R+L=J v.156

[Lord Varys]

The whole thing about rudeness in asking about bastards should be seen in context, of course. We are talking civilized people here, the nobility and elite of Westeros. They would not usually mention or confront their peers about their bastards, mistresses, or brothel visits during a formal dinner when the wife and children are present. But that doesn't mean that you don't pay creatures like Varys to dig up dirt you could use to ruin a rival or an enemy. Knowledge is power, after all. And that certainly includes knowledge about bastards and lovers/mistresses. Especially knowledge about them because, you know, many men might actually love their mistresses more than their actual wives/family.

I've already cited the Shae affair as an example for that. If you play with the great lords you inevitably burn to ashes.

But Robert is the king and Ned's friend, and he certainly doesn't care about courtesy and stuff. He just asks Ned about the mother of his bastard in AGoT.

Giving Robert the name 'Wylla' clearly could help him track this woman down. Especially if he lets Varys do the job. Not to mention that Robert might actually have additional information from that early conversation about the mother of the bastard or might have sufficient information himself when exactly Ned must have met that woman if he, Robert, has never met her. If we can do this kind of math with the limited information we have then Robert could have done so much more with his firsthand information if he had been interested in finding that woman (which he could have done if he had mistrusted the 'Jon Snow story' or if somebody had fed him the idea that Ned Stark's bastard might not be his bastard - just as Jon Arryn was about to feed him the idea that his children weren't his children).

Other thing:

Has anybody ever considered that Ned might have told Jon Arryn the whole story of Lyanna's son? I mean, Jon Snow clearly seems to be named after him, and Jon Arryn was the only surviving father/mentor figure Ned ever had. He might have felt he needed advice in this whole thing. And then there is the fact that Jon Arryn apparently prevented Robert from sending professional assassins after Viserys and Daenerys. From a dynastic point of view that was stupid but it might have made more sense if Jon had known that 'Ned's bastard' - and thus Ned himself - was actually related to them.

Not to mention that Ned might have felt he needed an ally at court - somebody who would calm down Robert should he ever find out, and somebody who would also keep an eye out and send him word should anyone at court ever (try to) uncover the truth.

[UnmaskedLurker]

LV--

Pure speculation, but no, I don't think Ned told Jon Arryn. "Some secrets are too dangerous to share." (or something like that)

Jon is right on top of Robert and the court -- no matter how much Ned trusts Jon, Ned cannot put Jon is a position of being with Robert every day while Jon commits treason by not revealing that Ned is raising a Targ heir. Ned would be selfish if he burdened Jon with that task -- and I doubt Ned would be so selfish -- or reckless. 

[Lord Varys]

UL,

I'm not sure Ned is actually committing treason by hiding Jon Snow's true identity. As far as we know Robert Baratheon never proclaimed it treason that everyone who harbors a secret Targaryen prince is guilty of treason.

This is not that big of a deal or that big a danger unless the wrong people learn about it and draw the wrong sort of conclusion.

Rereading AGoT very closely right it really seems that his major motivation for hiding Jon is the Aegon/Rhaenys incident, and his fear that Robert might not prevent that. When he talks to Cat and Littlefinger in the brothel and thinks about Robert he connects the Lady affair, Aegon's crushed skull, Lyanna and Sansa pleading, and Robert turning away his gaze from him and from Aegon's corpse in his mind.

I don't think Ned ever believed Robert would harm him or any of his children/relatives - he says as much to Catelyn with a very strong conviction (and Lyanna's son would be his nephew). But I think he believed that Tywin or Jaime could convince Robert to turn a blind eye to whatever they were doing - Ned and pretty much everyone else most likely believed Jaime had killed Aerys on Tywin's orders and had worked closely with him during the whole Sack affair. Remember, the whole Jon Snow idea would have come up before Ned and Robert reconciled when they grieved together for Lyanna. Had that happened earlier or had Robert executed Jaime for Aerys and Tywin for Aegon/Rhaenys (or at least Gregor and Lorch) Ned might very well told his friend the truth.

We see how Ned can keep his secrets from his own family, therefore I see no reason why Jon Arryn shouldn't have been able to keep Ned's secrets from Robert. They were all three very close, and Jon was as much a second father to Ned as he was to Robert.

Ned choosing 'Jon' as name for the boy suggests as much, and there could more to that than just an empty gesture. Robert feels responsible for the wellbeing of his namesake Robert Arryn, Ned may have decided to entrust Jon Arryn with Jon's security should ever happen anything to him - he could not possibly entrust such a thing to Catelyn.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Lord Varys,

Interesting speculation, but if Jon Arryn had been told, why had Jon not been sent to live at the Eyrie? That seems a rather normal thing to do, and it would have made Catelyn a lot more comfortable. And yet, Jon lived at Winterfell.

Perhaps, the fact that Ned named Jon 'Jon', was another way to convince others that Jon was his bastard... By naming him after someone important to him.

[Lord Varys]

Rhaenys,

well, it seems that Ned hoped that Jon would somehow be accepted as a full member of House Stark by his family and especially his wife. The partial prayer Bran overhears in the godswood clearly suggests as much. In addition there is the fact that he seems to have promised Lyanna that he would take care of the child, no one else. I think he would stuck with that - and insisting on that could actually be a pretty good non-conspiracy theory explanation for Ashara's suicide. If Rhaegar/Lyanna or Lyanna/Arthur and the other knights had made arrangements to raise Rhaegar's child with the Daynes as Ashara's bastard (the stillborn daughter would have been hid from the world) then Ned talking away the surrogate child from Ashara this shortly after her own child had died might have been what drove her over the edge. Sure, for that Ashara's daughter could not have been conceived at Harrenhal, but we don't yet know that this was the case or where she was during the remainder of 281 AC or during the next year.

I could easily see Ned having plans to send both Robb and Jon as wards to Jon Arryn just as he was sent in his childhood at the right age. What prevented that would have been the fact that Jon Arryn continuously served as Robert's Hand until his death as well as the fact that the Arryns actually never resided in the Vale in all this time.

Even if Jon and Lysa had gotten a bunch of children early on in their marriage, and Lysa had subsequently permanently moved back into the Vale, Ned could not possibly have hoped/intended to foster Jon with Lysa.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Lord Varys,

We have no idea what Ned promised Lyanna, so saying with certainty that it had been that Ned, and only Ned, would raise Jon, is a bit much. Sansa wasn't asking Ned to raise Lady, yet her pleading reminded him of Lyanna's pleading. I'd assume Lyanna pleading and Ned promising her something are connected, and that could have been something much closer to Lady's situation ('keep him safe, don't let anyone hurt him', etc). But in order to keep such a promise, keeping the boy close might not always be the best thing to do.

Lord Hornwoods bastard is raised in another lords castle, and Robert's bastard is raised at SE, so why would Ned not be able to ask his good friend Jon Arryn to foster his bastard son in the Eyrie?

[corbon]

 

See, here, is a source for our disagreement. Saying something is possible without something to support it makes no point at all. Or at least that is how I see it. In fiction there are infinite possibilities. Showing the likelihood of something with evidence to support it makes a point.

As noted, there is a point - it can disprove absolutes statements.
As to likelihood and evidence, the evidence is greater than your case. It uses precisely the same data, but actually fits with characterisation and behavioural patterns as well, meaning it has increased evidence and greater likelihood.

Question and response. Evidence in the text that Ned tells Robert his "bastard's mother" name was Wylla. Robert asks the question, and Ned supplies the answer. Whether the answer is true or not is another question, but it is a simple fact Ned responds to Robert's question with Wylla's name. First comes Robert's question, and immediately after Ned answers in a form that perfectly fits a response to Robert's question. Please note I did not write any of this conversation quoted above - Martin did.

And please note, you are calling a statement a question and ignoring the actual question. Ned did indeed answer Robert's question in a form that perfectly fits a response to Robert's question - but a clarifying statement is not a question, no matter how many times you insist it is.

My point being that any normal read of the dialogue between the two men tells us Ned is telling Robert Jon's mother's name is Wylla. So, no, it is not "pure supposition" that Ned told Robert Wylla was Jon's mother. The text supports this view. Which does not necessarily mean that is what is happening here, but we need other evidence to show that the plain evidence on the page is not what's going on.

Well, we simply disagree, More than that, I think that not only is your read not 'normal', it doesn't even follow the rules of language. (Ok, as I try to parse it for you below I think I see how you read it, I just don't find that remotely natural).

