon to be Rhaegar's son. I actually think Ned is Jon's father, at least in terms of role models and all that. Still, the evidence for Rhaegar as the physical father is just overwhelming...

Maxpey is probably the most prominent R+L=J supporter who still longs for Ned as Jon's father ;)

Basically this. Ned is Jon's father, just not his biological father. It takes more than being a sperm donor to be a father and Ned raised Jon, giving him his moral compass and other life skills. The texual evidence points heavily to R+L=J, so I've accepted this as the likely story to Jon's biological parents.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

Basically this. Ned is Jon's father, just not his biological father. It takes more than being a sperm donor to be a father and Ned raised Jon, giving him his moral compass and other life skills. The texual evidence points heavily to R+L=J, so I've accepted this as the likely story to Jon's biological parents.

Except part of that textual evidence is that "Ned never thinks of Jon as his son." You can't have it both ways, if he's not the biological father, the fact that he doesn't think of Jon as his son means that he's not much of an adopted father either.

[Ygrain]

I'd like to apologize for the previous flip, I had a bad day, though it doesn't excuse me for lashing out like that.

Anyway: BBW, analysing a literary work is not guessing. With heavily symbolic, surreal texts, analysis may be difficult and the results ambiguous; with bad writing, the author may be inconsistent. Neither is GRRM's case. Someone - who, by the way, disliked R+L - once pointed out the individual clues can be dismissed, some more easily than others, but what cannot be dismissed that all those clues point towards a single interpretation and are consistent with each other.

I cannot make you see what you don't, but would you at least be willing to concede that if people who are skilled in literary analysis and who are not hormone-driven fanboys/girls are unanimous as to which those clues are and what they signify, they might actually have a point?

[Maxpey]

I'd like to apologize for the previous flip, I had a bad day, though it doesn't excuse me for lashing out like that.

Anyway: BBW, analysing a literary work is not guessing. With heavily symbolic, surreal texts, analysis may be difficult and the results ambiguous; with bad writing, the author may be inconsistent. Neither is GRRM's case. Someone - who, by the way, disliked R+L - once pointed out the individual clues can be dismissed, some more easily than others, but what cannot be dismissed that all those clues point towards a single interpretation and are consistent with each other.

I cannot make you see what you don't, but would you at least be willing to concede that if people who are skilled in literary analysis and who are not hormone-driven fanboys/girls are unanimous as to which those clues are and what they signify, they might actually have a point?

:agree: In a jury trial, if a jury tells a judge that they can't come to a decision, the judge will instruct each member of the jury to reassess their conclusion about what the evidence showed, in light of the fact that there are reasonable people who have come to the opposite conclusion. The R + L = J debate on the forum reminds me so much of a jury trial, with the majority of jurors coming to the conclusion that the textual evidence supports R + L = J, while a minority feel that the evidence is insufficient.

[Dreadwolf]

If Jon were truly Ned's bastard, I'd consider Ned a massive jerk for how he handled the situation re: Jon and Cat and his failure to make provisions for Jon's future.

I don't want my view of Ned tarnished.

this!

As a side note however and while I would maybe prefer Ned totally spotless and morally imaculate, it may not be a very bad idea if he still had afair and a childern from another woman. Then again if it was a baby exchanged for Aegon I would not like this for it will explain very cheaply his general hostility towards Tywin and the Lannisters as a whole. And His undestanding that harming a child is so evil.

I am not sure if I was clear however. Anyway - A lot of people in Westeros lived with the two ostentatiously irreconcilable notions about Ned namely:

- Eddard is one of the most honorable/ honets men in the Realm - whatever t6he meaning of that windy words may be and

- He was still able to kind of dishonor himself being unfaithful to Cat if it ever happened after their betrothal.

It may add to his character the necessary all too human = prone to sins bit.

[Pale Eyes]

I really don't think the whole Ned had a bastard tale meshes well with Ned's character and I really like the idea that at least one person in Westeros could have stayed to true to their values through to the end. However, I do think the R+L=J theory is far too obvious. Sometimes the easy answers are the right ones. We'll see though :dunno: .

[Lady Howell]

I prefer him a bastard of the honorable Ned Stark than the son of a bratty teenage girl and emo prince any day.

[Anath]

I would like Jon to be Ned's bastard. I simply don't believe it.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I prefer him a bastard of the honorable Ned Stark than the son of a bratty teenage girl and emo prince any day.

