R+L=J v.123

[markg171]

Yes exactly!!! the thought that reawakened Ned's mind is that Robert is still VERY VENGEFUL, even after all these years... and the moment at the crypt came before the hours long feast at the hall. Ned surely was thinking about Jon's safety ABOVE everything else.

After 9 years away, sure!! I would miss a close friend that love dearly if it were the case. But here's the thing, GRRM did not write Ned being elated at the feast. So I asked you what changed his mood? Remember, hindsight's 20/20.

The lines before Jon's chapter...

“Yes, yes, of course, tell Catelyn, sleep on it if you must.” The king reached down, clasped Ned by the hand, and pulled him roughly to his feet. “Just don’t keep me waiting too long. I am not the most patient of men.”

For a moment Eddard Stark was filled with a terrible sense of foreboding. This was his place, here in the north. He looked at the stone figures all around them, breathed deep in the chill silence of the crypt. He could feel the eyes of the dead. They were all listening, he knew.

**Lyanna was ever present in his mind, especially, the promise he made to keep Jon safe, the promise that relieved Lyanna before passing away.

Except we are told that Jon normally sits with the rest of the Starks at the head table. Yet it was Catelyn who moved him, not Ned. Ned's not exactly doing much to keep Robert away from Jon at this feast. So saying he's not happy because of Jon and Robert being the same room makes no sense, when Ned wanted Jon at the head table.

[XSarellaX]

That's not an argument. In fact, that's a very poor argument considering we've already been told that there's a line in the books that gives away part of the ending of ADOS.

Secondly, you can't say that Ned doesn't list Jon as one of his children as proof that Ned isn't his father and R+L=J, but ignore that Ned doesn't list Jon as one of Rhaegar's children either. Wouldn't the fact that he didn't list Jon as his own child, have already given away the fact that Jon wasn't his? So choosing to arbitrarily say here, that this cannot be used as proof that Jon isn't Rhaegar's child is ridiculous. It's purposely ignoring contrary evidence, despite it being exactly the same situation of something that you claim as evidence for R+L=J.

Thirdly, how is Jon's parentage the biggest mystery in the books? We're 5 books in and who his parents are hasn't impacted anything. It's a mystery, but by no means is it the biggest mystery of the books. It's the biggest mystery to this thread, but by no means is it anywhere near the biggest mystery in the books.

I have thought about it for awhile, and I do think it's strange that it is the biggest mystery of the books (I thought the Others were the biggest mystery), but GRRM seems to have implied so in the SSM that has already been linked (the one about why Reed hasn't made an appearance yet), and I'm not going to argue against him.

Or maybe, just maybe, Howland Reed learnt something about the Others, the balancing forces forces in the world and stuff at the Isle of Faces, and that's why he hasn't shown up. Tricky George, making us believe it was something related to Jon all this time..

No he's not. He says he dreamt of Rhaegar's children. Then he mentions that they are dead. Not that he is thinking of only the dead ones. Rhaegar's children means all of his children. To Ned, Rhaegar's children are dead. There is nothing ambigious about the text here.

You can't just come in and say "Rhaegar's children" means only some of them. That's not what it says.

I get what you're saying. Maybe you're right, it would be more consistent if Ned included his thoughts about Jon in the passage, but he can't do that without revealing the mystery.

I think we shoud consider that the quote in which Ned lists all his children except Jon, and then mentions Jon right after, isn't used as an isolated proof of Jon's parentage, it's only supporting evidence.

Also, he's thinnking about what could happen to the "Baratheon children" if Robert finds out the truth, and it is in that context that he remembers Rhaegar's children. He is thinking about the worst case scenario, it makes no sense to mention Jon, since he's alive and well.

[BearQueen87]

@Mark

Because I get the felling you'll still object, here's a grammatically way to look at it.

Yet last night he had dreamt of Rhaegar’s children

Ned: subject

Dreaming: verb

Rhaegar's Children: the object

Ned dreams of Rhaegar's children.

Lord Tywin had laid the bodies beneath the Iron Throne, wrapped in the crimson cloaks of his house guard

Lord Tywin: Subject

Laid: Verb

The bodies: Object

Lord Tywin laid the bodies (down)

Unless you take the previous sentence about Ned and dreaming into account, this sentence with Lord Tywin makes no sense. What bodies? What is the antecedent? That's where the previous sentence comes into play.

