Was Ned's act of mercy towards Cersei smarter than we give it credit for?

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

I know he never thought of it that way, but this could be one of those unintentional smart moves people sometimes make...

It would still be unintentional though, so it can't be used to demonstrate his intelligence. For what it's worth, I've never considered Ned to be stupid by any means.

[Mladen]

In the North is Ned on his home turf where he is so powerful that he could even kick Varys' ass and where people dare not challenge him. It also helps that Jon does not have the Targaryen looks and that it is rude to pry into the origins of one's natural children. Littlefinger also lets Sansa pretend that she is a bastard for that matter.

Anywhere in Westeros, Varys is not on his territory and somehow he is the most powerful man in the kingdoms. I agree that Jon's looks helped, plus the fact story is bullet-proof, but beside being rude, people like to pry. As for LF and Sansa, I am not so sure that everybody believed him, namely Yohn Royce...

[SummerSphinx]

I was glacing at that section the other day. I had forgotten that Ned had intentionally asked Circei to meet him in the godswood. When she asked why, he replied "So the gods can see."

The heart tree was a faceless oak, but Ned "still felt the presence of the gods."

So it is possible BR, Bran, and others have access to that conversation. Obviously, that can't have much political force, but I'm curious to see if Circei's bold confessions and Ned's attempt to save the children will be meaningful somehow to Bran or someone else.

[Florina Laufeyson]

Bran's visions are tied to weirwoods and there arent any in KL.

:/

[thewingedwolf]

Without actual proof, Ned couldn't have made Robert believe in his claims. But, Ned did something that could definitely brought him the proof - he told Cersei what he knows and what he plans to tell the King, and he advised her to run. Think about it, he told her to take the children, and flee as far as she can. We all know he did it for the children, but could it be that this move was actually smarter than just being act of mercy? Cersei would undoubtedly incriminate herself by running, and that itself would be enough proof for Ned's claims. Then, he would bring the book and everything would go much smoother. Robert would instantly believe him, given the fact Cersei would have escaped with children.

Put in those words, it does make a lot of sense. I think that Robert would likely have believed Ned even if Cersei stayed (perhaps not so with Jon Arryn and Stanns), however that is a different discussion.

I think one of the issues we are facing here is that somehow, through our reading of AOSIAF and our discussions here, honor and intelligence have become mutually exclusive, something that your argument goes a long way in refuting.

I agree with previous posts that Ned being able to hide Jon's true parentage for a decande and a half certainly speaks to his savvyness (did I spell that right?) and also the fact that, after the Greyjoy rebellion, he had the common sense of staying away from the capital and from the South in general also speaks to his good judgement.

[Sullen]

I don't think Ned was stupid but I don't see why people think concealing Jon shows great intelligence.

Especially the way Ned did it.

The honourable Lord Eddard coming home with a bastard whose mother will nearly never be mentioned is not suspicious at all, nooooooo.

He should have let Howland take care of Jon if you ask me.

[Mad Monkey]

Ah, I get it. Ned was playing the hardball, Matlock/Perry Mason/DA Jack McCoy-style. He knows that Cersei is guilty, but he can't quite prove it in court. So he calls an ex parte meeting with her and basically makes out like he has more evidence than he really does in hopes that she'll make an incriminating remark or otherwise prove her guilt by fleeing.

He should have let Howland take care of Jon if you ask me.

"Take care of"?? That doesn't sound like something that Ned would do. If Ned decided that Jon had to die, he would do it himself rather than letting Howland do the dirty work.

[grand old duke of stark]

I don't think Ned was stupid but I don't see why people think concealing Jon shows great intelligence.

First, this was a secret of potentially revolutionary effect on the kingdom, and one which almost anyone would want to know and exploit. Even the slightest hint would have gotten things into a right mess.

Second, to keep it he had to devise a plan, create plausible explanations about the child, figure out how to keep suspicion at bay, and stick to his plan through thick and thin. This must have taken steel-hard discipline, especially because it was a constant issue with the woman he loved. How he resisted telling Catelyn I don't know. And he had to be sure he did not slip, even in his sleep. And as Jon grew, Ned had to resist telling Jon or even hinting to him. And he had to have a back-up plan just in case something about Jon inadvertently made people suspect he wasn't the no-name bastard he appeared be. All this for 14 years! How did he not weaken?

Third, conspiracies are hard to hide. And while Ned was a one-man conspiracy (plus Howland Reed), he could never relax, he probably constantly had to improvise in any situation with the least potential to blow Jon's cover.

All of this is not rocket science, but it requires great intelligence and almost superhuman discipline.