:agree: but I can't deny the truth.

[WhiteOwl18]

I really don't think the whole Ned had a bastard tale meshes well with Ned's character and I really like the idea that at least one person in Westeros could have stayed to true to their values through to the end. However, I do think the R+L=J theory is far too obvious. Sometimes the easy answers are the right ones. We'll see though :dunno: .

Obvious to us, since we come to an online forum and keep discussing every single aspect of it! I assure you that for most casual readers, who are the very clear majority, it's very far from obvious.

As for the OP, I prefer what makes sense. RLJ makes sense. Jon being Ned's bastard doesn't.

[Ygrain]

t I can't deny the truth.

:cheers:

[Jon's Queen Consort]

:cheers:

Cheers! :cheers: :D

[Shah]

Jon as the bastard child of Lyanna and R (assuming they didn't get married) is undoubtedly better plot wise, but simple preference I like the idea of Jon as Ned's bastard. I'm starting to like L+R=J more though, but when I first found out I'll admit I hated it, but I've grown to like it some.

[Dead Wolf]

No. I would prefer it if Ned was his father

[grand old duke of stark]

Maxpey wrote:

In a jury trial, if a jury tells a judge that they can't come to a decision, the judge will instruct each member of the jury to reassess their conclusion about what the evidence showed, in light of the fact that there are reasonable people who have come to the opposite conclusion. The R + L = J debate on the forum reminds me so much of a jury trial, with the majority of jurors coming to the conclusion that the textual evidence supports R + L = J, while a minority feel that the evidence is insufficient.

This is my feeling as well. As my training is in English literature, I'm not blind to the evidence. Nor am I just giving in to wish fulfillment, But I am a natural sceptic and take a great deal of convincing. There is certainly a better case to be made for R+L=J than against it, but there also is room for reasonable doubt. In the event, I do prefer Jon be Ned's bastard for several reasons, but mainly two: because I want Ned to have shown he was human and because I don't want anyone--Jon, Dany, Bran, Tyrion, whoever--to turn out to be LH, AAR, PtwP, the Messiah, the Saviour etc. all rolled into one. Certainly many posters on this forum seem to lean in that direction. If that's where GRRM is leading us, I will be greatly disappointed. For the moment, I remain to be convinced and therefore also have trouble accepting all the arguments that are built on R+L=J being axiomatic.

[Addam of Hull]

Maxpey wrote:

In a jury trial, if a jury tells a judge that they can't come to a decision, the judge will instruct each member of the jury to reassess their conclusion about what the evidence showed, in light of the fact that there are reasonable people who have come to the opposite conclusion. The R + L = J debate on the forum reminds me so much of a jury trial, with the majority of jurors coming to the conclusion that the textual evidence supports R + L = J, while a minority feel that the evidence is insufficient.

This is my feeling as well. As my training is in English literature, I'm not blind to the evidence. Nor am I just giving in to wish fulfillment, But I am a natural sceptic and take a great deal of convincing. There is certainly a better case to be made for R+L=J than against it, but there also is room for reasonable doubt. In the event, I do prefer Jon be Ned's bastard for several reasons, but mainly two: because I want Ned to have shown he was human and because I don't want anyone--Jon, Dany, Bran, Tyrion, whoever--to turn out to be LH, AAR, PtwP, the Messiah, the Saviour etc. all rolled into one. Certainly many posters on this forum seem to lean in that direction. If that's where GRRM is leading us, I will be greatly disappointed. For the moment, I remain to be convinced and therefore also have trouble accepting all the arguments that are built on R+L=J being axiomatic.

I don't think Ned needs to be Jon's birth father to have shown that he was human. If Jon isn't Ned's son by birth, then Ned has spent near 15 years lying to everyone he cares about. Oh, it was for a good reason, but it was lying all the same. It hurt people. People will argue until they're blue in the face over whether that was the right choice or not, but, well, sometimes there are no happy choices. Only those that are less grievous than another. Making a choice and gambling that he made the right one is a very human thing to do and Ned certainly seems to be haunted by it right up until the moment of his death. Generally, I'm open to other possibilities, especially when it comes to Jon's parentage, but I haven't seen any alternatives that fits the story more than Rhaegar and Lyanna. Certainly none that justifies both the in-text emphasis given on the question and the emphasis Martin himself has placed on it through interviews and SSMs and the likes.