Heresy Project X+Y=J: Robert + Lyanna

[NutBurz]

You´re right that being Robert´s son would probably mean Jon would be very strong. But he is. We don´t get precise measuring, we get biased accounts of what people look like more or less, often in comparison to one another and considering their parents. There hasn´t been a single person describing Jon considering the possibility of him being a Baratheon - maybe if that was something on the characters´ mind, then they would see it and describe to us.

The only person who could have done it is Ned, who is in denial. He doesn´t dare thinking about a Jon Baratheon because of everything that implies. He simply blindly follows the promise of raising Jon as his own.

 

 

I´d like to add a part of the book.

Quote

"Why should I mistrust him? (Jaime Lannister) He has done everything I ever asked of him. His sword helped win the throne I sit on."

His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought, but he did not permit the words to pass his lips. "He swore a vow to protect his King´s life with his own. Then he opened that King´s throat with a sword."

...

"The others take your honor!" Robert swore. "What did any Targaryen ever know of honor? Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon´s honor!"

"You avenged Lyanna at the Trident," Ned said, halting beside the King. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered.

Eddard 12

First we see Ned holding the words he would like to say, in order to rephrase them in a way that shifts the dishonor from Robert (the throne you sit on) to Jaime (he did this, he did that). And it´s not like Robert dodges the dishonor - he seems impressively ok with the Lannisters turning their cloaks and Jaime backstabbing the king and sitting on the iron throne.

But when Ned´s "excessive" honor is put in question, he automatically spews the lie which he has conditioned himself to believe in, and then turns his mind to the only memory he allows himself, which is the promise. He would never contradict Robert on something Robert tried so hard to hide, and would most definetely not accuse him of raping his sister without any shred of evidence but his sister´s dying words.

[wolfmaid7]

13 hours ago, LmL said:

Oh, so your're biased too? Man! We are all biased! We just can't see the brilliance of @wolfmaid7's argument, there must be something wrong with us! 

@wolfmaid7, you are confusing "bias" with "we don't buy any of your arguments." And my question of "have these essays hanged anyone's mind?" was asked to everyone, without qualification. Where in the world did you imagine the idea that I was asking only RLJ believers? Do you just make stuff up when it's convenient? And are you really going to sit here and keep telling everyone who doesn't agree with you they are biased or have some personal flaw? Perhaps you're arguments are simply unconvincing - that seems to be the case. 

Your insistence that the only way a Beltane influence can work is the specific theory you've come up with is rubbish. As others pointed out, George often SUBVERTS the mythological influences he's drawing from. He frequently twists them around or swaps roles. In fact, he pretty much always does that. I've reached out many, many mythological influences in his books and they are never a straight correlation. So your point in his regard is nonsense. It's simply the way YOU see it working out. 

You think that because you are a Wiccan that you understand the horned God stuff better than everyone, but the Wiccan version is but one of many manifestations of this archetype, and you seem to (again) have a very narrow view here which is by no means the only one. Even your application of it to the tourney is flawed, because you cannot account for the fact that Rhaegar Was the one with the damn pole. 

Dude you are confusing me with some other individuals known to do this.Now that i've trimmed let's get to this.LML George hasn't subverted the thrope in who father's Jon because there is no indication that he did.I'd be willing to concede that he did if i saw but there's none.I've looked and there isn't.There are many ways in which the ritual isn't the same but in this it hasn't changed.George may have subverted what Jon does for instance and how he does it in relation to the horned god myth and there are clues he has.

LML do you really understand what you are saying.No matter the culture or the myth the horned god and what he accomplishes have remained the same.The outcome is the same the only thing that's different is the name Soagain you don't know what you are talking about when you are speaking of this.

12 hours ago, LmL said:

Example: Jon is Mithras. Not sure if you're aware of it, but Jon has repeated and extensive correlations to Mithras. When Mithras is reborn, he has to sacrifice the white bull. When Jon is born at the Tower of Joy, a white bull is indeed sacrificed - Gerold Hightower, the White Bull. Therefore, Jon was born at the Tower of Joy, case closed, and any theory that says different is wrong. 