Ned dreamed of Rhaegar's children. Lord Tywin laid the bodies [OF RHAEGAR'S CHILDREN] down [iN NED'S DREAM.]

Now the second sentence with Lord Tywin makes more sense...the bodies are of Rhaegar's children and that is how Ned is dreaming of them, as dead.

Ned cannot allow that (the killing of children) to happen again. [extra textual reference: this also recalls Ned yelling at Robert that they put down Aerys to end the slaughter of children, when Robert is convinced that they need to send someone to kill Dany]

[BearQueen87]

Except we are told that Jon normally sits with the rest of the Starks at the head table. Yet it was Catelyn who moved him, not Ned. Ned's not exactly doing much to keep Robert away from Jon at this feast. So saying he's not happy because of Jon and Robert being the same room makes no sense, when Ned wanted Jon at the head table.

Oh and as Lord of Winterfell, Ned cannot override his wife? Funny. I seem to remember that when Cat wanted to foster Jon out, Ned overrode that. And...y'know...LORD of Winterfell...he could have moved Jon back if he wanted.

[XSarellaX]

Except we are told that Jon normally sits with the rest of the Starks at the head table. Yet it was Catelyn who moved him, not Ned. Ned's not exactly doing much to keep Robert away from Jon at this feast. So saying he's not happy because of Jon and Robert being the same room makes no sense, when Ned wanted Jon at the head table.

Ned being offered the handship seems like enough reason for him to be in a bad mood. We can only speculate as to whether he also had other things worrying him (like Jon''s security). But nothing indicates Ned wanted Jon at the head table, if he did, that would be very strange, since it's obvious Cersei would be offended (and probably everyone else that isn't a Stark).

Jon was pissed he had to sit somewhere else. He probably wanted to blame Cat for that, since it would be more painful to think his beloved father didn't want him around.

[markg171]

I have thought about it for awhile, and I do think it's strange that it is the biggest mystery of the books (I thought the Others were the biggest mystery), but GRRM seems to have implied so in the SSM that has already been linked (the one about why Reed hasn't made an appearance yet), and I'm not going to argue against him.

Or maybe, just maybe, Howland Reed learnt something about the Others, the balancing forces forces in the world and stuff at the Isle of Faces, and that's why he hasn't shown up. Tricky George, making us believe it was something related to Jon all this time..

I get what you're saying. Maybe you're right, it would be more consistent if Ned included his thoughts about Jon in the passage, but he can't do that without revealing the mystery.

I think we shoud consider that the quote in which Ned lists all his children except Jon, and then mentions Jon right after, isn't used as an isolated proof of Jon's parentage, it's only supporting evidence.

Also, he's thinnking about what could happen to the "Baratheon children" if Robert finds out the truth, and it is in that context that he remembers Rhaegar's children. He is thinking about the worst case scenario, it makes no sense to mention Jon, since he's alive and well.

@Mark

Because I get the felling you'll still object, here's a grammatically way to look at it.

Yet last night he had dreamt of Rhaegar’s children

Ned: subject

Dreaming: verb

Rhaegar's Children: the object

Ned dreams of Rhaegar's children.

Lord Tywin had laid the bodies beneath the Iron Throne, wrapped in the crimson cloaks of his house guard

Lord Tywin: Subject

Laid: Verb

The bodies: Object

Lord Tywin laid the bodies (down)

Unless you take the previous sentence about Ned and dreaming into account, this sentence with Lord Tywin makes no sense. What bodies? What is the antecedent? That's where the previous sentence comes into play.

Ned dreamed of Rhaegar's children. Lord Tywin laid the bodies [OF RHAEGAR'S CHILDREN] down [iN NED'S DREAM.]

Now the second sentence with Lord Tywin makes more sense...the bodies are of Rhaegar's children and that is how Ned is dreaming of them, as dead.