[Sullen]

"Take care of"?? That doesn't sound like something that Ned would do. If Ned decided that Jon had to die, he would do it himself rather than letting Howland do the dirty work.

I wasn't using a euphemism.

I literally mean that Howland Reed should have fostered Jon instead of Ned.

[The Mountain That Flies]

The honourable Lord Eddard coming home with a bastard whose mother will nearly never be mentioned is not suspicious at all, nooooooo.

He should have let Howland take care of Jon if you ask me.

To be entirely fair, the fact that Ned reacted so strongly whenever Ashara Dayne's name was mentioned could have been (at a very slight level) a ploy to make that seem like the truth of Jon's origins. Obviously her name would have stirred strong emotions in him regardless, but I can't help but think he knew that people knew the gossip, knew what his reaction would cause them to think, and went along with it to further the story. Not exactly rocket sciecne, but probably more clever people-manipulation than anything else Ned ever did.

All that being said, I agree with the second point. Literally no one goes to Greywater Watch, and Meera Reed would have been born around the same time, so Jon would have had at least one "sibling". Though I wonder if Ned keeping Jon himself was a way to hold onto some small piece of Lyanna.

[DavosSeaworthy]

But, there is also Renly's, Jon's guard, plus the Kingsguard, the fact they would possibly handle Cersei quietly, without much fuss. Jon was too smart, they wouldn't allow her to act. You count to much that Golden Cloaks would attack the King of Seven Kingdoms, just for money.

Just to clarify I am not stating that Ned was stupid, but this action is often perceived as one of his greatest mistakes. And I agree with Apple, his ability to hide Jon's parentage is astonishing...

The Kingsgaurd was completely unreliable. Trant, Blount, and Moore were all bought by Cersei, plus you have Jamie, I assume Greenfield and Oakheart were loyal to the crown, and Barristan was obviously loyal to the crown, so you have 4-3, at best.

[Arya kiddin']

Jon Arryn and Stannis had sufficient men imo, they just didn't think Robert would trust them. Ned though, Robert would've trusted him for sure. And there is no DNA test in Westeros, the proof he had was all he was likely to get short of a straight out confession.

What he did, for me was very strange. I don't understand completely his intentions for doing it. Cersei and Jaime have cuckolded the king, Jaime has broken Kingsguard vows, what is he warning them for? Shouldn't they be put to trial? Where is honor in letting a criminal escape? If It was pity alone, for the children, should we bring honor in the argument?

This was his weakness, that he was against killing innocent children. And I respect him for that. Justice is more biased towards not getting to convict an innocent, and less so towards convicting a criminal - meaning it is more important that an innocent should not be convicted of false crimes, so I believe. Maybe these were his intentions as well. Ned believed that the children are entirely innocent here and should not suffer for their parents crime, even if they themselves get to escape justice along the way. Whether it was honorable or not is debatable. In retrospect it looks stupid, but his intentions were noble. :)

[Ser Creighton]

I never viewed Ned as stupid. He knew what the smart thing to do would be, he was just too honorable to do it.

He wasn't doing it for Cersei, he was doing it for the kids. He also seemed rather tired of lying which weighed heavily on his decision to inform Cersei of his choice.

It's funny how easily it is for people to either think the kids would of been fine or that it was ok to let them get killed because they were not Roberts. His choice to inform Cersei was not a mistake. What Renly did was unimaginable to Ned, and LF betrayed Ned. LF would have never done that had Renly sided with Ned because if he does that Ned also gets the Tyrells. No way LF challenges the might of the North, the Stormlands, the Reach, and the Tully's. He was also betrayed by Pycelle. The deck was stacked against him from day one by a certain guy named Martin and when he wants a character dead, they die.

[Mladen]

Put in those words, it does make a lot of sense. I think that Robert would likely have believed Ned even if Cersei stayed (perhaps not so with Jon Arryn and Stanns), however that is a different discussion.

Would he? I mean, yes, Robert would gladly accept that Joffrey's abnormality has nothing with him, but Ned would have to play smart here, to convince Robert that Cersei did it beyond reasonable doubt. And when it comes to doubting the accuracy of these claims, we have it a lot. I am not sure whether Robert would have trusted more to Ned than he would to Jon, who was like his father. Especially knowing the bad blood between him and Lannisters.

I think one of the issues we are facing here is that somehow, through our reading of AOSIAF and our discussions here, honor and intelligence have become mutually exclusive, something that your argument goes a long way in refuting.