"You now the one I mean, your bastard's mother?"
You know the one I mean is a statement, clear and simple. You seem to think that the second phrase "your bastard's mother" is a questioning statement on its own. That it would be read (said) with a rising tone to denote its questioning, so there are actually 2 main questions Robert asks, and 2 minor questions which he self answers (the girls names he guesses). Is that correct?
I don't. I see it as a clarifying addendum - Robert has made a statement (which is in itself a clarifying addendum) that Ned knows the one he means, but thats not really very clarifying, so he adds another clarifying statement to clarify that. I don't read it with a rising tone. To me the whole sub-paragraph (from "what was her name" to "bastard's mother") is one big rambling question from Robert, which includes an initial clarifying statement (that common girl of yours), a potential self-answer (which leads to a sidetrack), a second )dismissed) self-answer, and another clarifying statement (you know the one I mean) with its own clarifying statement (your bastard's mother). The only place where I read a ring tone is the two girls names, because everything else ends with statements. And its not really 4 questions, its only one, the other three question marks are directly relating the statements in them to the original question.

Your point, as I understand it, is that Ned's response is not to Robert's question of "what was her name?" "your bastard's mother?" but to something else from the past.

Not really the past. To the actual question in the conversation. Robert is trying to remember the woman that was Ned's 'one time'. The whole section is about that one thought in Robert's head, and its all one question, started off with "what was her name?".
Thats really the question Ned is answering, the one thought, and he dioes it by supplying the answer to the first and only direct question there (IMO), "what was her name".

Note to that it is not a correct reduction to state the question as "what was her name, your bastard's mother". There is a whole bunch of rambling and sub questions in between. I think the difference is that you see "your bastard's mother" as a question itself, I see it as a statement Robert is making as part of the whole question.
Given that the entire question and subject is 'Ned's one time', I think its entirely clear that Robert already believes quite clearly that Wylla is Ned's bastard's mother and is not asking that as a question at all.

You speculate this is in response to a conversation in which Ned tells Robert Wylla's name in response to a question about Jon's wetnurse. Where is the evidence for this? There is none. It exists only in your imagined conversation. Again, just thinking up possibilities does not make a point. All possibilities are not equal. Because something is possible does not make it credible.

 

No. But something that fits with all data points and explains observed behaviour much better and more consistently is inherently more credible than something that fits all data points but runs contrary to observed behavior patterns.

 

I remind you yet again that no one, not even Robert, ever claims Ned said Wylla was Jon's mother.

 

If we substitute another wetnurse other than Wylla on Ned's trip north, then I think we place another strain on the credibility of your imagined conversation. Just how does Wylla's name come up?

For a start, I don't think the substitution of wetnurses is very credible in itself. Its unnecessary, has no  good reasons for it and has no evidence supporting it.
However, there's still an easy potential answer, no strain at all. Robert has a report from Starfall or its environs saying Ned rode in to Starfall with Wylla and baby bastard. Or that that Starfall believes Wylla is Jon's mum.

Jon had a different wetnurse in Starfall and I'm bringing her name up now for what reason? We agree Ned needs a wetnurse for Jon on the trip north and we know he had one when he arrived in Winterfell, but the question is why does Ned tell Robert Wylla's name, under your scenario, if she is not with him?

Because Robert probed a little, just as he did in the conversation we see. And just as he did in the conversation we see, Ned has no reason to hide Wylla's name because she really is just the wetnurse, not pretending to be the mother.

We will just have to disagree on which scenario is more likely, more logical, and supported by the evidence. Repeating old arguments doesn't seem to be getting us close to agreement of much of anything.

 

Well, I am hopefull that the parsing out of teh conversation we saw will help. I really couldn't understand how someone with as solid and realistic grasp of language as you could insist that Ned told Robert Wylla was a bastard. And that fundamental difference is at the core of everything. Perhaps now I've explained that in more detail it will help.

 

Let me just say on the question of Ned's character, I think we have a very different read on him. I think Ned tells us he lies. I think he explains to Arya the concept of an "honorable lie." I think that is exactly what he is doing in the scene with Robert. Lying to protect those he loves. I'm not making Ned into someone who splits hairs to try convince himself he isn't lying to his best friend and king. I'm not making Ned out to be someone who plays with words to avoid thinking he lies. My read of Ned is much more forthright than that. So, we have, another basic disagreement over who Ned is. I'm not sure how to bridge our differences on this.

 

No difference in read at all. My read is the opposite of Ned playing word games. He's just told nothing at all he didn't have to. He lies when he needs to, but keeps those lies to a minimum and keeps them simple and short. When he can, with regards to Wylla, he's told the plain simple truth, just not all of it. Yes, her name is "Wylla". If necessary, "she's just a wetnurse".  No word games at all. No active deception, just a passive one.

 

I don't think I've ever used the word "must" in these discussions. Again, in fiction all is possible. What is likely and what is supported by the evidence is what I'm arguing.

Others have, and you are taking the same position, so it all sticks together. <shrug>
However, I am also arguing likelihood and evidence. Our dispute is primarily on the evidence. You say it says one thing, I say it says a different thing. The likelihoods follow from the evidence...

Once again, no "must" on my part, but we will have to disagree on what is pure supposition and what is supported by the text. Thanks again for the time and effort you put into each response. I've stayed up late to try to respond to yours. Please take that as a compliment to you, as I wouldn't do it for many others. Good night, and I'll check in the morning to see if you want to continue.

You are welcome, and thanks. No need to hurry or spend lots of extra effort (we all have other things to spend our time on as well). I think there is a potential breakthrough between us above. If you want to take it offline (only so that we can go slower and more leisurely without feeling we are dragging tthe thread backwards), then thats an option too.

 

In fact, there is not even textual evidence that they ever talked about Jon Snow's wetnurse or that Robert even believes the woman he thinks is Jon Snow's mother - a woman that supposedly is known under the name 'Wylla', as Ned repeatedly told Robert - ever was the boy's wetnurse.

We don't even have textual evidence that Wylla ever was Jon Snow's wetnurse. Edric Dayne's story merely identifies Wylla as Jon Snow's mother and Edric Dayne's wetnurse, making them milkbrothers. All we can reasonably say is that Edric Dayne believes that Wylla breastfed Jon Snow at least once (else his belief that he was Jon's milkbrother would be false).

Agreed and agreed.
Although there is enough textual evidence to link several clues together and make high-probability judgements. Its just not direct textual evidence.

 Just acknowledging a motherless child as his bastard son is, at best, half of the story. And merely hoping that Robert, Tywin, and Jaime (it really seems as if the Aegon atrocity is what motivated Ned into hide Jon's true identity) wouldn't figure out the truth would only be half of the story and completely stupid on his part.

I utterly disagree. Its only half the story, yes, but its the only half of the story that matters to people and the other half cannot be proved or disproved in any way if he doesn't say anything.
i think its very smart, not stupid, to only tell that half. His half can't be disproven, and the other half can't even be effectively investigated without him providing a starting point. They can try, but they can't actually prove anything and in fact can;t even make reasonable assertions if Ned refuses to provide data.
Whereas the moment he does provide data on the other half of the story there is something solid there that can be followed up and proved or disproved.

The lies part of this whole thing is actually the interesting thing since stating that Jon Snow is his bastard would just constitute one lie. Not to mention that this is a lie he doesn't repeat all that often, regularly phrasing it in a way where he doesn't actually say that Jon is a bastard or his son. If we go with assuming Ned only omitted the problematic parts of what happened at the tower ('Lyanna died of a fever' omitting what caused it) or at Starfall rather than telling actual lies it is rather difficult to guess at what those lies might have been. 

Raising him as his bastard is a daily lie. Thats a lot of lies over 14 years...

Therefore I assert that Ned had a more detailed cover story in place which he was prepared to talk about should it be necessary. Whether he actually talked about it in detail I do not know, but I certainly consider it very likely.

I consider that to be extremely stupid. He can't make up a detailed covers story that will stand up, because its all a big lie. Thats why he doesn't do so, and doesn't talk about it at all.

Giving away Wylla's name - which he does in AGoT rather than inventing some name - would be one crucial detail of that cover story. People at Starfall complicit in the whole charade might have been told detailed aspects neither they nor Ned ever talked about.

Brilliant. Lets make up a detailed lie, involve lots of people and ...
As opposed to make up a very very simple lie and give virtually no details. Which is infinitely easier to protect. And what we actually see.
A Varys you most certainly are not!

