The Heresy essays: X+Y=J : Arthur + Lyanna=J

[Lord Wraith]

I had a long multi-answer lost to the forum last night and I don't have time or energy to go back there.
Some of the important things...
 - Sly Wren, most of your objections to the ToJ story are easily answered - too easily to fairly call them objections given they are based on a lack of knowledge rather than positive knowledge that creates issues.
 - note that neither Wylla nor Ned are ever shown to actually claim Wylla was Jon's mother
 - 'they' can be entirely encompassed to Howland Reed (who is definitely one part, he is mentioned in the next sentence) and one other (perhaps Wylla). There may be more involved, but it is false to say that more are indicated in any way by 'they'.

 

Eddard II GOT

"You were never the boy you were," Robert grumbled. "More's the pity. And yet there was that one time … what was her name, that common girl of yours? Becca? No, she was one of mine, gods love her, black hair and these sweet big eyes, you could drown in them. Yours was … Aleena? No. You told me once. Was it Merryl? You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?"

"Her name was Wylla," Ned replied with cool courtesy, "and I would sooner not speak of her."

So Ned admits it to Robert at least.

[wolfmaid7]

I think more than a general feeling or image "they" evokes is there are real arguments for other people than just Wylla to be with Howland, when he finds Ned holding Lyanna's dead body. My only point is "they" means one or more person with Reed, and we don't have evidence who that person is, or who those people are with him. My guess is there are more people there. I mentioned two others than Wylla, but a case can be made for more. Who cooked at the tower for months on end? Who went to carry messages from the tower, or to retrieve them? Brought in supplies? If Wylla is with Lyanna in the capacity as wetnurse, then what happened to her own child? And if we are going with Lyanna being in Starfall, then the sky's the limit on who makes up the "they." The "small folk" who are around the nobility and do all the things to make their lives possible seem invisible to the upper class, but they shouldn't be to the reader. I don't think Martin makes the mistake of forgetting that.

The bottom line is there are potentially some large plot holes in our story relative the Tower of Joy events and Ned's journey to Starfall and then back north to King's Landing and Winterfell. I'm fairly confident Martin will explain just how all this takes place, but it would be a mistake to ignore the existing gaps. That is true no matter what X+Y+J theory we want to explore.

Sure there could be more people when Lyanna died,i'm confident there's a lot more people present.But in the scenario where Lyanna has just given birth to a baby give or take a few days and the circle of secrecy includes a cook,wet nurse,people that have to shuffle supplies and info back and forth its really unlikely that info isn't going to get out.

This is where a lot of the arguement becomes muddled or uneccessary to me i view the whole toj as not ancilillary to who Jon's parents are.The point remains is there proof that Arthur was Jon's dad?

Hey, wolfmaid. Unless I'm gravely mistaken, the forum mucked up your formatting and these are a response to me. But if I'm wrong, I apologize for my presumptuousness.

So:

1. Unless Ned cut out her tongue, shoved Jon into her arms, and then delivered her to Starfall, I'm thinking Wylla is at least not contradicting the story. And Ned Dayne's story really makes it sound like this is common knowledge to him. And knowledge he's comfortable sharing. Maybe Wylla has just been smiling mysteriously when people say she's Jon's mother and everyone's just interpreting her like some Dornish Mona Lisa--but it really seems like this is a told and understood story.

2. Not an information blackout. An information misdirect. Because the traces of the story do get out--Ned Dayne's telling it to Arya. And they need some way to back off House Fowler if they start asking, "Hey!! Who tore down the tower in our pass and buried 8 people??" Or, "Hey! Why did Ned Stark go through our pass with Dawn?" etc. And if the hints of a baby get out. . . "Oh, yeah. There was a baby. Ned Stark's bastard. But he's a really honorable guy--took the kid home and is raising him with his true born children."

But note: in all of the traces of the story--Ashara as mother, Wylla as mother, common woman as mother, fisherman's daughter as mother, some Dornish wench as mother (thanks, Cersei)--the trace of Lyanna as mother has never gotten out. At all. How on earth did that get managed? Unless the people keeping the lie had a strong motive for doing so.

Martin's made a lot of the fact that stories get told. One way or another. Money, threats, even plain old loyalty--they don't keep this stuff secret. But love--Ned has kept this secret. So who kept it on the Dornish end? People who love Jon. His family. And raised their son and heir with a trace of the truth: not just milk brothers: cousins. Like Ned Stark's kids have a trace of the truth: Jon's their cousin, not half-brother.

Yeah its hard trying to get the formatting down (hands in the air yielding fashion) 

1.This goes back to something that i bring up a lot and that's perception people in this story jump to conclusions based on hardly anything or the wrong premise.We have no idea if we will ever see Wylla so measuring her merit to the future of the story is a bit problematic.We don't have what she may or may not know,or what she may or may not say.The only statement we have is by Edric that she is his mother.Though in my opinion that isn't the statement of import,that Edric and Jon are "milk kin" via her that peaks my interest.I think that was her purpose in the long run anyway.The main thing for me is that she is a variable whose knowledge we aren't privy to and may never be.

2.For me Lyanna not getting out as mother is simple, she wasn't associated with him by proximity or should i say birthing proximity.Ned couldn't remember what happen,he was in shock i just don't see him doing what needed to be done asap afterward.I think and this goes back to perception people in Westeros linked what seemed easy.Ned proclaimed Jon was his bastard and people who like to gossip and mind people buisness just started linking every woman Ned possibly came in contact with to Jon. A fisher man's daughter helped him ,its her;beautiful Ashara awaited him a top some tower called Starfall like if she was in a Mills and Boon novel and boom JS mother and on and on.

3. Honestly i'm not convinced the Dornish Hierarchy "knows" the truth so they aren't keeping any secret.If they know anything is that Wylla is the mother and like i said if they have a preconcieved notion they have no reason to ask her if she's JS mother.And Wylla was Jon's wetnurse and maybe not even that long to form some attachment to him.But believe you me i know something like that and i wouldn't be letting by breast sag for long.Not in that time.

[corbon]

So, the forum doesn't only hate me? Good to know! You are not alone.

1. Only easily answered if assume a lot of stuff not given in the text. Which means the answers might be correct. Or they might be completely wrong. Thus, no reason to accept them as gospel and not keep the questions open.

The point is they aren't 'problem questions' in the first place.

2. Wylla has served the Daynes at Starfall for "years and years" according to Edric. Since before he was born. He's a shy, quiet, serious kid. We get a lot of Arya's impression of him on page. A lot of context. And he speaks of Wylla easily, much more so than when he brings up Ashara--where he's quiet and hesitant. The statement about his wet-nurse's background--Bran, younger than Edric, knows the basics of Nan's background. Why on earth should we doubt that this is the official story when the serious, thoughtful, very polite and perfectly courteous Lord of Starfall says it's so?