I agree. And although Ned was the most honorable man, his intelligence has been constantly questioned. And somehow many came to conclusion that no honorable man could ever win the Game. And problem with that interpretation is in the fact that those dishonorable are also losing the Game...

The honourable Lord Eddard coming home with a bastard whose mother will nearly never be mentioned is not suspicious at all, nooooooo.

hen Ned returned from war, he wasn't known for anything. He was a young lord, unknown to many, and naturally people believed that story. I mean, he didn't have the same reputation 14 years ago during RR and during events of ASOIAF...

I literally mean that Howland Reed should have fostered Jon instead of Ned.

I also believe that someone should have fostered Jon, but mostly because of the bad blood between Cat and the boy. I mean, he allowed boy to be raised without mother figure, perfectly aware that Cat didn't like him. When he realized that his story is bullet-proof, that no one is doubting anything, why not sending his bastard to be raised somewhere else, if Cat was so bad to him? Then again, there is something we should also consider - Catelyn wasn't that bad to Jon as we think she was.

Jon Arryn and Stannis had sufficient men imo, they just didn't think Robert would trust them. Ned though, Robert would've trusted him for sure. And there is no DNA test in Westeros, the proof he had was all he was likely to get short of a straight out confession.

But between Ned on one, and Stannis and Jon on another side, who was right? And if you ask me, Stannis and Jon were. Accusing Queen of such crime is no small thing, and it should have been done in a way that leaves no doubts. They all didn't have that.

This was his weakness, that he was against killing innocent children. And I respect him for that. Justice is more biased towards not getting to convict an innocent, and less so towards convicting a criminal - meaning it is more important that an innocent should not be convicted of false crimes, so I believe. Maybe these were his intentions as well. Ned believed that the children are entirely innocent here and should not suffer for their parents crime, even if they themselves get to escape justice along the way. Whether it was honorable or not is debatable. In retrospect it looks stupid, but his intentions were noble. :)

This was honorable thing to do. Although I would disagree with the way he did it, protecting innocents is always right thing to do. From Ned to Davos, protecting those that did nothing wrong is the act of great honor.

[Valandui]

To be entirely fair, the fact that Ned reacted so strongly whenever Ashara Dayne's name was mentioned could have been (at a very slight level) a ploy to make that seem like the truth of Jon's origins. Obviously her name would have stirred strong emotions in him regardless, but I can't help but think he knew that people knew the gossip, knew what his reaction would cause them to think, and went along with it to further the story. Not exactly rocket sciecne, but probably more clever people-manipulation than anything else Ned ever did.

All that being said, I agree with the second point. Literally no one goes to Greywater Watch, and Meera Reed would have been born around the same time, so Jon would have had at least one "sibling". Though I wonder if Ned keeping Jon himself was a way to hold onto some small piece of Lyanna.

The Ashara Dayne rumors worked to his advantage as well. People know that they had a history and Jon's mother allegedly being a Dayne would cover them if Jon ended up having the traditional Targaryen look.

[Mladen]

The Ashara Dayne rumors worked to his advantage as well. People know that they had a history and Jon's mother allegedly being a Dayne would cover them if Jon ended up having the traditional Targaryen look.

How? Daynes are not Valyrians, they are First Men. Story wouldn't make any sense given that Ashara also had black hair. You could explain the eyes, but you wouldn't be able to explain the silver hair.

[Ser Eric]

Ned Stark was a honourable fool. Did he also not decline Renly's help in GoT?

[Mad Monkey]

Ned Stark was a honourable fool. Did he also not decline Renly's help in GoT?

To be fair, that's because Renly had the sneaky, cheating, evil, no-good, dirty, vile plan of arresting Joffrey and Cersei at night.

Ned Stark, of course, could never do such a vile thing. His own plan, arresting Joffrey and Cersei the next morning, was completely different from Renly's because.

[Thendel]

To be fair, that's because Renly had the sneaky, cheating, evil, no-good, dirty, vile plan of arresting Joffrey and Cersei at night.

Ned Stark, of course, could never do such a vile thing. His own plan, arresting Joffrey and Cersei the next morning, was completely different from Renly's because.

Come on, that's not fair: The plan was never to arrest Cersei and the children; the plan was to tell Robert and avoid that confrontation, if it could be helped.

[Valandui]

How? Daynes are not Valyrians, they are First Men. Story wouldn't make any sense given that Ashara also had black hai. You could explain the eyes, but you wouldn't be able to explain the silver hair.

Because traits can skip generations. Her not having silver hair doesn't prevent her child having it. Valarr's silver streak despite Baelor's pure dark hair is a good example. Also, the Daynes tend to have Valyrian-like features.