Edric Dayne certainly knew stuff Ned Stark would not have wanted him to know if there was no cover story in place. Think what might have happened if Ned had realized that Edric Dayne was Beric Dondarrion's squire and had come with him to KL. Conveniently Edric was too shy to talk to Ned in AGoT - if he had done, Ned's POV chapters certainly would have reflected that in a most interesting manner. And somehow I'm pretty sure Beric would never have been sent to arrest the Mountain.

Edric Dayne didn't know squat. He's repeating gossip from before he was born and its internally inconsistent. I don't believe Ned and Ashara were ever in love, I don't believe Wylla is Jon's mother. I don't see any reason to disbelieve hat Wylla nursed Jon, but as you yourself point out, Wylla is never actually fingered as a wetnurse to Jon by anyone.

 

Right -- here is where I think we have the crux of our disagreement and where I think I can make my position more of an "argument" and less of merely re-stating my position. I agree that it is possible that these two conversations happened precisely as you hypothesize -- in particular if these conversations happened about 14-15 years apart.

 

What I don't believe is plausible -- but which I think you are suggesting is not only plausible but likely if the conversations happened as you suggest (or at least not implausible as I suggest) -- is that at the time of the second conversation F1 would think that F2 had not in some way confirmed that the mother's name is Enaj (either right before or at a minimum right after Conversation 2 occurs -- as discussed in more detail below).

Conversation 1 makes it clear that F1 had that thought independently of F2 and in fact F2 explicitly denied it.

That conclusion is the basis for our disagreement, and I will try to explain my reasoning and not just repeat my position -- here it goes. I will try my best to make this an analytical argument and not just a restatement of conclusions (as I agree that it gets frustrating when people do that rather than explain why they think their position is the better position).

In Conversation 2, F1 references "that common girl of yours" and states unequivocally that this "common girl of yours" is someone whose name "you told me once" and clarifies that this girl is "your bastard's mother." I simply do not find these statements to be statements that could plausibly be statements by someone who is aware that F2 never really acknowledged the identity of the mother.

Why not? F1 ends Con1 firmly believing that F2 and Enaj had a bastard together. At that time F1 is quite clear that F2 has explicitly denied this fact, but still believes it. F1 will also be entirely clear immediately after Con1 that the idea of the wetnurse as mother came from him (may have been given to him previously by others, may have been on the spur by him) and did not come from F2.
Why you insist that F1s memory must (to the extent where ts implausible that it doesn't happen) cloud sufficiently to have him completely mis-remember the conversation, not just the words but its entire essence (him egging F2 and F2 denying it steadfastly) is a mystery to me.

This conversation is consistent with someone who believes that once F2 originally gave the name -- by giving the name that in and of itself is confirmation that the "wetnurse" is the mother. 

Thats the unacceptable twist again. Yes, it is consistent with that. Thats not the point. The point is its simply internally consistent, with no additional parameters involved.

Here is another way to put it. Let's assume that at the time of Conversation 2, F1 is aware that F2 had previously given the name of a woman that F1 believes to be the mother but F2 has only admitted to being the wetnurse and F1 recalls and understands that F2 never even tacitly admitted that this woman really is the mother but insisted she is only the wetnurse -- but nevertheless F1 still believes F2 was just being "coy" and that the woman really is the mother.

Right...

If those were the facts then NO (with one exception that I will discuss in the next paragraph), I don't believe that Conversation 2 is consistent with those "facts" as I have outlined in this paragraph and I don't think they are consistent. I simply don't think if F1 has that understanding of the facts that he would ever have constructed the conversation set forth as Conversation 2 (except as discussed in the next paragraph). Someone who actually recalls that F2 never admitted to Enaj being the mother simply does NOT refer to her as "that common girl of yours" and "your bastard's mother" unless F1 does not believe there is any question and that F2 has previously confirmed this identity.

Of course he does. Those are the facts, he knows them. He even believes (your own admission) that F2 was just being 'coy' and therefore that F2, despite officially denying it, knows that it is true also.
So there is no reason to hedge.
Even more so, remembering this is Robert. He's big and bluff and says what he thinks without to much thought in it.

So while the conversations are consistent because that is how people tend to hear things that are not exactly as they are stated, they generally are not consistent with F1 appreciating the limits of what F2 actually has admitted to.

Well, yes, we have a definite disagreement here. I feel it is a consistent conversation even for an average person, and I think a person like Robert its even more normal. Certainties remember, true or false, and who gives a shit what anyone else thinks or feels, I'm the king.

AT A MINIMUM (now maybe this is a new point, I cannot remember everything we discussed previously), after Conversation 2, F2 has to know that it is possible that F1 considers F2 to have confirmed the name of the mother. Even if you are correct (as I think highly unlikely) that F1 still understands that F2 has never admitted to Enaj as being the mother, F2 cannot be certain what F1 thinks, and F2 has to consider it possible, if not likely, that F1 believes that F2 has confirmed that the mother is Enaj (even if F2 has been careful never actually to do so).

Hang on a minute. F2 explicitly said that the Enaj was just a wetnurse. Explicitly. Never remotely suggested anything different. Yes, F2 can know F1 believes differently, but no way he'd expect F1 to come out of Con1 thinking F2 told him Enaj was the bastards mother. Thats insane.

But back to the original point, admittedly, you clearly find it plausible that Robert does not believe that Ned ever confirmed that Wylla is the mother -- so GRRM might as well. And if the series in some way confirms that your interpretation of Conversation 2 (or really the actual conversation from GoT) entailed an understanding of the facts by Robert as you have expressed, I merely would be disappointed that GRRM went to such lengths to have characters speak in way that belies normal human thought process given a set of circumstances.

Perhaps instead, in that circumstance, you might consider that GRRM didn't do that, and that you completely misread the situation?

And given, as I have expressed before, that both your original point (that no "cover story" was ever agreed to between Wylla and Ned) and my original point (that such a "cover story" seems likely) are consistent with Robert believing Ned to have confirmed the name of the mother (or at least, Ned understanding the likelihood that Robert believes this "fact"), why bother to construct such an strained understanding of Robert's thought process -- or Ned's understanding of Robert's thought process.

The point is that nothing is strained. Its all very simple, much more simple that Ned telling increasingly complex and dangerous lies.

 

So IMHO, one way or the other, Conversation 2 demonstrates that F1 believes that in some form or other F2 has confirmed (actively or passively or tacitly) that Enaj is the mother. Either F1 considers Conversation 1 as essential confirmation (because people remember things as they "heard" them not always as they were spoken) or because F1 considers Conversation 2 to be final confirmation of the name of the mother. But either way, F2 would understand the likelihood that F1 believes that F2 has confirmed the name of the mother.

I agree its possible that a particularly dense (denser even than Robert!) F1 could come out of Con1 thinking F2 had confirmed the name of the mother. I don't think its likely though, thats really really dense.
I don't agree that its remotely possible F2 could expect after Con1 that F1 thought he had confirmed the name of the mother. He's been quite clear and explicit throughout.

I agree with you that it is hard to take certain people completely seriously when they really don't engage in an argument but just insist on an opinion or a conclusion and keep repeating it as if repeating it is an argument. I hope I have avoided doing that in my analysis above. I am honored that you "value" me "highly" but really, no need, I am just a random person you have never met who likes to post on this board for entertainment purposes and a little mental stimulation. I appreciate it, nevertheless, and certainly have high regard for your analytical skills (even if I still think you are being "obtuse" on this one little minor inconsequential sub-point).

Yeah, thanks, a much better job. I don't agree with you still, but now we are worming in towards the key not-agree details that create the larger not-agree picture. And each others mutual apparent insanity becoming clearer and less insane by the post.

But don't undervalue the entertainment/mental stimulation part of being friends, even random anonymous ones. There are too few left who are worthy of it these days. (need the cheers/beers emoticon, but it seems like we are dowe to the core group only in the new upgrade).

[corbon]

 

corbon in no way is stating that Conversation 1 occurred as hypothesized. Basically, in the past, an "absolute" statement was made -- Ned "told" (or confirmed) that the mother's name is Wylla. corbon believes this statement to be false -- not proven by the text. Conversation 2 is merely one example of how Ned might never have confirmed the identity of the mother. Just one example of a possible conversation where Ned does not name the mother "proves" that the proposition that Ned must have told Robert the name of the mother is not an accurate statement of fact -- not "proven" by the text. As long as Conversation 1 could have been the conversation that preceded Conversation 2, then corbon has demonstrated that no one can definitely conclude that Ned ever told Robert the name of the mother.

Precisely.