He doesn't say its the official story. He just give every indication that he believes it. And some of it doubtlessly is true.
But we know (as near as) that some of it isn't. Its simply not feasible that Ned could have been in love with Ashara but fucking Wylla. Feasible to Ned Dayne, but not to us, who know Ned Stark much better, have been inside his head, know those closest to him around that time think he was never-the-boy-he-was and had such precious honour that it must have been an amazing woman to make him forget it even once, know that he himself thinks that taking his pleasures was not a charge that could be laid at his door.
So yes, we have considerable reason to doubt Ned Dayne's story. Not that he believes it, but that its all true. And if he believes it but its not all true, then what isn't and why might he still believe it?

Note also that Ned Dayne left Starfall when he was only 7, and not the Lord at that time (probably - its unlikely he'd be sent to be a page elsewhere - and an elsewhere with a relatively young Lord itself - if he was already the Lord. Far more likely he became Lord when his father died after he was away).
7 year old little princelings do not know all the secrets of their house. Much they 'know' (as we see from Bran a time or two) is factually incorrect and not necessarily their true House history, just the edited or abbreviated version proper for such young minds.

3. When Robert asks the name of "your bastard's mother," Ned (the Stark one) says "Her name was Wylla." Granted, he doesn't elaborate or include "I left her at Starfall." But he volunteers the name. Right after "your bastard's mother." So. . . yes, he claims Wylla is "his bastard's mother."

To inadequately summarise a long, multi-page discussion elsewhere... at no stage does Ned address the several statements that Robert makes during his long rambling question. Ned's entire answer is "her name was Wylla" which only addresses the question "what was her name". Ned allows Robert to continue to believe Jon's mother was Wylla, he does not actually tell Robert Jon's mother was Wylla.
And Robert tells us that in their previous conversation Ned told him her name once. Not their relationship (he may have said that, but Robert does not tell us so), just her name.
So no... Ned does not ever claim Wylla is Jon's mother that we know of. Only that Wylla is the name of the woman whom Robert firmly already believes is Jon's mother and is not asking Ned whether she is or not (Robert clearly states the woman he is thinking of was Ned's "one time" at the start, so by definition he already 'knows' she is Ned's bastard's mother and is not asking this at all - and even if he was, Ned does not offer any suitable reply).

Lord Wraith, read it again, with more care this time.

It's not reasonable to believe that the 12-year-old, very serious, Lord of Starfall, with his, careful, courteous manners, has been trained and taught the history of his house? The nature of his servants? When to gossip and when not to? Martin gives us pages of the conversation. Showing us a lot about this kid. A LOT more context than anything we have on the tower issue.

He was 7, and 9probably) not Lord, when he left Starfall. And his source for at least some of his 'knowledge' is explicitly Allyria, not House officialdom. We believe Allyria is likely to be of a similar age to Edric because she has been betrothed for 6 years already to mid twenties Lord Dondarrion and not yet married, so either far too young to have been an official source or a disturbingly 'old maid', with a strangely long betrothal, of well over 30 to have been a confidant of Ashara 20 odd years ago.

So, are you saying we should question the context-based conversation of a kid who we see as serious and polite, who Arya (queen of calling out liars) thinks of as serious and polite, and, when Arya's upset about his statements re: Ashara and Gentry's jokes, Anguy vouches for Ned as "a good lad"

Yes. He is a good lad. But he doesn't have veracity of his own, and nor does his one acknowledged source. And his data doesn't entirely make sense. It doesn't mean its all wrong, but it means it all should be looked at carefully.
Just as, for example, we consider Barristan's data about Ashara's suicide, her stillborn baby girl, etc, very carefully. Barristan is a good guy, serious and polite and all the rest, and doesn't deliberately lie to us, but he's not omniscient and he's talking about stuff that he doesn't have a direct connection to, stuff that happened a long way away from him and he has only heard about.

and Harwin backs Ned's story up

Harwin does not back Neds story up. The opposite in fact. He says there would have been no dishonour in it (N+A being in love) but that he doubts it.

"Aye, he told me. Lady Ashara Dayne. It's an old tale, that one. I heard it once at Winterfell, when I was no older than you are now." He took hold of her bridle firmly and turned her horse around. "I doubt there's any truth to it. But if there is, what of it?

--given all of that context, why are we not to trust Ned? But at the same time not question the gaps in the tower of joy scenarios? Seems like Martin's giving us all of that context so we know we can trust Ned.

You aren't applying context well at all. In a couple of instances you are directly misapplying it in fact.
The context is a kid who is talking about stuff that happened before he was even born. A kid who left Starfall at 7 years of age to be a page elsewhere, who might be Lord now, but almost certainly wasn't back then. A kid who tells us his data source, and our best information about that source indicates (does not prove, but indicates) that his source probably has the same issues as he does as a source.

Trusting Ned Dayne to be a good guy is not the same as trusting the data he gives us. He has very little veracity for the data he gives us. The stuff he probably has personal experience of - Wylla being his own wetnurse and also nurse Jon making them milk brothers, and having served for years and years (even, to an extent, since before he was born), that stuff we can trust fairly well. But the stuff that happened before he was born, the gossipy stuff that his source is Allyria for - that Ned and Ashara were in love, that Ned fucked Wylla and Wylla is Jon's mum? No, Ned Dayne does not have any authority as a source on that. He's repeating gossip even admits it, and he gives an unreliable source for that gossip.
That a young, naive, serious, honest, good kid believes it, does not make it so. Or even likely to be so.

Who was involved in the deaths of eight men, tore down a tower in the main overland route into Dorne and left eight cairns next to the ruin. And the story about his bringing the sword to Starfall has clearly gotten out. So, he's not just another bloke. He's the Lord of Winterfell who killed the Sword of the Morning and left with a baby.

Not when he's riding through the pass though. No one knows about the ToJ events yet, the deaths, the tower being torn down (if it wasn't already largely long fallen) etc. And he hasn't yet taken the sword to Starfall. He's just another guy passing through, perhaps returning home, or to relatives, or friends, or whatever, after the war. See for example how Catelyn was able to pass incognito even through much of the riverlands. Unless she declares herself, or runs into someone who knows her (unlikely for Ned in the Pass), she just another anonymous traveller.

If Lyanna was at Starfall, those facts are there--plus the fact that she gave birth. Gossip would get about even just the castle. So. .  a cover story for the next generation. And a way to talk to Ned and Allyria about their Stark cousin. . . about the son of their lost Arthur. A way to foster a connection without risking telling the truth. 

There is no evidence Lyanna was ever at Starfall. No one from there ever mentions her. And there is no sound basis for the attempts to disconnect between her at the tower and her death. Her bed of blood is explicitly connected to the Tower by the old dream and she dies in a (bed surely) room smelling of blood, in Ned's arms, with the only other person we know was at the Tower as the only other person mentioned in her death scene.

Instead, take Ned turning up to Starfall with Wylla nursing Jon. Starfall doesn't have a Lyanna connection,and they know Ashara wasn't the mother. Their only guess for Jon's mother is Wylla. So that becomes their story. No need for a cousin connection. Its a natural thing and it comes up naturally for Ned Dyane because he's a little boy being told stories about exotic and far off places, as all little boys are, and here he's actually got a personal connection to that exotic and mysterious Winterfell place. His own wetnurse also nursed 'the bastard of winterfell' making them milk brothers. How cool for a wee lad.