Ned cannot allow that (the killing of children) to happen again. [extra textual reference: this also recalls Ned yelling at Robert that they put down Aerys to end the slaughter of children, when Robert is convinced that they need to send someone to kill Dany]

Except the dream is about Rhaegar's children. In the dream about Rhaegar's children, they are dead yes. But the fact that they are dead bears nothing on the fact that he says he dreamed of Rhaegar's children, and the only children listed in the dream are Rhaenys and Aegon. He dreams of them dead as Rhaegar's children are dead to Ned.

As to the matter of saving children, Ned says that he cannot allow someone's children to be killed again and that he must find a way to save them. Ned is trying to save all of Cersei's children here, because ALL of Rhaegar's were killed. Hence why he says AGAIN. If he had managed to save Jon, Rhaegar's son, from being killed, he would not be worried about all of someone's children being dead and he wouldn't be saying that this time he must find a way to save them. He would have already saved Jon.

[BearQueen87]

Except the dream is about Rhaegar's children. In the dream about Rhaegar's children, they are dead yes. But the fact that they are dead bears nothing on the fact that he says he dreamed of Rhaegar's children, and the only children listed in the dream are Rhaenys and Aegon. He dreams of them dead as Rhaegar's children are dead to Ned.

No. Ok, one more time. Ned is dreaming of Rhaegar's DEAD children. DEAD...that's the all important qualifier. Is Jon dead? (in GOT)

[markg171]

Oh and as Lord of Winterfell, Ned cannot override his wife? Funny. I seem to remember that when Cat wanted to foster Jon out, Ned overrode that. And...y'know...LORD of Winterfell...he could have moved Jon back if he wanted.

There's nothing that says he tried to play a role in the seating arrangements though. That's something his steward would have looked afterwards. We are only told that Catelyn had him moved. Seeing as Ned had just been offered to move south and become Hand, I think we can excuse him for not bothering to check the seating arrangements.

Ned being offered the handship seems like enough reason for him to be in a bad mood. We can only speculate as to whether he also had other things worrying him (like Jon''s security). But nothing indicates Ned wanted Jon at the head table, if he did, that would be very strange, since it's obvious Cersei would be offended (and probably everyone else that isn't a Stark).

Jon was pissed he had to sit somewhere else. He probably wanted to blame Cat for that, since it would be more painful to think his beloved father didn't want him around.

I only meant that normally Ned would have him seated at the head table. There's plenty of reasons for why he wasn't that make far more sense than Ned didn't want Robert and Jon close. Like you say, he is a bastard afterall and Cersei was already in a bad mood from Robert having visited the crypts.

[BearQueen87]

There's nothing that says he tried to play a role in the seating arrangements though. That's something his steward would have looked afterwards. We are only told that Catelyn had him moved. Seeing as Ned had just been offered to move south and become Hand, I think we can excuse him for not bothering to check the seating arrangements.

But Ned doesn't want to change the seating arrangements. He WANTS Jon far away from Robert. Read between the lines. Had Ned, who loves Jon and doesn't like the stigma that has been given to Jon because of Westerosi society, learned that Jon was to be seated far away (thus, far from the honor like we see done to Viserys in Vaes Dothrak) he could have moved him if he wished. Ned doesn't interfere or change...why? Because he wants Jon far away from Robert. So when he heard that Jon was seated where he was, he lets it go...because it's for the best, even if hurts Jon's feelings. "The lie [seating arrangement] was not without honor"

And this whole "it's not in the book" thing is getting a wee bit weary. Do you realize that if GRRM had to put in every single thought or random passing that every character ever had

1) there would be no mystery

2) we'd probably still only have GOT and ACOK

3) Each book would be the size of War and Peace and then some

4) It would deadly dull.

You have to leave some room for critical analysis. GRRM likes mysteries. He likes writing mysteries. He thinks there should be a structure and order. You don't get told the inner workings of every player in a mystery. You get clues and hints and bits and bobs because the author of a mystery wants you to solve it before the detective/whoever does.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

We have a saying... "no hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver". The worst kind of blind is the one who doesn't want to see.