Basically, corbon is responding to points that I believe each of the three of us has tried to make -- the point that the conversation from GoT between Robert and Ned means that Ned told or confirmed the name of the mother as Wylla. corbon's point is that if he can come up with one hypothetical conversation in which Ned never tells or confirms that name of the mother (hypo - Conversation 1), then he has "disproven" our point that Ned confirmed Wylla as the name of the mother. corbon does not need to demonstrate that Conversation 1 happened -- he is not asserting that it did happen -- only that it might have happened and could have been the precursor conversation to Conversation 2, and if it might have happened, then it demonstrates that there is at least one possible set of facts that is consistent with what we know from GoT and does not have Ned confirming the name of the mother. Therefore, we are incorrect to assert that Ned must have confirmed that name of the mother -- he might have, but we cannot be sure. 

Precisely.

corbon then seems to go on and suggests that based on the way Ned tends to shut down all discussion of the identity of the mother, Ned likely did the same thing (or at least might have, we cannot know for sure) in the original conversation -- which might have gone similar to or completely different than Conversation 1 -- but in some way entailed Ned not confirming the name of the mother, but merely giving the name Wylla to Robert in some other way that Robert understood to be the name of the mother but also understood that Ned was not actually confirming that this woman is the mother. 

Precisely.

Oh, and as to lies -- I think that corbon has freely admitted that Ned lies and knows that he has lied. The point I think corbon is making is that Ned will not lie in a way that could be proven to be a lie.

Indeed. But also in a way that is simply unnecessary and complicates things. He is happy (in a manner of speaking) to lie if he feels it is needed, but does not do so unnecessarily, and does not create complex (and therefore risky) lies. The best lies are very simple and contain as much truth as lie.

So the reason that Ned would not give Wylla as the name of the mother is not because Ned is unwilling to lie but rather because Ned knows that Wylla was not near Ned 9 months prior to the supposed date of Jon's birth and if anyone goes to the town where Wylla actually was during that period of time, they would get confirmation of Wylla's location at that time and would know she cannot be the mother. And Ned cannot risk having said that Wylla is the mother if it can be proven later that she could not be the mother based on her location at that time compared to Ned's location.

Yes, thats one of the reasons.
the other is that its simply not necessary or valuable to lie about Wylla. He can more easily and more safely tell a limited truth, and tell it relatively freely (ie, not volunteer it, but answer it freely without issue any time it comes up). Wylla was Jon's wetnurse (assuming of course that this is true etc).

My counter to this point is that we can be confident that Ned has spoken to Wylla before getting to Starfall so Ned knows Wylla's location at the relevant time. If Ned knows that Wylla either was in riverrun (supplied to ToJ by Whent and not Daynes, for example) or had been brought to ToJ early enough so that no one knows where she was at that time, then Wylla is a safe cover story. corbon has counters to these counters, of course, but I will leave it to him if he wishes to clarify them.

Fair enough. I agree Ned has clearly had lots of opportunity to speak to Wylla before getting to Starfall (assuming she was at ToJ etc) or KL. I just don't think it very likely, either from a characterisation point of view, a risk point of view, or a general conspiracy point of view, that Ned would construct a detailed set of lies with Wylla. A simpler truth is far more effective. She's just a hired wetnurse, nothing more, and knows nothing more.
I also don't think that even if he tried, Ned could get a reliable safe cover story from Wylla's whereabouts - unless he was ridiculously fortunate and she really was some place that could have been accessible to him at the right time. Someone would have known where she was, someone he couldn't control, and its extremely likely she was sufficiently isolated at just the right time that she or he could reliably calculate everyone who might possibly know where she was back then.
We've disagreed on the likelihood that she was at ToJ, selected as a planned secret wetnurse before a baby was even conceived...

I really thing the whole thing hinges on 'irrelevancy' insofar as Ned not wanting to lie directly to Robert. Robert will believe - as anyone else will who is fed an indirect lie - that the person he talked to actually told him the stuff he thinks he told him. Ned being smug on Robert, saying 'It is not my fault that you moron did not realize that we were talking about two different women there' if Robert had found out the truth about Jon Snow. That would not, well, deescalate the situation all that well.

Ned is clearly happy (in a manner of speaking) to lie to Robert. Even directly. Thats not an issue.
(And its not two different women in the conversation. Its Roberts' assumption that the woman's role was mother, which we don't know Ned ever claimed and would be utterly inconsistent with his needs and shown behaviours to have claimed (but not be inconsistent with Robert's words to have not claimed)).

And if the situation is RObert discovering R+L=J then nothing would deescalate it. But is its just Robert discovering Wylla is not Jon's mum, then I firmly believe that Ned truthfully saying to Robert "I never said she was, you great oaf" would de-escalate the situation. He might even be able to say "I told you that you idiot" which would really de-escalate the situation.

It is quite clear that Ned wants Robert to believe that this Wylla woman was Jon Snow's mother since he reinforces that thought again in AGoT.

Not it is not clear.
He does not 'reinforce' that thought, he lets it lie. Those are two different things entirely.

While Robert may have forgotten or confused things over the years Ned most certainly would still know perfectly well about what they were talking, and could therefore have corrected Robert's mistake that Wylla/the woman they once talked about wasn't the mother but merely the wetnurse. Instead the conversation ends with Robert still believing Wylla was the mother of Jon Snow, and Ned actually repeated that name to him then and there rather than giving him another to confuse him some more.

Yep. Its good for Ned is Robert believes a falsehood. Doesn't mean Ned is going to push it on him though, because thats more dangerous. He can let it lie because its good, or he can let it lie as an indirect statement because he's already tried denying it and it didn't and won't work, so why bother addressing it at all?

And it is of course a necessary condition that the Wylla woman can be Jon Snow's mother in whatever story/scenario (birth date, conception date. etc.)

Its only necessary if anyone has investigated. Which there is no evidence anyone ever has. People can believe it because it fits the little they know and they have not investigated.

Ned has set up for his alternative series of events. Assuming Wylla could not have possibly been with Ned at the time of the alleged conception and/or her being a sort of prominent person whose movements would be known makes it very unlikely that Ned would ever have mentioned her name to anyone let allowed other people to reach the conclusion that she was Jon's mother - especially not is she knew (first hand or second hand) the truth about Jon Snow as well as Rhaegar and Lyanna). That way she wouldn't have been part of a cover story but rather a loose end to be tied via and unfortunate accident. If people had believed the mother of Ned Stark's bastard was a woman who could not possibly have been that mother then Ned could just as well tell everybody the truth.

What a load of hogwash. Ned hasn't 'set up' for anything. He's refused to talk about Jon's mother. People can believe whtever they want so long as Ned hasn't claimed that, then when its disproven, Ned doesn't have a problem, they just have to move on to theory B now that theory A doesn't work. And Ned is still not saying anything.

In that sense I'd say that the fact that Ned ever mentions her name at all is a sign that he feel reasonably confident about doing so and has no trouble dragging her into all that.

This would be the same sense that claims not being allowed to talk about something leads to the truth being hit upon?
That complex lies with many participants are safer and surer than simple lies that are 90% truth and have minimal participants?
No thanks.

 

The idea that when Ned answers, "her name is Wylla" to Robert's question of "your bastard's mother" is not a case of Ned naming Wylla as Jon's mother is absurd - unless there is evidence to the contrary that he is actually answering another question. There is none. It is taking refuge in the fact Ned never actually says the words, "Wylla is Jon Snow's mother" and ignoring that there are other ways of saying the same thing - which Ned does in his answer.

No, its reading the conversation as a whole, instead of ignoring context and parsing each tiny part separately. Like normal people do when they converse.

Basically, what LV said (and to some extent what SFDanny said). If you go back to the hypothetical conversations (Conversation 1 and Conversation 2) that corbon constructed, Ned never states that Wylla is the mother. I conceded that these conversations might have happened that way. Nevertheless, even if Ned never actually stated that Wylla is Jon's mother, Ned left Robert with the impression that Ned confirmed that Wylla is the mother. Ned could not be sure that Robert did not interpret Ned's words as confirming Wylla as the mother -- even if a cunning linguist could deconstruct the conversations and "prove" to Robert that Ned did not do any such thing. The risk is big that Robert will take the position that Ned in fact confirmed that name and is now denying it.

Whats cunning? In Con1 Ned outright denied it. Its very plain and simple and not-cunning and its a very weird suggestion that Robert must completely turn around the entire thrust of the conversation, never mind the words, in his head.

Basically, no matter what conversation Ned and Robert originally had, Robert was left with the impression that Wylla was Jon's mother -- and Ned clearly gave Robert that name in some context that Robert has remembered as being the name of the mother -- it really does not matter what Ned actually said -- Robert makes it clear that he thinks he heard the name of the mother from Ned.