I completely agree. As I said a bit ago, this scenario could work for other fathers--depending on the level of loyalty. Or fear.

But the one thing Martin has shown us as creating the will and ability to hide Jon is love of family. Ned lies to protect his nephew. If the Daynes are doing the same--Martin gave us the answer as to who would lie for Jon by showing us Ned. And told us where the other family was with Edric's tale of Starfall. Where Jon's their milk brother. While at Winterfell, Jon's the half-brother.

This argument does not hold. There are definitely more people involved in Jon's origins than Starks and Daynes. Howland Reed for one. So it cannot be restricted to love of family. That could be a reason, yes, but could is not enough. Clearly there are other reasons at play, so you can't just choose one of them and claim there must be a  parallel because its not the only reason.

[SFDanny]

 

Sure there could be more people when Lyanna died,i'm confident there's a lot more people present.But in the scenario where Lyanna has just given birth to a baby give or take a few days and the circle of secrecy includes a cook,wet nurse,people that have to shuffle supplies and info back and forth its really unlikely that info isn't going to get out.

I agree totally. Of course we know information does get out. Ser Gerold finds the tower and Rhaegar. And, later, Ned's party finds the tower as well. Clearly, somebody told. Perhaps by accident a slip was made, or because someone benefited in letting the information out, but somebody told something they shouldn't have.

This is where a lot of the arguement becomes muddled or uneccessary to me i view the whole toj as not ancilillary to who Jon's parents are.The point remains is there proof that Arthur was Jon's dad?

No, none. I would settle for a good strong hint Arthur is Jon's dad, but there isn't one of those either.

[corbon]

Sure there could be more people when Lyanna died,i'm confident there's a lot more people present.But in the scenario where Lyanna has just given birth to a baby give or take a few days and the circle of secrecy includes a cook,wet nurse,people that have to shuffle supplies and info back and forth its really unlikely that info isn't going to get out.

Could be, yes. But not necessarily. And a lot more people seems unlikely. They are almost certainly hiding, at the Tower, from Aerys as much (or more) than from the rebels. At least, if they've been there for any length of time that is.

The fewere poeple you have the easier it is to keep secrets, both from the inside and the outside.

 

2.For me Lyanna not getting out as mother is simple, she wasn't associated with him by proximity or should i say birthing proximity.Ned couldn't remember what happen,he was in shock i just don't see him doing what needed to be done asap afterward.I think and this goes back to perception people in Westeros linked what seemed easy.Ned proclaimed Jon was his bastard and people who like to gossip and mind people buisness just started linking every woman Ned possibly came in contact with to Jon. A fisher man's daughter helped him ,its her;beautiful Ashara awaited him a top some tower called Starfall like if she was in a Mills and Boon novel and boom JS mother and on and on.

Indeed. Those in the know aren't saying anything. Those not in the know speculate, but Lyanna's just not on people's radar to be part of the speculation. She disappeared over a year ago with Rhaegar, and he died at the Trident before Ned came south...

3. Honestly i'm not convinced the Dornish Hierarchy "knows" the truth so they aren't keeping any secret.If they know anything is that Wylla is the mother and like i said if they have a preconcieved notion they have no reason to ask her if she's JS mother.

Agreed. They might know, courtesy of Arthur and/or Ashara, but its not necessary. And the Wylla rumour there especially is not necessarily attached to 'knowing'.

And Wylla was Jon's wetnurse and maybe not even that long to form some attachment to him.But believe you me i know something like that and i wouldn't be letting by breast sag for long.Not in that time.

I don't understand what this means?

But it might be dangerous to claim a relationship that never existed with someone like Lord Stark, unless its his plan you do so.
And if she knows the truth, its dangerous to say anything at all, to bring any attention to the subject, period.

 

I agree totally. Of course we know information does get out. Ser Gerold finds the tower and Rhaegar. And, later, Ned's party finds the tower as well. Clearly, somebody told. Perhaps by accident a slip was made, or because someone benefited in letting the information out, but somebody told something they shouldn't have.

Unless they told something they should have, because they made a judgement call under the circumstances (eg in one case Aerys is looking for Rhaegar to recall him and give him full charge of the war effort and in the other the Targaryens have been destroyed and there is no point in keeping Ned away from Lyanna any more).

But definitely someone told something at some stage. I tend to think its deliberate in both cases, rather than a slip, because in both cases its specific people with a specific reason that get the information.

No, none. I would settle for a good strong hint Arthur is Jon's dad, but there isn't one of those either.

Or even a weak hint. I don't even see one of those, seeing as I put less stock in dubious symbolism and vague parallels than most.

So for me, its firmly in the 'fails to be ruled in' basket.

[wolfmaid7]

 

I agree totally. Of course we know information does get out. Ser Gerold finds the tower and Rhaegar. And, later, Ned's party finds the tower as well. Clearly, somebody told. Perhaps by accident a slip was made, or because someone benefited in letting the information out, but somebody told something they shouldn't have.

No, none. I would settle for a good strong hint Arthur is Jon's dad, but there isn't one of those either.

Its the what they told that i'm always thinking of. 

If anything going over this made us look more deeply at certain aspects especially the SOTM imagery .

 

I don't understand what this means?

 

It basically means in this case let's say Wylla does know (Again  i'm thinking she's just a wet nurse that knows nothing) but let's say she knows she's hiding Arthur's bastard with Lyanna Stark. I'd "expect" more than a job as a wet nurse if i was her.If i was the Daynes i'd give her more incentive than being just a wet nurse.Its kind of the way this world works.Its a if i'm not going to kill her to tie up loose ends i'd give her something be it status,money...Something to keep her "under control" but alas the woman and what she knows is as unknowable as the quantity of grains of sand on some beach in Hawaii

 

P.S. How are you all doing the plit with the quotes?

[Sly Wren]

The point is they aren't 'problem questions' in the first place.

On this, we might just have to disagree. With so little information, with some of the associations coming in a dream or minimal-info sentences. . . there are too many gaps not to consider logistics and gaps as problems.

So yes, we have considerable reason to doubt Ned Dayne's story. Not that he believes it, but that its all true. And if he believes it but its not all true, then what isn't and why might he still believe it?

Note also that Ned Dayne left Starfall when he was only 7, and not the Lord at that time (probably - its unlikely he'd be sent to be a page elsewhere - and an elsewhere with a relatively young Lord itself - if he was already the Lord. Far more likely he became Lord when his father died after he was away).

7 year old little princelings do not know all the secrets of their house. Much they 'know' (as we see from Bran a time or two) is factually incorrect and not necessarily their true House history, just the edited or abbreviated version proper for such young minds.