Right? Well not exactly, because George twists his mythological influences around in all sorts of ways. George might be including the white bull to shout out to Mithras inside of the "cover story" of Jon's birth, even if Jon was actually born at Starfall. That's the sort of thing he does. So while the maypole idea is clearly evident at the Harrenhall tourney, you cannot interpret it in such a narrow way as to say "this is the only way it can be a perfect parallel to be myth!" - because a one to one correlation to myth is exactly what Martin does NOT do.  And again, until you can account for the fact that Rhaegar was the one with the lance, your interpretation has holes in it and cannot be regarded as absolute or even correct. 

A other issue with you narrow view of the greater, well-travelled horned God archetype, is that Jon is referred to as "the Corn King" by Martin through the raven.. The corn King is an umbrella term which is refers to the widespread archetype of the "dying and resurrected God," of which there are many varieties, one of which is your Wiccan concept of the horned God. But other dying gods are not horned gods and still play into the Corn King pattern. Mithras is not a horned god but he is a resurrected god who's rebirth gives life to the world again and renews it.  Mythology is not neat and well defined, and almost any time someone tries to draw a narrow, inflexible, and exclusive interpretation of ancient myth, they are making a mistake. Point is, the corn king is specifically an umbrella term, referring to many myths, and this is the term applied to Jon by George. So you can't look at his story exclusively through the lense of one myth, particularly one you've interpreted in such a narrow way. Mithras has just as much to do with Jon as the Holly and Oak King, if not more, but you don't pay any attention to this, just as you don't pay any attention to Rhaegar's presence on the middle of your maypole reenactment. You may be an expert on the Oak and Holly King but you need to consider other myths as well. George is drawing from the entire tapestry of world mythology, and he's combining these influences in myriad ways, always tangled with each other, rearranged, and re-configured, so trying unravel the story through the lense of only one myth - whether it's the Horned God or Mithras or Norse mythology - you will only have one piece of the puzzle. That's the same mistake that fellow made with the Norse mythology and ASOIAF website, which started out great. He correctly identified many Norse myth ideas in ASOIAF, but he assumed Martin's story would closely follow Ragnarok, and he didn't account for any other mythological influences - this led him to draw the absurd conclusion that Tommen was TPTWP and that Jamie be Bran would fight each other somehow to decide the end game.

Yes LML i'm very aware of the myth of Mithras and the fact that he follows the resurrected archetype and as i've told you many times before i am well aware that GRRM uses many myths from man different cultures that is very evident.My issue with what you are selling is lack of dicerning when a myth begins,ends etc.Also,the fact that there is a lot of confirmation bias and circular reasoning in what you put forth and this post is a great example.

Case in point YOU  associate Jon with Mithras and that would be all well and dandy if you can show me Jon is dead and thus in need of resurrection.As it stands at the end of ADWD we don't know.From Bran's vision: 

"Finally he looked north. He saw the Wall shining like blue crystal, and his bastard brother Jon sleeping alone in a cold bed, his skin growing pale and hard as the memory of all warmth fled from him."

This is not a dead Jon,this is a Jon in transformation.Compare that with:

" The dead do not rise, insisted Haldon Halfmaester, and no man lives a thousand years. Yes, there is a Shrouded Lord. There have been a score of them. When one dies another takes his place.Aye, Ive heard that too, said Duck, but theres another tale I like better. The one that says hes not like tother stone men, that he started out as a statue till a grey woman came out of the fog and kissed him with lips as cold as ice........" 

From what i see and you may see different,Jon may be in teh same place as Bran was and he to is given a choice to fly or die. Now you err in what you are saying and its a reasoning issue.Mithras is a ressurrected diety but not a horned one,the Oak and Holly king(s) are/is both.So his resurrection archetype is not a unique one.Its why your AA being a Targ is so problematic.