Yep. But not that Ned told him that woman was the mother. Thats not even a subtle difference.

Robert almost certainly believes that Ned did confirm the name as the name of the mother (only clever "word play" can get to the conclusion that Ned did not confirm Wylla as the mother -- which is not going to be the way that Robert likely understands the words).

 

You know the one?

I am glad somebody is 'getting it'.

Not really a needle/haystack situation when we know from Edric Dayne that people in Starfall believe Wylla -- a specific Wylla -- is Jon's mother. Presumably she was seen nursing Jon, as Edric call them milk brothers. So I don't think it can be just any old Wylla -- I think it is necessarily the Wylla seen coming into Starfall with Jon, nursing Jon and believed by at least some to be Jon's mother. Ned Stark would know when he left Starfall to go to KL to reconcile with Robert that Starfall saw Wylla enter Starfall with Jon and presumably saw her nursing Jon and probably that some have concluded (or were told) that she is the mother. So if anyone retraces Ned's steps, figuring out which Wylla could be meant is quite simple.

Yeah. Its too much to assume that there are multiple Wylla's involved in the whole baby-Jon-pre-winterfell saga.

No, if Robert tried and succeeded at finding out that Wylla (that particular Wylla seen with Jon at Starfall) could not be the mother, then Ned would have to resort to the quip that he never actually told Robert that Wylla is the mother (he certainly could not claim it was a different Wylla -- one who really is the mother and a different one who brought Jon into Starfall -- that would be ridiculous), and for the reasons stated above by me (and I think SFD and LV), I suspect that such an approach would not go well for Ned -- and he would know as much.

Except your reasons don't make sense, being based on false assertions. As Con1 shows, Ned can be quite clear and explicit about the status of Wylla, leaving Robert in no doubt what Ned has actually said, just thinking thats all part of the polite fiction.

Which is why, no matter how suspicious it might seem to refuse to give a name, I cannot see Ned giving the name Wylla to Robert -- no matter the context -- if Ned believes that Robert is going to assume that this name is the name of the mother (even if Ned says it is really only the name of the wetnurse -- but knows that Robert is hearing "mother" when Ned says "wetnurse"), then Ned should give no name at all.

But if he won't even give the wetnurse's name, when she's officially just a wetnurse so who cares, then he's clearly hiding something deeper about her and he is therefore inviting serious investigation of Wylla, which is not something he wants. A casual investigation is fine even a positive thing in some ways because she has a plain and simple story that is all true, just not all of the truth. But a serious, deep investigation could dig past that simple truth and look deeper, where real danger lies.

But Ned gave a name -- which leads me to believe that Ned had reason to conclude that the name would hold up under scrutiny -- which means that Ned arranged a "cover story" with Wylla and knows that Wylla was located somewhere 9 months prior to Jon's supposed birth that either is somewhere Ned could have been (maybe Riverrun) or someplace no one else was at all who is still alive (i.e., ToJ).

No it does not mean that Ned arranged a cover story for Wylla. It can equally mean that Ned told the truth about Wylla, just not the extended truth (and knows, by spoken or unspoken arrangement, that she won't tell the extended truth either).

For example, if you go back to corbon's Conversation 1, when Robert asks for the name, Ned could respond, "I told you she is just the wetnurse so why do you care about her name, now can we talk about something else?" If Robert is curious and tries to find the name of the mother -- he will come up blank as there is no mother to be found.

Thats still suspicious. The counter is "if she's just the wetnurse, whats the problem, what are you hiding?" Innocent men don't need to hide details.
And Ned's not hiding his bastard's existence. So there is something else he's hiding...

But that is true even if Ned gives the name Wylla as unless Ned is certain that the name will hold up, if proven not to be the mother, Robert presumably would search for the real mother. So nothing is gained by giving the name unless Ned is really sure that giving a name will get Robert to stop thinking about the subject while deflecting and not giving any name would get him to investigate -- but how could Ned be certain of any such conclusion?

Not true. Ned gains because he demonstrates that he's not hiding anything, just unwilling to talk about his shame. Wylla is not his shame, so there is no reason not to answer questions about her (up to a point) truthfully.
More importantly, Ned doesn't lose. If he refuses to answer the wetnurse's name then he loses, because he shows he is hiding something unnecessarily.

And while having Robert stop thinking about it is a useful bonus, thats not the tack we see Ned take. His tack is always to shut down any conversation. Otherwise he'd use the same tack at Winterfell, give Catelyn an option to believe (and it ought to be the same one, inconsistent lies are the stupidest ones) rather than shutting her and everyone else up entirely

 

[corbon]

The whole thing about rudeness in asking about bastards should be seen in context, of course. We are talking civilized people here, the nobility and elite of Westeros. They would not usually mention or confront their peers about their bastards, mistresses, or brothel visits during a formal dinner when the wife and children are present. But that doesn't mean that you don't pay creatures like Varys to dig up dirt you could use to ruin a rival or an enemy. Knowledge is power, after all. And that certainly includes knowledge about bastards and lovers/mistresses. Especially knowledge about them because, you know, many men might actually love their mistresses more than their actual wives/family.

I've already cited the Shae affair as an example for that. If you play with the great lords you inevitably burn to ashes.

But Robert is the king and Ned's friend, and he certainly doesn't care about courtesy and stuff. He just asks Ned about the mother of his bastard in AGoT.

Only up to a point though. He drops it when Ned pushes him back harder.

Giving Robert the name 'Wylla' clearly could help him track this woman down. Especially if he lets Varys do the job. Not to mention that Robert might actually have additional information from that early conversation about the mother of the bastard or might have sufficient information himself when exactly Ned must have met that woman if he, Robert, has never met her. If we can do this kind of math with the limited information we have then Robert could have done so much more with his firsthand information if he had been interested in finding that woman (which he could have done if he had mistrusted the 'Jon Snow story' or if somebody had fed him the idea that Ned Stark's bastard might not be his bastard - just as Jon Arryn was about to feed him the idea that his children weren't his children).

And none of that matters if Wylla was only ever claimed to be a wetnurse.

Other thing:

Has anybody ever considered that Ned might have told Jon Arryn the whole story of Lyanna's son? I mean, Jon Snow clearly seems to be named after him, and Jon Arryn was the only surviving father/mentor figure Ned ever had. He might have felt he needed advice in this whole thing. And then there is the fact that Jon Arryn apparently prevented Robert from sending professional assassins after Viserys and Daenerys. From a dynastic point of view that was stupid but it might have made more sense if Jon had known that 'Ned's bastard' - and thus Ned himself - was actually related to them.

Not to mention that Ned might have felt he needed an ally at court - somebody who would calm down Robert should he ever find out, and somebody who would also keep an eye out and send him word should anyone at court ever (try to) uncover the truth.

I agree with the others. This seems highly unlikely for multiple reasons.

[Lord Varys]

Corbon,

well, essentially you presuppose what you are trying to prove, and then you use what textual evidence there is (which is all far conclusive in your favor). That simply won't do for me.

There is no recognizable pattern in Ned's behavior regarding Jon Snow or his mother. In Cat's case he is outright threatening her to ever investigate or even ask him about Jon, and in Robert's case he sort of freely talks about the Wylla woman and shows a very different type of anger. By the way, Ned does not want to talk about the mother of his bastard - he parades the bastard in question around for all the world to see.

But more importantly, you just lay a story of what Ned did or didn't do back when he decided to raise Lyanna's son as his bastard without all the pieces of the puzzle. While the series is still unfinished you simply can't assert a theory like yours with the conviction you apparently have because you simply do not know what exactly Ned did or didn't do. The clues we have aren't the complete picture, and they are also not designed to give us the complete picture. Building vast and all-encompassing theories on flimsy ground doesn't make sense while the series is not yet complete.

All you can do is say that you want to believe that things happened this or that way, or that you feel more comfortable with your take on the thing because you find 'Ned talking about stuff' is a more safer way to obscure things than actually preparing a convincing story in case he has to talk to somebody (which I happen to believe in). I never said things have to have happened my way, I just put forth speculations not based on Ned's behavior patterns (which you seem to understand so well) but what I consider to be common sense.

In light of the scare information we have we simply do not know if Robert ever had Ned's bastard investigated, or whether other people at court did so. It might turn out that this was the case. We also do not know what would have happened if Robert had found out who Jon Snow actually was. I don't think he would have called for the boy's head, nor for Ned's own - unless, of course, he became convinced that Ned was trying to pull a Jon Connington there with Jon Snow serving as Ned's Aegon. Even if Ned feared something like that, we have no way of determining whether he was right about them since Robert apparently never found out.