Okay--on the Edric Dayne issue--I think we've gotten our wires crossed at some point, because I completely agree with the above. That Edric believes this story is true (though it very likely is not) and that he presents it as un-controversial fact to Arya. Surprised she doesn't know. Vs. when he talks about Ashara--then he's wary. He knows it's sensitive. But "Jon is Wylla's son?" That's just a fact to him--no problem sharing it. So, he sees it as an acceptable story that he learned at home.

As for the "context" issue: I meant how Edric tells the Wylla story strongly suggests he's not a gossip, not sharing salacious tidbits. He's clearly never been told this is improper information, even through his behavior is so proper. He solemnly swears on the honor of his house that it's true. It most likely is not true--but he's not gossiping--this is factual to him. 

To inadequately summarise a long, multi-page discussion elsewhere... at no stage does Ned address the several statements that Robert makes during his long rambling question. Ned's entire answer is "her name was Wylla" which only addresses the question "what was her name". Ned allows Robert to continue to believe Jon's mother was Wylla, he does not actually tell Robert Jon's mother was Wylla.
And Robert tells us that in their previous conversation Ned told him her name once. Not their relationship (he may have said that, but Robert does not tell us so), just her name.
So no... Ned does not ever claim Wylla is Jon's mother that we know of. Only that Wylla is the name of the woman whom Robert firmly already believes is Jon's mother and is not asking Ned whether she is or not (Robert clearly states the woman he is thinking of was Ned's "one time" at the start, so by definition he already 'knows' she is Ned's bastard's mother and is not asking this at all - and even if he was, Ned does not offer any suitable reply).

 

If I'm reading you right, you're asserting that Ned does not actively lie to Robert. But instead allows Robert to draw the wrong conclusion? If so, then one way or another, "Wylla" is the name Ned employs to bring this about, yes?

Harwin does not back Neds story up. The opposite in fact. He says there would have been no dishonour in it (N+A being in love) but that he doubts it.

"Aye, he told me. Lady Ashara Dayne. It's an old tale, that one. I heard it once at Winterfell, when I was no older than you are now." He took hold of her bridle firmly and turned her horse around. "I doubt there's any truth to it. But if there is, what of it?

Apologies--I should have been more precise. I meant that Harwin backs Ned's story up as not a "lie"--that it's a rumor he's heard, too. Vs. Edric's telling random tales. So, Edric is likely wrong, but he's not a liar.

Not when he's riding through the pass though. No one knows about the ToJ events yet, the deaths, the tower being torn down (if it wasn't already largely long fallen) etc. And he hasn't yet taken the sword to Starfall. He's just another guy passing through, perhaps returning home, or to relatives, or friends, or whatever, after the war. See for example how Catelyn was able to pass incognito even through much of the riverlands. Unless she declares herself, or runs into someone who knows her (unlikely for Ned in the Pass), she just another anonymous traveller.

Okay--we've really gotten our wires crossed in this conversation. Very sorry. No, I meant Ned needed a cover story afterwards, when he was leaving and afterwards, to hide Lyanna's being the mother. Because he would have been noticed at that point.

There is no evidence Lyanna was ever at Starfall. No one from there ever mentions her. And there is no sound basis for the attempts to disconnect between her at the tower and her death. Her bed of blood is explicitly connected to the Tower by the old dream and she dies in a (bed surely) room smelling of blood, in Ned's arms, with the only other person we know was at the Tower as the only other person mentioned in her death scene.

Instead, take Ned turning up to Starfall with Wylla nursing Jon. Starfall doesn't have a Lyanna connection,and they know Ashara wasn't the mother. Their only guess for Jon's mother is Wylla. So that becomes their story. No need for a cousin connection. Its a natural thing and it comes up naturally for Ned Dyane because he's a little boy being told stories about exotic and far off places, as all little boys are, and here he's actually got a personal connection to that exotic and mysterious Winterfell place. His own wetnurse also nursed 'the bastard of winterfell' making them milk brothers. How cool for a wee lad.

1. Agree--no direct evidence for Lyanna's being at Starfall alive (though Ned might have brought her corpse with him).

2. But the question of where Jon was born and who "they" are--yes, that is not yet defined. There are common interpretations, but with all of the gaps, it's not clear.

3. Her bed of blood is connected--in the dream. Not necessarily in locale. And her room that smelled of blood and roses in not given a specific locale--only one with some access to roses.

4. Not sure on your Howland point--are you saying his presence defines the locale?

5. Without question, Ned could have found Wylla (where?) and taken her to Starfall with him and the baby and the corpse. 

6. And then the question of why on earth Wylla (and possibly others) don't tell what really happened comes into play.

7. Why is being milk brothers with the Bastard of Winterfell "exciting" for the Lord of Starfall? Vs. learning that the Lord of Winterfell killed your beloved, renowned uncle? Or that despair over said lord drove your aunt to suicide? Why maintain a positive association withe the man who did that? And, again, why would the wet-nurse let it be told that she's Jon's mother?

This argument does not hold. There are definitely more people involved in Jon's origins than Starks and Daynes. Howland Reed for one. So it cannot be restricted to love of family. That could be a reason, yes, but could is not enough. Clearly there are other reasons at play, so you can't just choose one of them and claim there must be a  parallel because its not the only reason.

Agree--but Howland (far as it seems) isn't lying for himself. He's lying for loyalty/friendship/ fealty etc. of Ned. So, Ned's love for Jon is driving that bus. 

And I am not trying to claim it's "restricted" to family. Only that Martin has shown that it's the motive that drives the success of the secret on Ned's side (and possibly Benjen's). That's the reason we're given for the successful lie. Vs. money, or threats, or anything else. That's the one Martin's shown us. 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

But if the point was to stop all talk of Jon's mother, why did it only stop (entirely) with the rumor of Ashara? Why on earth would Ned believe that was the only rumor when he's told no one who Jon's mother is? If he slams the door on Ashara, why wouldn't people keep speculating on Jon's origin? But Ned only shut down Ashara entirely. The "commoner" story still gets whispered about.

Ned doesn't want anyone to know who Jon's mother is. So when he hears that there is a rumor going around in his own castle (Ashara), he stops it, because he knows who to adress (knowing from who Catelyn heard), and what exactly the issue at hand is. 

The people at Winterfell who were gossiping, on the other hand, became more secretive about it after this incident. Catelyn never heard another rumor again, or so it seems. Sansa did, and that might have been because one of her friends (Jeyne Pool, Beth Cassel) heard it somewhere, and then told Sansa, instead of Sansa simply overhearing gossip.

But the big difference between the rumours Cat heard and those Sansa heard, is that there is no longer a specific person mentioned anymore. It's just a nameless woman now, and thus, Ned will not have to fear anyone ever looking for her, let alone find her. Rumors about a nameless woman are harmless, rumors that point to a specific person, no matter whether they are dead or alive, are dangerous.

 

 

Why wouldn't Ned believe that Ashara was the only person being named at Winterfell as Jon's mother? As far as we know, she was, indeed, the only one identifiable in those rumors. And those rumors are the ones he ended. People will always wonder, they will always whisper. But as long as there is no identifiable person in those whispers, there is little to no danger.