[markg171]

But Ned doesn't want to change the seating arrangements. He WANTS Jon far away from Robert. Read between the lines. Had Ned, who loves Jon and doesn't like the stigma that has been given to Jon because of Westerosi society, learned that Jon was to be seated far away (thus, far from the honor like we see done to Viserys in Vaes Dothrak) he could have moved him if he wished. Ned doesn't interfere or change...why? Because he wants Jon far away from Robert. So when he heard that Jon was seated where he was, he lets it go...because it's for the best, even if hurts Jon's feelings. "The lie [seating arrangement] was not without honor"

And this whole "it's not in the book" thing is getting a wee bit weary. Do you realize that if GRRM had to put in every single thought or random passing that every character ever had

1) there would be no mystery

2) we'd probably still only have GOT and ACOK

3) Each book would be the size of War and Peace and then some

4) It would deadly dull.

You have to leave some room for critical analysis. GRRM likes mysteries. He likes writing mysteries. He thinks there should be a structure and order. You don't get told the inner workings of every player in a mystery. You get clues and hints and bits and bobs because the author of a mystery wants you to solve it before the detective/whoever does.

There's nothing that says Ned knew anything about the seating arrangements though. Yes he could have learned of them and done nothing, but he also could have only realized once everyone sat down and Jon wasn't there. Or maybe he never even realized Jon was never there. I know that's not what you want to hear, but when what we're told it's Catelyn who had Jon moved, not Ned, there's no reason to assume that Ned had anything to do with where he sat and where he didn't, when nothing indicates it, and nothing indicates that Ned even noticed Jon wasn't there.

I'm fine with taking supporting evidence and coming to certain conclusions that aren't necessarily in the text, but in a situation like this where nothing indicates Ned had anything at all to do with where Jon sat, and Catelyn had everything to do with it, we shouldn't just create reasons ourselves that go completely against the text.

[BearQueen87]

There's nothing that says Ned knew anything about the seating arrangements though.

Well, he would have realized when Jon wasn't at the table and could have done something about it then. And as Lord of Winterfell and host, he would have known beforehand. This isn't just some random guest; it's the King and Queen. All arrangements will be cleared with him, especially if it has to do with one of the children of WF

'm fine with taking supporting evidence and coming to certain conclusions that aren't necessarily in the text, but in a situation like this where nothing indicates Ned had anything at all to do with where Jon sat, and Catelyn had everything to do with it, we shouldn't just create reasons ourselves that go completely against the text.

Ok, I see what's going on here. I think we're getting out singles mixed up.

Here: I am not saying that Ned had anything to do with the seating. I'm saying that when he learns of it--be it from a steward or Cat--he doesn't change it back because he realizes it would be better to keep Jon away from Robert.

Ned had nothing to do with the seating, I agree. But he doesn't take the steps that he could take--as Lord of Winterfell and host--to change the situation.

[The Twinslayer]

Ah, well. I kinda figured. Just thought I'd ask.

How about a caveat at or near the beginning of the OP, pointing out that Martin has never indicated or confirmed an actual sexual relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna, but that for purposes of supporting the theory, we should go ahead and assume such a relationship existed, despite its absence from the text?

That is a foundational assumption for the theory, after all. And the only real support for it is Robert Baratheon's dubious claim that Robert raped Lyanna, based on we know not what evidence.

I would leave this out. It isn't a "frequently" asked question.

No he's not. He says he dreamt of Rhaegar's children. Then he mentions that they are dead. Not that he is thinking of only the dead ones. Rhaegar's children means all of his children. To Ned, Rhaegar's children are dead. There is nothing ambigious about the text here.

You can't just come in and say "Rhaegar's children" means only some of them. That's not what it says.

There is also this quote: "He remembered Rhaegar's infant son, the red ruin of his skull, and the way the king had turned away..." It is curious that "Rhaegar's infant son" is Aegon and not Jon.

[BearQueen87]

There is also this quote: "He remembered Rhaegar's infant son, the red ruin of his skull, and the way the king had turned away..." It is curious that "Rhaegar's infant son" is Aegon and not Jon.