As to Edric Dayne:

You are dishonest there. You don't know from whom Edric knows what he knows about Wylla. From her himself? Then it is not gossip but, presumably, part of her cover story for Jon Snow's identity because she might have told the boy verbatim that she was Jon's mother. If not Wylla herself, then it might have been people who knew her and who had firsthand information from her that she was Jon Snow's mother.

Any scenario in which people mistakenly deduce that Wylla must be Jon Snow's mother because she breastfed him is an ad hoc explanation to suit your specific purpose. There is no reason why anyone should buy that.

Wylla-Robert:

I'm not sure how Ned would get off the hook if Robert found out that Ned allowed him to believe the name of the wetnurse was the name of the mother. Anyone would ask why the hell Ned would have deceived Robert in such a trivial detail, not to mention that any conversation between Robert and Ned about the bastard's mother would have been about the bastard's mother not about the wetnurse. The idea that Robert would have come with the stupid idea that the wetnurse has to be the mother is another baseless ad hoc explanation. My assertion that Robert specifically asked about the mother and never even thought or mentioned a wetnurse is even more likely considering that Robert has a good enough reason to be interested in a woman his best friend would fuck rather than in a woman his best friend would hire to care for his bastard.

Not to mention that the very idea that Ned would still remember the name of some wetnurse caring for his bastard fourteen years later would be a pretty big stretch unless she was a very special woman. As a great lord Ned interacts with smallfolk all the time. It makes sense for him to remember the people living at his castle for years, but not some woman he had pretty much no personal connection with (or would have, if Wylla was just a hired wetnurse for his bastard). On the other hand, the name of the mother of his son he would most likely remember.

[Avalatis]

Lord Varys,

 

We have no idea what Ned promised Lyanna, so saying with certainty that it had been that Ned, and only Ned, would raise Jon, is a bit much. Sansa wasn't asking Ned to raise Lady, yet her pleading reminded him of Lyanna's pleading. I'd assume Lyanna pleading and Ned promising her something are connected, and that could have been something much closer to Lady's situation ('keep him safe, don't let anyone hurt him', etc). But in order to keep such a promise, keeping the boy close might not always be the best thing to do.

 

Lord Hornwoods bastard is raised in another lords castle, and Robert's bastard is raised at SE, so why would Ned not be able to ask his good friend Jon Arryn to foster his bastard son in the Eyrie?

Considering Jon Arryn spent his entire time in KL as Hand, I doubt Jon Snow would have been fostered in the Eyrie. He would've been in KL right under the nose of Varys, Robert, and a dozen other people who might become suspicious of the bastard.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Considering Jon Arryn spent his entire time in KL as Hand, I doubt Jon Snow would have been fostered in the Eyrie. He would've been in KL right under the nose of Varys, Robert, and a dozen other people who might become suspicious of the bastard.

Not necessarily. Not if Ned had asked Jon Arryn to have Jon fostered at the Eyrie. If Ned had told Arryn the secret, they could have come up with a solution that did not include having Jon live in KL, as I agree that having Jon live in KL would have been too dangerous.

Edit: Edric Storm was raised at Storm's End while Renly was at KL, for example.

[Lord Varys]

Fostering a bastard at the castle of a great lord doesn't seem to happen on a regular basis. Edric Storm is a royal bastard and those are usually brought up at a castle if their mothers are nobles, too (e.g. Aegor Rivers). Larence Snow's mother seem to be a Glover - else there is really no reason to assume why the hell the Glovers would take the boy in.

Eddard Stark's bastard with an unknown woman brought up at the Eyrie since infancy would appear to be rather weird. Not to mention the fact that Ned most likely wouldn't want to do such a thing in the first place. My line of thought was more to consider the possibility whether Ned might have told Jon about Lyanna's child and asked his advice on the whole issue rather than to find a place where he could ship the boy off to. If that had been his intention he could have left him with the Daynes or could have decided to foster him with Howland Reed at Greywater Watch.

The other aspect would be the have a safety net in place should Ned die young. He most certainly could/would not entrust Jon's well-being to Catelyn, and as far as we know he had no other confidant privy to the secret at Winterfell. Jon Arryn would have been in a position to claim the boy in Ned's name with or without Catelyn's permission (whereas Howland Reed or the Daynes would have much more problems in that department). I admit that the chances that Jon Arryn predeceases Ned are much higher than the other way around, though. On the hand, if Ned wanted Jon's counsel in all that, he might have talked about all that before Robert even named Jon his Hand - after all, we don't know when exactly that happened.

In regards to the general danger: We really should not overemphasize this. Robert didn't send professional assassins after Viserys III despite the fact that he could have succeeded rather easily during his early years. Viserys III was a much more visible and severe threat to the Baratheon than Jon Snow could ever be. If Robert had found out the truth he may have felt betrayed by Ned for lying to him but I'm not really inclined to believe that he would have called for his (or Ned's) head. Cersei and the Lannisters might have jumped on the chance to drive a wedge between Ned and Robert but if Ned had been in the North at that time there is little chance that they would have bothered all that much. Politically the Starks are pretty much a non-factor insofar as the Realm is concerned.

And just because Robert would have believed or had reason to believe that Jon Snow was Rhaegar's son this wouldn't have made a very good Targaryen pretender - especially if Ned had flat-out denied that version of the tale. Just as people don't give a damn about Stannis' allegations about the parentage of Cersei's children. And if some Targaryen loyalists had been stupid enough to proclaim for King X Ned could simply resolve the whole situation by forcing Jon Snow to join the Night's Watch - as he happens to do in the books anyway.

Ned was afraid that Robert would allow the Lannisters to kill Lyanna's child when the war ended - but there is no reason to believe he considered that risk to remain equally high throughout the following fifteen years.

[MtnLion]

I am glad somebody is 'getting it'.

Yeah, I get it.  I believe that much of the speculation that is being put forward is based upon frustration that the story has not been added to in a long time.  That is likely to change right before the show resumes, if the rumblings I heard about are true.  (That would be a coup for GRRM to get the next book out before the show supersedes it.) 

I don't subscribe to creating a backstory of my own, and am perfectly happy waiting for GRRM to fill in the blanks.  To create a scenario such as a whole myth about what Ned did to be conniving and contrary to the nature that we witness will only lead to disappointment in the end.  Yes, it could have happened that way, but it is not likely and has no evidence to support it, in spite of those who rally to it believe. 

[UnmaskedLurker]

 

But don't undervalue the entertainment/mental stimulation part of being friends, even random anonymous ones. There are too few left who are worthy of it these days. (need the cheers/beers emoticon, but it seems like we are dowe to the core group only in the new upgrade).

corbon--

I will try to get a chance to respond to your latest set of posts when I can, but in case you get to the board before I get a chance to give a broader response, I wanted to be sure that you knew that you have not lost the  emoji. It is just a little different to get to it. If you click on the symbol (as I assume you have been doing to get to the emoji) and then click on the categories pull down menu and then click on the only option that appears, which is labeled as core_emoticon_group_default then all of the emoji that were available on the old board will appear (by the way, some people claim that emoticon is a term for a typographic image representing an emotion -- like :-) for a happy face -- whereas emoji are the symbols, like  and so I use that convention even though I know the terms don't necessarily have those fixed meanings). I don't know why initially the core is shown as only a smaller group of emoji but then when you select the core from the categories pull-down menu a larger group of emoji appear, but ever since the re-boot that has been the only way I have been able to get to all of the original emoji symbols.

As to my "false modesty" in downplaying your valuing me and claiming to be merely an anonymous poster, of course you are correct that friendships can be formed merely through on-line posting using avatar identifications -- and I am more than happy to consider you a friend and value that friendship. 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Fostering a bastard at the castle of a great lord doesn't seem to happen on a regular basis. Edric Storm is a royal bastard and those are usually brought up at a castle if their mothers are nobles, too (e.g. Aegor Rivers). Larence Snow's mother seem to be a Glover - else there is really no reason to assume why the hell the Glovers would take the boy in.

No, it doesn't seem to be so weird at all.

Many men fathered bastards. Catelyn had grown up with that knowledge. It came as no surprise to her, in the first year of her marriage, to learn that Ned had fathered a child on some girl chance met on campaign. He had a man’s needs, after all, and they had spent that year apart, Ned off at war in the south while she remained safe in her father’s castle at Riverrun. Her thoughts were more of Robb, the infant at her breast, than of the husband she scarcely knew. He was welcome to whatever solace he might find between battles. And if his seed quickened, she expected he would see to the child’s needs.
He did more than that. The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him “son” for all the north to see. When the wars were over at last, and Catelyn rode to Winterfell, Jon and his wet nurse had already taken up residence.
 