 

There is a difference. But Ned also doesn't ask where Cat heard speculation about Jon's mother. He demands to know where she heard "that name." And talk of "that name" stops. Not "speculation about Jon" stops. 

Without Sansa's mention of whispers and Arya's reaction to Ned, this might be dismissed as just Cat. But Sansa and Arya--not to mention Jon--show how curious the Stark kids (and presumably others at Winterfell) were re: Jon's mother. And that whispers were happening. If Sansa had heard the Ashara story, she would have LOVED that. Right up Sansa's alley. And would presumably have included it in her thought about Jon's origins. Let's face it--Sansa would have tried to turn it into a song. And if Arya had heard the story, she wouldn't have been so confused.

The info is VERY scant. But it is there. For now, at least, looks like all Ashara talk was ended. But speculation about Jon was not. And the idea that Ned wouldn't have known it might continue. . . that's really hard to buy. He dampened the general talk to whispers. But he ended the mention of Ashara.

1. Well, they haven't seen nothing at Winterfell. They see Jon every day. A constant reminder that no one's saying who his mother is. Ned is constantly keeping a secret. For unknown reasons. And yet--the talk of Ashara stops entirely.

If this hypothetical holds true at all, the Daynes and their household have lost that visual reminder. That immediate presence of Arthur's child. Much easier to just go about their business. If anyone asks, they have a cover story. 

Seeing Jon everyday only reminds the people at Winterfell that he's Ned son.. It tells them nothing about his mother.

 

2. As for letting things slip-- they are isolated on an island. Where a river meets the sea, butted up against the red mountains (if I'm reading the World Book right). In the most sparsely populated region in the kingdoms. So, until we know more, probably not a lot of people they need to lie to.

Also, we've seen the complete devotion of servants and retainers to their lord in Ned. How Ned and the Starks are adored. How the mountain clans are willing to risk their lives at the start of winter and make common cause with Stannis and his stupid red god--all for the sake of The Ned. The devotion of Winterfell and a LOT of the North--that carries a lot of power. To risk their lives for The Ned.

And we have evidence of somewhat comparable devotion--at least to Arthur Dayne. Arthur's an ideal to everyone but Darkstar. He fixes things with the smallfolk during the mess with the kingswood brotherhood. He's the knight you bring up when you are establishing your bona fides (both Jaime and Barristan do this). If the mountain clans clear up in the hills are devoted to The Ned and the Wolves, can see how the Daynes would be devoted to their own champion. Their literal chosen one. And thus willing to risk a LOT to protect his child. 

Because everyone at Starfall would be at risk for harboring them. Tywin didn't spare the Reynes' servants (far as I remember). Just drowned them all together. And Robert may have been initially appalled at the murder of Elia and her children--but he embraced and condoned that atrocity. And Ned knows it. Can tell the Daynes exactly what his de facto brother is capable of.

Look at the maps from The Lands of Ice and Fire. No identifiable island there, so it will be a small island, and close to the main land. It's not, for example, Tarth, or Bear Island, which are more remotly located from the main land. So Starfall would have plenty of interaction with other Dornish houses. They are not what I'd call isolated.

You make a good point about the loyalty of servants and bannermen to their lord. But at the same time, those people would also know what kind of consequences they'd face if the secret would ever come out. They'd all be punished. The Northmen aren't hiding a secret for Ned, they willingly march into battle for him. For Arthur, the people would be forced to keep a secret, and fear that someone might find out about it, and punish all accordingly.  There's still a danger there.

 

3. I also just realized that some of these arguments can work for other father-potentials. Depending on the Daynes' level of fear and/or loyalty to the Targs.

But the willingness to risk everything for the child of a lost sibling--Ned shows us that. The idea that the Daynes--who, other than Darkstar, seem lovely (though we've only met Edric and seen Ashara and Arthur via memories)--the idea that the Daynes might love the child of their lost brother and Sword of the Morning as much as Ned loves Jon. . . I think that potential motivation makes this scenario easier to buy if Arthur were the father. 

ETA: Otherwise, we have to explain how random people with no clear motivation would keep the secret (Wylla, potential suppliers of food and servants, etc). Which is hard to do without motivation. 

Or explain why Ned would just slaughter all of the witnesses. . . 

Who says that the other people have no motivation? Wylla, whoever she is, might have been with Lyanna for months.. Oppertunities enough for motivation. Food suppliers, servants, etc.. We know of none of them. What did they know? Were they even there? The fact that we can't explain motivation of people who might not even have been there or known anything, is not an issue, at the moment. First, we need to knwo what they knew, and whether there was anything they could tell, if they wanted to.

 

[corbon]

 

It basically means in this case let's say Wylla does know (Again  i'm thinking she's just a wet nurse that knows nothing) but let's say she knows she's hiding Arthur's bastard with Lyanna Stark.

 

I'd "expect" more than a job as a wet nurse if i was her.If i was the Daynes i'd give her more incentive than being just a wet nurse.Its kind of the way this world works.Its a if i'm not going to kill her to tie up loose ends i'd give her something be it status,money...Something to keep her "under control" but alas the woman and what she knows is as unknowable as the quantity of grains of sand on some beach in Hawaii

A permanent job at Starfall as wetnurse to House Dayne, wetnursing the future lord etc... thats a huuuge plum. She's basically set for life on as easy a street as it gets without actually being noble. Think of Old Nan and what her life is like compared to that of a normal old peasant woman...

P.S. How are you all doing the plit with the quotes?

I noted it earlier.
You just hit enter a few times (twice if its already a paragraph end within the quote, three times if mid-paragraph) in the place you want to split until the split is a little wide, then sometimes arrow up once to go to the middle of the split and hit enter again. Sometimes its a bit temperamental and instead of splitting the quote just widens the gap inside the quote. In that case one of two options usually work for me. Either back arrow and delete a few times (or control-z/undo) to close it all up and start the splitting process from where you were once again, or sometimes clicking elsewhere in the overall reply and then clicking back into the opened-but-unsplit gap, then hitting enter, works to split it.

There's also a red-dashed line with a red enter/return symbol that comes up at the bottom of any quote if you mouse over it, and clicking on the red enter opens up a space for normal reply. So if you end up with several consecutive quotes you can add breaks that way (sometimes using the above methods I get several empty quotes all running together, don't know why.

Things seem to work inconsistently a bit, but much of that is us getting used to it I guess. And I think I've got a reliable enough overall method running now.

On this, we might just have to disagree. With so little information, with some of the associations coming in a dream or minimal-info sentences. . . there are too many gaps not to consider logistics and gaps as problems.

We might just have to. I don't consider an empty hole for logistics that can be explained as a problem, only one that can't be explained.

Okay--on the Edric Dayne issue--I think we've gotten our wires crossed at some point, because I completely agree with the above. That Edric believes this story is true (though it very likely is not) and that he presents it as un-controversial fact to Arya. Surprised she doesn't know. Vs. when he talks about Ashara--then he's wary. He knows it's sensitive. But "Jon is Wylla's son?" That's just a fact to him--no problem sharing it. So, he sees it as an acceptable story that he learned at home.