No it's not curious. Don't cut off the entire sentence. The part after the comma is a qualifier for the infant. You can't just ignore it. The babe is not just any infant to be applied willy nilly. The infant is the one with the red ruin of his skill and the one Robert turned away from. It cannot apply to Jon as Jon never had a red ruined skull and Robert never turned away from him; it can ONLY apply to Aegon as he is "Rhaegar's infant son" AND the one with "the red ruin of his skull and the way the king turned away [from him]"

[The Twinslayer]

Well, he would have realized when Jon wasn't at the table and could have done something about it then. And as Lord of Winterfell and host, he would have known beforehand. This isn't just some random guest; it's the King and Queen. All arrangements will be cleared with him, especially if it has to do with one of the children of WF

Ok, I see what's going on here. I think we're getting out singles mixed up.

Here: I am not saying that Ned had anything to do with the seating. I'm saying that when he learns of it--be it from a steward or Cat--he doesn't change it back because he realizes it would be better to keep Jon away from Robert.

Ned had nothing to do with the seating, I agree. But he doesn't take the steps that he could take--as Lord of Winterfell and host--to change the situation.

Ned and Cat aren't complete idiots. They both know they can't seat a bastard at the head table with the Queen.

"'And this is Ellaria Sand, mine own paramour.'

Tyrion swallowed a groan. His paramour, and bastard-born, Cersei will pitch a holy fit if he wants her at the wedding."

Cat made the decision to seat Jon below the salt and Ned knew better than to make a scene by countermanding that decision after the feast started.

"You know I cannot take him south. There will be no place for him at court... He will be shunned."

[BearQueen87]

Ned and Cat aren't complete idiots. They both know they can't seat a bastard at the head table with the Queen.

"'And this is Ellaria Sand, mine own paramour.'

Tyrion swallowed a groan. His paramour, and bastard-born, Cersei will pitch a holy fit if he wants her at the wedding."

Cat made the decision to seat Jon below the salt and Ned knew better than to make a scene by countermanding that decision after the feast started.

"You know I cannot take him south. There will be no place for him at court... He will be shunned."

Yeah, cause Ned cares what Cersei thinks.

I know what you mean, but as host and Lord if he wanted Jon to be seated next to him (seeing as they are in the north, and everyone knows that Ned brought his bastard home to raise and is not shunned by Ned, his supposed father) then he could have moved Jon closer and not so far away. Ned would have known what it meant to Jon, just like he knows what it would be to take Jon to court and tried to prevent it...just like he's doing with Cat in that last scene you quoted.

[The Twinslayer]

There's also Bran's vision of Ned in Winterfell's godswood : Not the same thing as "...let the two brothers grow up close"

I think that quote is a nice wink back at this exchange between Sansa and Arya in AGOT:

"'He's our brother', Arya said, much too loudly.

'Our half-brother,'Sansa corrected."

There is a lot of that in AGOT.

"'You have more of the North in you than your brothers.'

'Half brothers,' Jon corrected."

Or:

"By the time the moon was full again, he would be back in Winterfell with his brothers. Your half brothers, a voice inside reminded him. "

Et cetera.

[The Twinslayer]

No it's not curious. Don't cut off the entire sentence. The part after the comma is a qualifier for the infant. You can't just ignore it. The babe is not just any infant to be applied willy nilly. The infant is the one with the red ruin of his skill and the one Robert turned away from. It cannot apply to Jon as Jon never had a red ruined skull and Robert never turned away from him; it can ONLY apply to Aegon as he is "Rhaegar's infant son" AND the one with "the red ruin of his skull and the way the king turned away [from him]"

lt is not a qualifier. He thinks first of Rhaegar's infant son then he tells us something about the infant.

Now, it is possible that what he is really doing is thinking of Rhaegar's "elder infant son" and that he actually came across a younger infant son of Rhaegar's later on.

But that same analysis has to apply to his thinking of his own children in AGOT. It is possible that he leaves Jon out because Jon is not really his son. But it is also possible that he is just thinking of his true born children.

Remember, he wishes his son Robb could grow up treating Jon as a brother and not just a half brother.

By the same token, he wishes he could treat Jon as a true born son. But he can't, and in the end he leaves Jon off the list.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

But there is stuff in the text to confirm. His name is Jon. Honestly. This is a case of "Martin hasn't said so...so therefore not real!" Well George doesn't need to tell me that the sun rises in Westeros every day for me to know it does, now does he? ...There are hints. You keep dismissing them because they don't fit into what you want to be true (Jon is not Rhaegar's son, GRRM is playing some sort of long con on his audience...). So, honestly, stop saying there is nothing just because you don't like it.