Catelyn connects the "The Starks were not like other men" to "Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him "son" for all the north to see". To me, that implies that usually, that isn't done.

Now, I can see bastards growing up at their father's castle when they were fathered outside of a marriage, for example. But when fathered during a marriage, that's another issue entirely. There surely will be other men who decide to raise their bastard at their home. Falia Flowers comes to mind, but there is a clear difference to her treatment, when compared to Jon's. 

So no, I see no reason to assume that Larence Snow's mother must have been a Glover. Is it possible? Certainly. But does it necessarily have to be so? No. Galbart and Halys could have been good friends, leading to Halys asking Galbart for a favor, namely for Galbart to raise Halys' bastard in his home, so the boy (who appears to be younger than his trueborn halfbrother, and thus appears to have been fathered during the marriage) would not have to be raised in the same castle as where Halys' wife lived.

The example of Aegor Rivers is flawed, in my opinion. His mother fell out of favor, and was sent from court, and years later, his entire family fell out of favor with the King.. Of course, during those years, he wouldn't have been welcome at court. Has Barba remained Aegon's mistress, however, Aegor most likely would have grown up at court.

Joy Hill had a common born mother, but she appears to have been raised at Casterly Rock, even after her father's disappearance. So having a noble born mother does not appear to be a requirement for being raised in a castle. 

So if Ned had told Jon Arryn, then surely, had they both wanted to, the boy could have been raised at the Eyrie. No matter whether Jon Arryn was present there himself or not. And it would not even have been that weird. Arryn was like a second father for Ned, a man who had just lost most of his family (his father, older brother, and sister had all died in the timespan of about a year, and his younger brother left Winterfell within months of Ned's return). You can ask your foster-father to raise your bastard, even if you decide to keep the boy with you until he's no longer an infant (because no one said Jon had to stay wherever he lived during his infancy). 

But I can't say that I see any reason to assume that Ned had told Arryn. No textual hints, and such.

 

As to no one else being privy to the secret.. Howland was. And Ned could have left a will or something similar stating that Jon would go to Howland, should Ned die. Though, considering he had hoped that Jon could remain at Winterfell when he went south, he might just have hoped/believed that, should he truly die while Jon was still living with them, Jon could remain. In addition, should Ned die, the decision to keep Jon around would not be Catelyn's entirely.. That would be Robb's, and we have no reason to suspect that Robb would send Jon away.

About the danger.. Jon would not only be Rhaegar's son, but he would be a Targaryen who was in Robert's reach. If the fact that the Sealord witnessed the marriage pact between Oberyn and Darry is an indication that Darry was being aided by the Sealord of that time, then attacking Dany and Viserys while they were living in Braavos would have meant involving the Sealord in the conflict, which could escalate real easily. So that Robert most likely did not try anything during those five years, is not so odd. And by the time Viserys and Dany left Braavos, it appears Robert had been talked out of sending anyone after them rather early in his reign.

Nor would Robert's love for Lyanna necessarily be enough to spare Jon's life. In addition, would Robert come to believe that Lyanna had gone willingly with Rhaegar (whether she actually did or not), there would be no telling how he would react.. He could feel extremely betrayed, and act out his anger on the boy. 

Ned might know Robert very well, but that doesn't mean he knows exactly how Robert will react in any situation. He has similar feelings with Catelyn

Even more so, what would Catelyn do, if it were Jon’s life, against the children of her body? He did not know.

He knows Catelyn, he knows how she feels about Jon... Yet he still doesn't know what she would do, if she ever had to choose between saving Jon's life, or the life of one of her own children. If he doesn't know it about the woman with whom he has lived for the past fifteen years, how can he know it about Robert? Not for a certainty, and isn't that rather essential, being certain when there is a chance, no matter how small, that someone's life migth be at stake?

[UnmaskedLurker]

Yeah, I get it.  I believe that much of the speculation that is being put forward is based upon frustration that the story has not been added to in a long time.  That is likely to change right before the show resumes, if the rumblings I heard about are true.  (That would be a coup for GRRM to get the next book out before the show supersedes it.) 

I don't subscribe to creating a backstory of my own, and am perfectly happy waiting for GRRM to fill in the blanks.  To create a scenario such as a whole myth about what Ned did to be conniving and contrary to the nature that we witness will only lead to disappointment in the end.  Yes, it could have happened that way, but it is not likely and has no evidence to support it, in spite of those who rally to it believe. 

I am not sure precisely what you are referencing when you state the bold above, but if you are talking about the idea that Ned led Robert to believe that Wylla is the mother, I strongly disagree that there is no evidence to support that conclusion. Is there definitive evidence? No, there is not definitive evidence for most of the conclusions people reach -- just an informed interpretation based on the limited clues.

You and corbon have a different interpretation of the conversation between Ned and Robert regarding Wylla. Many of us, even after hearing corbon's extensive explanation and your apparent agreement with his analysis, remain convinced that the more natural reading of that conversation is that Ned understands that Robert has been left with the impression that Ned has confirmed the name of the mother as Wylla. I think that the contents of the conversation -- together with the knowledge regarding people at Starfall believing Wylla to be the mother - to come to that conclusion.

Given that two people who I consider to be smart and analytical (you and corbon) disagree with my analysis gives me pause and makes me less certain of the correctness of my conclusion. But neither of you has convinced me that your interpretation is the more natural reading of the conversation than the one that I (and many others) have put forth -- which I still consider to be the more reasonable interpretation of the words -- even though I understand the alternative interpretation being put forth by you and corbon. But being forewarned is forearmed so if in the next book (or final book) it becomes clear in some way that GRRM has always intended the "careful reader" to understand the text as you and corbon have understood it, I will not be as surprised as I otherwise would have been.

[SFDanny]

And please note, you are calling a statement a question and ignoring the actual question. Ned did indeed answer Robert's question in a form that perfectly fits a response to Robert's question - but a clarifying statement is not a question, no matter how many times you insist it is.

Well, we simply disagree, More than that, I think that not only is your read not 'normal', it doesn't even follow the rules of language. (Ok, as I try to parse it for you below I think I see how you read it, I just don't find that remotely natural).

"You now the one I mean, your bastard's mother?"
You know the one I mean is a statement, clear and simple. You seem to think that the second phrase "your bastard's mother" is a questioning statement on its own. That it would be read (said) with a rising tone to denote its questioning, so there are actually 2 main questions Robert asks, and 2 minor questions which he self answers (the girls names he guesses). Is that correct?
I don't. I see it as a clarifying addendum - Robert has made a statement (which is in itself a clarifying addendum) that Ned knows the one he means, but thats not really very clarifying, so he adds another clarifying statement to clarify that. I don't read it with a rising tone. To me the whole sub-paragraph (from "what was her name" to "bastard's mother") is one big rambling question from Robert, which includes an initial clarifying statement (that common girl of yours), a potential self-answer (which leads to a sidetrack), a second )dismissed) self-answer, and another clarifying statement (you know the one I mean) with its own clarifying statement (your bastard's mother). The only place where I read a ring tone is the two girls names, because everything else ends with statements. And its not really 4 questions, its only one, the other three question marks are directly relating the statements in them to the original question.

Not really the past. To the actual question in the conversation. Robert is trying to remember the woman that was Ned's 'one time'. The whole section is about that one thought in Robert's head, and its all one question, started off with "what was her name?".
Thats really the question Ned is answering, the one thought, and he dioes it by supplying the answer to the first and only direct question there (IMO), "what was her name".

Note to that it is not a correct reduction to state the question as "what was her name, your bastard's mother". There is a whole bunch of rambling and sub questions in between. I think the difference is that you see "your bastard's mother" as a question itself, I see it as a statement Robert is making as part of the whole question.
Given that the entire question and subject is 'Ned's one time', I think its entirely clear that Robert already believes quite clearly that Wylla is Ned's bastard's mother and is not asking that as a question at all.

I'm not ignoring the actual opening question, but, yes, I include the clarifying remarks that Robert makes. Why? Because Ned does. We read this through Ned's point of view, not Robert's. If Ned was to have responded to Robert's question, "what was her name, that common girl of yours?" before Robert gave his clarifying statements of, "You told me once," and "You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?" then you might have a point. Please note the last clarifying remark ends in a question mark, so there is no room to argue about whether or not to read it with a "rising tone" - it is a question.  With Robert's additional remarks and questions it is very clear Ned knows exactly whose identity, whose name, Robert is asking for, the King narrows it down for Ned just who it is he is looking for Ned to name, and Ned responds with "Her name was Wylla."