Yeah, that happens. We agree so far.

As for the "context" issue: I meant how Edric tells the Wylla story strongly suggests he's not a gossip, not sharing salacious tidbits. He's clearly never been told this is improper information, even through his behavior is so proper. He solemnly swears on the honor of his house that it's true. It most likely is not true--but he's not gossiping--this is factual to him. 

Agreed. But just because he believes it to be factual does not inherently stop it from being gossip originally, or gossip when he repeats it in fact. He's not consciously presenting it as gossip, I agree. However, he does say "My Aunt Allyria says", which is... gossip. He's repeating what he's been told, and furthermore, from a source we don't have any reason to trust.

If I'm reading you right, you're asserting that Ned does not actively lie to Robert. But instead allows Robert to draw the wrong conclusion? If so, then one way or another, "Wylla" is the name Ned employs to bring this about, yes?

Yes, in essence. Its even consistent with what we see that Ned might (and this is speculative, but the point is that its still consistent and thus shows that we can't assume the way you did) have directly denied it in the past to Robert, but Robert still believes it to be true anyway - Ned "denying" the 'truth' behind his lie designed to hid the truth (Wylla is the mother Ned says she's just the wetnurse to hide she is really the mother and he is taking responsibility for her) is expected, and just confirms the truth Ned directly denied.
Sorry, this is not really the point, and gone in to in some detail in the other thread, but I'm aware that if you don't 'get it', that seems like a lot of complicated doubletalk and very confusing, so I'd prefer to explain for clarity. And the easiest way to do this is with a hypothetical conversation:
Conversation 1
Friend 1 (a bit of a hound dog): I hear you have a bastard, you sly old dog you.
Friend 2 (a bit uptight about honour, including extramarital sex) : Yes, I am taking him home.
F1: With a wetnurse I hear... I bet she's hot.
F2: <internally rolls eyes>
F1: Its her isn't it. She's the mother you dirty dog!
F2: <another internal eye roll> No, she's just a wetnurse.
F1: It is her! Ha! Whats her name then?
F2: <internal sigh/shrug/eye roll> Her name is Enaj Eod. I'd rather not talk about it.
Here you see a direct denial that leads to even firmer belief. F2 never says he was in any relationship or anything, even denies it, and gives only the woman under discussion's name. And thats entirely consistent with the conversation we see between Ned and Robert, and the fact that Ned told Robert the name once before.
I don't say this is the only way it went down, or even that variations of it must have gone down. Just that because this is a reasonable possibility we cannot make broad assumptions about the conversation we see.
I do also argue that the above hypothetical, converted in some form to a first conversation between Robert and Ned, is more consistent with both of their characters, their actions, their needs and their observed conversation patterns than the idea that Ned simply told Robert the lie that Wylla was Jon's mum.

Apologies--I should have been more precise. I meant that Harwin backs Ned's story up as not a "lie"--that it's a rumor he's heard, too. Vs. Edric's telling random tales. So, Edric is likely wrong, but he's not a liar.

Agreed.

Okay--we've really gotten our wires crossed in this conversation. Very sorry. No, I meant Ned needed a cover story afterwards, when he was leaving and afterwards, to hide Lyanna's being the mother. Because he would have been noticed at that point.

1. Agree--no direct evidence for Lyanna's being at Starfall alive (though Ned might have brought her corpse with him).

2. But the question of where Jon was born and who "they" are--yes, that is not yet defined. There are common interpretations, but with all of the gaps, it's not clear.

3. Her bed of blood is connected--in the dream. Not necessarily in locale. And her room that smelled of blood and roses in not given a specific locale--only one with some access to roses.

Not in the dream, as the description of the dream. To a tower long fallen and three white cloaks. Thats a locale with a bonus, and the only one we have that fits is ToJ.

4. Not sure on your Howland point--are you saying his presence defines the locale?

No, I'm saying that we have a direct connection with Lyanna's bed of blood, a tower long fallen and three white cloaks. Which is the ToJ, since we have no other locale with those connections
And we have, at her blood smelling death bed, Howland Reed and Ned. Who were definitely at ToJ.
So we have 2 data point connections (bloody bed and HR is there), and one of them connects directly to tower long fallen and 3 white cloaks, while the other also directly connects to ToJ. No other location comes remotely close to connecting this way. A hypothetical possibility is bullshit evasion.

5. Without question, Ned could have found Wylla (where?) and taken her to Starfall with him and the baby and the corpse. 

6. And then the question of why on earth Wylla (and possibly others) don't tell what really happened comes into play.

Easily answered, so not a concerning question. If they are already there, then they have already been selected on the basis of loyalty and discretion - to House Dayne and/or Rhaegar Targaryen. And through Jon's life, those imperatives are still in play.

7. Why is being milk brothers with the Bastard of Winterfell "exciting" for the Lord of Starfall?

It's not the being milk brothers specifically, its any personal connection at all. Its like hearing tales of deepest darkest africa, but knowing that your distant cousin is an explorer or missionary there. So much cooler than not having any personal connection to the tales.
I think we are losing that wonder a bit, as the world becomes a more connected place, and younger forum goers might not understand this point well. But its a real thing, and all the more powerful in a society at the level of westeros.

Vs. learning that the Lord of Winterfell killed your beloved, renowned uncle? Or that despair over said lord drove your aunt to suicide? Why maintain a positive association withe the man who did that? 

Beloved? He died before Ned was born. And it was war, people die. Its not dishonourable to have killed an enemy. Sometimes it becomes personal (Rickard Karstark for example), but thats not the acceptable response and is a sign of a flawed character.
And no one said Eddard drove Ashara to suicide. He is not responsible. He's a Lord, and must play out a Lord's role, marrying for politics not love. Young Ned should have been taught to understand that.
Anyway, questions about the why are relatively pointless. The fact remains there clearly is a positive association, and there are multiple reasons why it might be so and none why it must not. So digging deeper is of no value here.

And, again, why would the wet-nurse let it be told that she's Jon's mother?

I assume we are assuming that she isn't telling the tale herself here...
 - because she's not actually hearing the tales? Often the last person to hear gossip is the subject of said gossip, and even if they do hear there is little they can do, especially if there is a power imbalance
 - because see no evil hear no evil speak no evil? Say nothing, not even denials, is the safest/easiest option?
 - because she mona-lisa-ing it deliberately?
 - because she's mona-lisa-ing it accidentally? (ie thats so silly I can only smile/laugh, it doesn't need refuting)

in short, there are multiple possibilities.

Agree--but Howland (far as it seems) isn't lying for himself. He's lying for loyalty/friendship/ fealty etc. of Ned. So, Ned's love for Jon is driving that bus. 

And I am not trying to claim it's "restricted" to family. Only that Martin has shown that it's the motive that drives the success of the secret on Ned's side (and possibly Benjen's). That's the reason we're given for the successful lie. Vs. money, or threats, or anything else. That's the one Martin's shown us. 