No, there really is not. And I'm pretty sure it didn't happen - not because I don't like the idea, but because there is a better, more satisfying solution to the mystery of Jon's parents. Six months ago, I didn't think there was one - and I'd have told you that R+L probably did equal J, in spite of some reservations I had about the scenario. A month and a half ago, I still didn't see a hands-down better alternative. Today, I do, and I'm about... oh, 90% sure that RLJ is incorrect. Which brings me to your earlier post, BQ, which I told you I'd get back to:

But you're starting from a different point. You come at this with RL =/ = J and then work a theory into that...

You are correct that I have been "starting from a different point" in my consideration of the text, and I consider that to be a better way of testing the R+L hypothesis. Over the last several months I've done nearly a complete reread of the books, specifically on the assumption that R+L#J. And it may sound obvious to say but, among other things, I found that RLJ does not have to be true in order for Jon Snow's story to make sense. In fact, I finally decided that if we begin by questioning Robert's assumption that Rhaegar had sex with Lyanna, then it's unlikely there'd be enough other evidence in the text for the reader to confidently draw that conclusion herself.

History is written by the victor(s) - in Westeros as in life. So it's not difficult to imagine how Robert's version of the events leading to his rebellion and conquest became the accepted story in the Seven Kingdoms. Neither Rhaegar nor Lyanna lived to tell their own tales - and anyone who'd be able to say anything about what Rhaegar was really up to is also dead (so far as we know). Ned Stark, who did speak with Lyanna before she died, may have known the identity of Jon Snow's father. But he also knew that to contradict the official story of Lyanna's kidnapping and Rhaegar's sexual involvement with her would completely undermine the authority of Robert's throne. (Not to mention the fact that the truth would absolutely have broken Robert's heart, and possibly destroyed the man.)

It would perhaps be better to say that the default position of the thread is pro R+L=J. There is a perfectly good reason for this, in that after 122 versions of the thread, nobody has managed to come up with a convincing counter-argument.

The counter-argument to the topic theory, convincing or not, is simply that R+L#J. What I find alternately fascinating and frustrating is this notion that it matters one jot whether any of us happen to be "for" or "against" RLJ. The story is not our story, and this theory is barely even a reader theory. R+L=J is right there in the text, carefully designed, planted, and primed by George R. R. Martin himself as one possible solution to the mystery of Jon Snow's parentage. It'll either be right or wrong in the end, regardless of what any of us prefer. But the mere fact that it's there does not mean it is ultimately persuasive or correct - and the fact that we find ourselves with different views on that is not something that should be taken by any reader as a personal slight.

R+L=J is a theory that makes more sense of the story in certain ways, and less sense in others. In my view, a thread that claims the theory as the central topic of discussion should take into account both its strengths and its weaknesses, and be up front about both. I'm honestly not sure what the disadvantage of doing that would be - even if certain shortcomings and the theory's inherent lack of certainty are assumed to be things that "everybody knows" anyway. (And I'd point out that there are regular participants in these threads whose posts belie that very assumption. So perhaps such statements of the obvious would not be wasted if they were incorporated into the OP.)

It is true that words like "troll" and "fan fiction" do often get thrown around as a cheap way of saying "I disagree with you", and that's a real shame. People should get out of the habit, it's rarely helpful. It's particularly a shame when it discourages honest and thoughtful sceptics such as yourself, or Twinslayer, or a number of others who frequent this thread.

I don't consider you a troll...

Thank you both for the very kind words.

[J. Stargaryen]

No, there really is not. And I'm pretty sure it didn't happen - not because I don't like the idea, but because there is a better, more satisfying solution to the mystery of Jon's parents. Six months ago, I didn't think there was one - and I'd have told you that R+L probably did equal J, in spite of some reservations I had about the scenario. A month and a half ago, I still didn't see a hands-down better alternative. Today, I do, and I'm about... oh, 90% sure that RLJ is incorrect. Which brings me to your earlier post, BQ, which I told you I'd get back to:

Care to share it with us?