Furthermore, the questions Robert asks in the form of possible names (Becca? Aleena? Merryl?) are all ways Robert is searching for the name Ned has given him some time in the past, and the last question, "Your know the one I mean, your bastard's mother," makes it clear that Robert believes Ned told him the name of Jon Snow's mother, and that's who he is trying to get Ned to once again identify.  Again, this takes place before Ned answers with Wylla's name.

But Ned does not respond before the clarifications by Robert, so the idea that he is only responding to that first question in isolation from the clarifications carries little weight. Ned hears the clarifications or we would not read them in his point of view. Your point, however, as I understand it, isn't that Ned didn't hear the clarifications, but that he chooses to ignore them, but the problem here is by ignoring the clarifications he is consciously telling his king a lie, or at best a "half truth," if Wylla is not either Jon's mother, or she is not the mother of some other bastard of Ned.

So, no, the "entire question" is not "Ned's one time." Robert makes it clear who he is asking about. Robert wants to know who Ned's bastard mother was, and Ned answers him with Wylla's name. It is your choice to reduce the question to only the first part of it, and to ignore Robert's clarifications, not Ned's. We have absolutely nothing either in the character of Ned as he is painted in A Game of Thrones, or in the actual scene we read that points to Ned making this strange choice of admitting to Robert only that he had an affair with a woman named Wylla - true or false, and he is ignoring the actual person Robert is asking about.

Sorry, more later, my friend. Have to go pick up my son. If I don't get back to this later today, it is because of the Thanksgiving holiday. Lots of family commitments. Don't know if you celebrate that particularly North American holiday, but my best wishes either way.

[Ser Creighton]

Have a happy Thanksgiving everyone, I know not everyone here celebrates Thanksgiving, different cultures and countries, but none the less, have a Happy Thanksgiving, and I hope you all get to be with your families and have a nice weekend and brace for the shopping season. Don't do it online face the hell that is Black Friday in person, the way Jon and the Black brothers would, Winter is coming and now your shopping begins.

[corbon]

I don't subscribe to creating a backstory of my own, and am perfectly happy waiting for GRRM to fill in the blanks.  To create a scenario such as a whole myth about what Ned did to be conniving and contrary to the nature that we witness will only lead to disappointment in the end.  Yes, it could have happened that way, but it is not likely and has no evidence to support it, in spite of those who rally to it believe. 

I consider this to be not creating a backstory, but speculating on one. And largely my speculation is aimed a disproving a different speculation that I find inconsistent, non-textual, and irrational, and hence think is highly unlikely.

But I will freely abandon or change my speculation once we get new data, or even a complete explanation, from GRRM. But as noted, there's not a lot else interesting to talk about, and not too many people consistently worth talking with either (and not always the time available - I've got some now so have to take advantage :D).

and then click on the categories pull down menu and then click on the only option that appears, which is labeled as core_emoticon_group_default then all of the emoji that were available on the old board will appear

Thanks. Since the 5 or 6 emoticons that there there were already labelled as core emoticon group I didn't think of clicking on that term.

 Please note the last clarifying remark ends in a question mark, so there is no room to argue about whether or not to read it with a "rising tone" - it is a question. 

I read it that the question mark shows it as part of the wider question, not as its own unique question. I still read it without a rising tone. I tried it with a rising tone and its unnatural - because Robert clearly already knows exactly who he is talking about and her supposed status so its nonsensical for that to be a question. And all his questions, the what was her name, the different girls names, the who know the one, your bastard's mother all run in together. Ned barely has time to open his mouth in amongst Robert's rambling questions (Ned is courteous, which means his response waits properly for Robert to finish his ramble). IMO its a clarification of the same question, not a different, new, question.

With Robert's additional remarks and questions it is very clear Ned knows exactly whose identity, whose name, Robert is asking for, the King narrows it down for Ned just who it is he is looking for Ned to name, and Ned responds with "Her name was Wylla."

Yes, I agree.
And also clear Robert knows exactly who he is talking of, where she fits and why he knows of her. Just he can't remember her name. Which is why it makes no sense that he's asking if she was Ned's bastard's mother. Especially when he hasn't even given Ned a real chance to answer her name yet.

Furthermore, the questions Robert asks in the form of possible names (Becca? Aleena? Merryl?) are all ways Robert is searching for the name Ned has given him some time in the past, and the last question, "Your know the one I mean, your bastard's mother," makes it clear that Robert believes Ned told him the name of Jon Snow's mother, and that's who he is trying to get Ned to once again identify.  Again, this takes place before Ned answers with Wylla's name.

Indeed. Robert knows she is Jon Snows mother. He knows exactly where she fits. He just can't remember her name.
It does not make it clear though that Ned told him she was the mother. Only that he knows.

But Ned does not respond before the clarifications by Robert, so the idea that he is only responding to that first question in isolation from the clarifications carries little weight. Ned hears the clarifications or we would not read them in his point of view. Your point, however, as I understand it, isn't that Ned didn't hear the clarifications, but that he chooses to ignore them, but the problem here is by ignoring the clarifications he is consciously telling his king a lie, or at best a "half truth," if Wylla is not either Jon's mother, or she is not the mother of some other bastard of Ned.

I've already pointed out that I fully agree Ned is happy with lies, though I'd call this a half truth more than a lie. There is no lie in answering the whole thrust of Robert's rambling question by giving the name Wylla. That is exactly who Robert is thinking of.

Ned is being courteous here, so he doesn't interject answering each (or any) question as Robert voices it, but waits for Robert to finish his ramble and then answers Robert's bigger question rather than individual parts of Robert's ramble.

However, you seem to insist that there is a separate question inside there, that there should be a rising tone attending the question mark at the end of 'your bastard's mother?". That rising tone changes the reading from a pair of statements associated with the old question (the question mark showing that the question is still open) into a new statement leading into an entirely new question. Q1 is "what is her name?" and Q2 is "(is she) your bastard's mother?" (the various girls name questions are still associated with Q1).
But Ned doesn't address that second question at all. Period. "Her name was Wylla" is no answer to "is she your bastard's mother?". So even if you insist that it is a second question you still have Ned ignoring it. Either way, he still doesn't tell Robert that Wylla is Jon's mother.

So, no, the "entire question" is not "Ned's one time." Robert makes it clear who he is asking about. Robert wants to know who Ned's bastard mother was, and Ned answers him with Wylla's name. It is your choice to reduce the question to only the first part of it, and to ignore Robert's clarifications, not Ned's.

We have to agree to disagree. I think its very clear that Robert is saying "mind you, you did have that one time ... what was her name ... you know the one I mean" and that Robert already knows exactly what he is talking about - Ned's one time, which must by definition be his bastard's mother given he has a bastard. Robert cannot be asking "is your one time your bastard's mother?" Not even Robert is that stupid. I still really can't understand how you (or any other competent reader) can think this.

And no, its Ned's choice, not mine. Even if we accept your reading as a second separate question (which I don't, it doesn't make any sense since Robert clearly already knows the answer) Ned still doesn't answer that question at all.

We have absolutely nothing either in the character of Ned as he is painted in A Game of Thrones, or in the actual scene we read that points to Ned making this strange choice of admitting to Robert only that he had an affair with a woman named Wylla - true or false, and he is ignoring the actual person Robert is asking about.

Thats not whats happening. He's not 'admitting' he had an affair with Wylla, he's ignoring Robert's assumptions on that part. He's confirming the name of the actual person Robert is talking about, not ignoring her.

Ignoring an allegation is not admitting it. I ignored an allegation in this thread overnight. I ignored the whole post, there was simply nothing of value in it. That does not mean I admit to being dishonest.
Wylla is the person Robert is thinking about, that Robert thinks is Ned's one time (I don't think Ned actually has a 'one time') and Ned does know who he means. That doesn't mean Robert is right about the clarifying statements he makes though, or that Ned address them. He just gives Robert the name of the person he (Robert) is thinking of.

Sorry, more later, my friend. Have to go pick up my son. If I don't get back to this later today, it is because of the Thanksgiving holiday. Lots of family commitments. Don't know if you celebrate that particularly North American holiday, but my best wishes either way.

Enjoy, and best wishes back. Not our holiday, but its the bit of american culture that is probably more valuable than most.