And if its not restricted to family, then the same motivation can apply to anyone who was at ToJ. So you don;t achieve anything to argue this motivation.

Who says that the other people have no motivation? Wylla, whoever she is, might have been with Lyanna for months.. Oppertunities enough for motivation. Food suppliers, servants, etc.. We know of none of them. What did they know? Were they even there? The fact that we can't explain motivation of people who might not even have been there or known anything, is not an issue, at the moment. First, we need to knwo what they knew, and whether there was anything they could tell, if they wanted to.

This is another example of what I mean by saying empty holes that can be explained don't need to be explained. Because that way lies madness, and no profit. No explanation can be better than any other because it comes from an empty hole. So there is no point in pursuing the question - not because its an unworthy question, but because at this stage its a profitless pursuit.
Similarly, fussing about the motivation of people we don't even know were they, when there are easy potential motivational explanations available (but we can't confirm them because... well, its all just an enormous gap that we start from) can't lead us anywhere useful or constructive.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Double post..

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

dp

[wolfmaid7]

A permanent job at Starfall as wetnurse to House Dayne, wetnursing the future lord etc... thats a huuuge plum. She's basically set for life on as easy a street as it gets without actually being noble. Think of Old Nan and what her life is like compared to that of a normal old peasant woman...

 

 Hahaha no i was reversing the thought to go futher on the she's a just a wet nurse that knows nothing secured by Ned for a job.If we look at the themes in the story on a whole anyone with a bit of information tries to elevate themselves one way or the other.No woman would want to nurse babies until they can't ,basically being an old maid if they don't have to.

Oh and thanks for the info on the quotes.

 

[anonnyscouse]

 Hahaha no i was reversing the thought to go futher on the she's a just a wet nurse that knows nothing secured by Ned for a job.If we look at the themes in the story on a whole anyone with a bit of information tries to elevate themselves one way or the other.No woman would want to nurse babies until they can't ,basically being an old maid if they don't have to.

Oh and thanks for the info on the quotes.

 

We know nothing about Wylla, where she came from, where is her child, how did she come to be with Lyanna, how old was she, was she attractive/plain, was she high or low born.

I speculated (much) earlier in this thread that she may have been Lewyn's paramour (who we know nothing about, other than the fact she existed). Hence (using the premise of thread) Arthur took Lyanna (his new paramour) to the place that his friend used to hide his paramour. Using this (very speculative) theory Wylla would have already been at the ToJ before Lyanna, perhaps with Lewyn's child who she was still nursing. Once the child was old enough being (at least half-) Dornish they likely would have been sent to the Water Gardens.

In this scenario Wylla would have lost the love of her life, likely to not want to marry again. She'd be happy to be wetnurse for the Daynes. She'd have her own secret to keep, I don't think Lewyn would be the only half of the couple who would be considered a criminal if the secret was public, and even if he was she would want to preserve her lover's reputation. It would be a mutually beneficial relationship, she keeps the secret of Jon and lives comfortably for the rest of her life and the Daynes (and Eddard) keep her secret.

[Sly Wren]

We might just have to. I don't consider an empty hole for logistics that can be explained as a problem, only one that can't be explained.

And this might be where our problem and potential middle ground might lie.

I'm not trying to argue that Arthur is Jon's father--I'm not sure of the paternity issue (that sounds like a bad afternoon talk show...sorry). Only that Arthur could be.

But I am sure that the tower information, as it currently stands in the text, supports multiple interpretations.

Ned's grouping of three things in the dream could mean Lyanna is in the tower. The fact that Ned and the KG mention no one in the tower is just because they are busy. And when Ned says only 2 lived to ride away, he's only counting those in the fight. 

OR: Ned's grouping of the three things in the dream means they are together in the dream. Locale to be determined. No one mentions anyone in the tower because no one's in it. When Ned only mentions the people in the fight and who survived, it's because no one else was there to mention. And he and Howland rode away to another place--with a room that smelled of blood and roses.

Both of these readings are completely viable given the information the text actually provides. As such, the tower can't be used to rule out Arthur as father. Can't rule him in or out--not based on the tower.

Not in the dream, as the description of the dream. To a tower long fallen and three white cloaks. Thats a locale with a bonus, and the only one we have that fits is ToJ.

No, I'm saying that we have a direct connection with Lyanna's bed of blood, a tower long fallen and three white cloaks. Which is the ToJ, since we have no other locale with those connections
And we have, at her blood smelling death bed, Howland Reed and Ned. Who were definitely at ToJ.
So we have 2 data point connections (bloody bed and HR is there), and one of them connects directly to tower long fallen and 3 white cloaks, while the other also directly connects to ToJ. No other location comes remotely close to connecting this way. A hypothetical possibility is bullshit evasion.

No--other readings are viable. Due to large gaps in the unfinished text. Which means all of the interpretations of the tower are "hypothetical possibilities" in an unfinished text until we get more definitive data.

Readers can choose to see the three things in the dream as in the same place. But the text does not define that. Only says all three are in the dream. Then the dream ends before we see Lyanna in her bed of blood--anywhere. At best, the dream suggests that's where she is. And given the amount of gaps in the information, that interpretation is completely viable. As is the interp that she's not in the tower, and Ned and Howland rode away alone to another location. 

Agreed. But just because he believes it to be factual does not inherently stop it from being gossip originally, or gossip when he repeats it in fact. He's not consciously presenting it as gossip, I agree. However, he does say "My Aunt Allyria says", which is... gossip. He's repeating what he's been told, and furthermore, from a source we don't have any reason to trust.

Not trusting the truth of the statement. Only that Edric perceives the statement is perceived as factual and uncontroversial. Vs. the information re: Ashara.

It's not the being milk brothers specifically, its any personal connection at all. Its like hearing tales of deepest darkest africa, but knowing that your distant cousin is an explorer or missionary there. So much cooler than not having any personal connection to the tales.
I think we are losing that wonder a bit, as the world becomes a more connected place, and younger forum goers might not understand this point well. But its a real thing, and all the more powerful in a society at the level of westeros.

Possible. But given the class structure and the stranger, not a given. Edric is actively, positively stating a connection to a family he's never met that was involved in miserable situation with his father's siblings. It could just be that careful, serious Edric has been told it's cool. It could be something more. Especially since the father of the "milk brother" killed his chosen-one uncle.

Beloved? He died before Ned was born. And it was war, people die. Its not dishonourable to have killed an enemy. Sometimes it becomes personal (Rickard Karstark for example), but thats not the acceptable response and is a sign of a flawed character.
And no one said Eddard drove Ashara to suicide. He is not responsible. He's a Lord, and must play out a Lord's role, marrying for politics not love. Young Ned should have been taught to understand that.
Anyway, questions about the why are relatively pointless. The fact remains there clearly is a positive association, and there are multiple reasons why it might be so and none why it must not. So digging deeper is of no value here.

Everyone except Darkstar seems to think Arthur was something above and beyond. And, if Martin's SSM isn't misleading us, the family decides (somehow) who to "appoint" as Sword of the Morning. And they chose Arthur. Their literal chosen son. Given that, and everyone else's reactions to Arthur, it's not unreasonable to assume his family loved and admired him. And Ned killed him. And, no matter the reason, that loss would hurt. 

Lady Barbrey has NOT gotten over her losses--holds a serious grudge over losing Brandon, Ned, and her husband while Ned only brought back the horse. Barbrey seems fairly intense, but it at least illustrates that "I brought back a valued possession" might not be enough to let bygones be bygones. And call your son and heir the same nickname as the man who killed your brother.

Even when you "understand" how it happened, losing a family member can cut you off at the knees. Rip your guts out. For years. And Martin's shown us plenty of people in his novels who hold immense grudges with far less motivation. For now, why the Daynes seem to see Ned positively--it's a gap.

I assume we are assuming that she isn't telling the tale herself here...
 - because she's not actually hearing the tales? Often the last person to hear gossip is the subject of said gossip, and even if they do hear there is little they can do, especially if there is a power imbalance
 - because see no evil hear no evil speak no evil? Say nothing, not even denials, is the safest/easiest option?
 - because she mona-lisa-ing it deliberately?
 - because she's mona-lisa-ing it accidentally? (ie thats so silly I can only smile/laugh, it doesn't need refuting)

in short, there are multiple possibilities.

And if its not restricted to family, then the same motivation can apply to anyone who was at ToJ. So you don;t achieve anything to argue this motivation.

 No--all I'm trying to demonstrate is that there ARE multiple scenarios allowable by the text. Including ones that allow for Arthur as father. So, all good. Though I do think it's completely possible that Wylla is telling the tale herself.

This is another example of what I mean by saying empty holes that can be explained don't need to be explained. Because that way lies madness, and no profit. No explanation can be better than any other because it comes from an empty hole. So there is no point in pursuing the question - not because its an unworthy question, but because at this stage its a profitless pursuit.
Similarly, fussing about the motivation of people we don't even know were they, when there are easy potential motivational explanations available (but we can't confirm them because... well, its all just an enormous gap that we start from) can't lead us anywhere useful or constructive.

But this seems to assert that there is a default, set reading in an unfinished text. If there are multiple interpretations allowable in the text, how is that a sustainable position?

[Sly Wren]

 

The people at Winterfell who were gossiping, on the other hand, became more secretive about it after this incident. Catelyn never heard another rumor again, or so it seems. Sansa did, and that might have been because one of her friends (Jeyne Pool, Beth Cassel) heard it somewhere, and then told Sansa, instead of Sansa simply overhearing gossip.

But the big difference between the rumours Cat heard and those Sansa heard, is that there is no longer a specific person mentioned anymore. It's just a nameless woman now, and thus, Ned will not have to fear anyone ever looking for her, let alone find her. Rumors about a nameless woman are harmless, rumors that point to a specific person, no matter whether they are dead or alive, are dangerous.

A completely viable reading of the text.

But, also viable? That the specific language is specific for a reason. 

Given the text's specificity re: Cat's focus on Ashara, and her memory of Ned's statement of "that name" and no more talk of that name while other gossip is happening--the fact that Ned used those precise words might mean that Ashara really is an issue, too. Not just Jon. The text might mean exactly what Cat says it does.

Look at the maps from The Lands of Ice and Fire. No identifiable island there, so it will be a small island, and close to the main land. It's not, for example, Tarth, or Bear Island, which are more remotly located from the main land. So Starfall would have plenty of interaction with other Dornish houses. They are not what I'd call isolated.

Not completely isolated, no. Sorry if I implied this. But they are butted up against mountains. They are rather isolated. And, as Ned is able to control talk of Ashara in a somewhat isolated Winterfell, seems like the Daynes have a decent shot of doing something similar. Especially with Jon's removal. 

You make a good point about the loyalty of servants and bannermen to their lord. But at the same time, those people would also know what kind of consequences they'd face if the secret would ever come out. They'd all be punished. The Northmen aren't hiding a secret for Ned, they willingly march into battle for him. For Arthur, the people would be forced to keep a secret, and fear that someone might find out about it, and punish all accordingly.  There's still a danger there.

Actually, I really think the consequences to the household would be part of the motivation, too. The fact that Robert seems to be letting Tywin doing his "enforcing" should make anyone want to stay mum. 

Who says that the other people have no motivation? Wylla, whoever she is, might have been with Lyanna for months.. Oppertunities enough for motivation. Food suppliers, servants, etc.. We know of none of them. What did they know? Were they even there? The fact that we can't explain motivation of people who might not even have been there or known anything, is not an issue, at the moment. First, we need to knwo what they knew, and whether there was anything they could tell, if they wanted to.

Again--I seem to have muddled my point rather appallingly, and for that I'm sorry.

Not trying to say that there are no other options. Only that the one Martin has given us for lying about Jon is driven by Jon's uncle. Family love. So, the idea that the lie could be driven from the exact same point on Jon's father's end makes it a very viable option. 

And yes, we need a LOT more information before we can decide what the actual scenario is. As for now, the text fully allows for Arthur as father. As it does for other options.

[Melifeather]

 

 

That would mean that that part of the sentence refers to something that isn't even mentioned in any vacinity of the sentence itself...?

 

 

There are interpretations and interpretations. The one you claim is not actually a legitimate reading in english, given the paragraph structure.

Given that English is my first and only language I can only interpret it in English, and I understand rudeness as well.

If there were any other people at the tower of joy they would have ridden away with Ned and Howland, but Ned's dream doesn't include anyone else. If we were to take his dream as a factual account then Jon was never there.

[alienarea]

Hey, I know the show is the show and the books are the books but if I were planning to reveal who the parents of the hero really are in season 6 would I cast 

a. the father of the hero for flashbacks

b. the best friend of the hero's father for flashbacks

 

I'm not in making television so I might be totally wrong but from a gut feeling I would go with a.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

And yes, we need a LOT more information before we can decide what the actual scenario is. As for now, the text fully allows for Arthur as father. As it does for other options.

Opinions on that differ.  

 

Given that English is my first and only language I can only interpret it in English, and I understand rudeness as well.

I was asking a genuine question. It was never my intention to be rude.

[wolfmaid7]

 

 

Given that English is settlemy first and only language I can only interpret it in English, and I understand rudeness as well.

If there were any other people at the tower of joy they would have ridden away with Ned and Howland, but Ned's dream doesn't include anyone else. If we were to take his dream as a factual account then Jon was never there.

Better yet I would settle for Ned's waking memories of the tower to include Lyanna.But i digress it seems we are getting  of topic.

[Sly Wren]

Opinions on that differ.  

Very true.

Hey, I know the show is the show and the books are the books but if I were planning to reveal who the parents of the hero really are in season 6 would I cast 

a. the father of the hero for flashbacks

b. the best friend of the hero's father for flashbacks

 

I'm not in making television so I might be totally wrong but from a gut feeling I would go with a.

A tantalizing point.

But we'd probably best stick to the novels unless we want to get .