Why do you think Melissandre is so confident that Stannis has a Dragon to wake? Its because of his heritage.

So no you are wrong in saying that my view is narrow because it isn't.It's practical once there is a tangible foundation on which to stand.

Its very poetic, the whole when Mithras is born a white bull is sacrificed but you are assuming that Jon is in the tower being born.That is the problem there's nothing for that to stand on except an assumption.I'll answer that below because you ehem brought it up as an insult.

 

12 hours ago, LmL said:

Agree 100% here. This is the same kind of horrible twisting of facts and logic that we saw when @wolfmaid7 tried to claim no roses could ever grow near the Tower of Joy and therefore Lyanna's bed of blood cannot have been there. You remember that one right? Even when we conclusively showed the red mountains were a "fertile green belt" (TWOIAF), she stuck to her position, and he inescapable conclusion is that she did so because it supporters her own theory. 

Here's the problem with what you are saying and it's a reason for why its hard for me to respect you and a few others.Argue yes,even insult but when you start adding or taking away from what posters are saying or twisting it,i see that as dishonest.

I brought this up when i first proposed this issue of the roses and it is important,but alas you left that out because it suited your agenda.

First,the toj is located in the northern edge of the red mountains,the greenbelt is in the southern foothills of the Red mountains.So you by putting "Red Mountains" under the umbrella of it being fertile you are not presenting an honest description.Next,if such a thing as roses grew in any part of Dorne we would here of it,that would be important.

On 5/12/2016 at 6:39 AM, LmL said:

 

On 5/12/2016 at 8:31 AM, The Ned's Little Girl said:

 

[LmL]

@wolfmaid7 I've had my say, I'm not going to keep going with this.  You can keep accusing me of bias and whatever else all day,  whatever, I'm happy to stand by my comments here. I don't need to repeat myself and bring the thread down, so I'll leave it at that. I think the general reaction of everyone else here speaks for itself. 

[wolfmaid7]

On 5/13/2016 at 9:07 PM, The Ned's Little Girl said:

HA HA HA HA! I knew accusations of "bias" would be your first response.

And enough with the personal comments, please. You have no right whatsoever to be commenting about my reading abilities or understanding abilities. Just stop it.

 

It was a joke.   Also, to demonstrate that crushes can be one-sided.

It isn't its a fair observation.But i will leave that for the wrap up thread and then it will be made very evident why i said what i said.I'm not saying anything against your reading ability.If it came across that way my bad and i apologize.I'm simply saying that a subtle meaning is escaping you and that has to do with what love entails "love",the connection enacted when feelings are returned.I'm not saying that you don't know what love is and i'm sure you will recognize what i'm saying 

One doesn't react that way unless you are getting something in return.We could argue about that see  where that goes but it is impossible that Robert wasn't getting something from Lyanna. There are extremes of that which manifest into various pathology which Robert and Ned don't seem to have.

23 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I think you might be referring to puberty. And if so, using this to argue that Jon is older. Am I correct?

I agree that Luwin was referring to maturity. But then it's a question of what kind of maturity; physical, emotional, intellectual? If physical, then you might be onto something. But in the given context it appears to mean intellectual. Is it possible that there is a double meaning here? Sure, it's possible.

Agreed.

Ofcourse and puberty encompasses all you listed under the umbrella of maturity. Here's why i disgree with you that Luuwin meant intellectual.Jon when speaking to Brandon:

Uncle Benjen studied his face carefully."The Wall is a hard place for a boy Jon.""I'm almost a man grown," Jon protested and Maester Luuwin says bastards grow up faster than other children."

Jon is using Maester Luuwin's statement to back up that he is almost a man.

[wolfmaid7]

7 minutes ago, LmL said:

@wolfmaid7 I've had my say, I'm not going to keep going with this.  You can keep accusing me of bias and whatever else all day,  whatever, I'm happy to stand by my comments here. I don't need to repeat myself and bring the thread down, so I'll leave it at that. I think the general reaction of everyone else here speaks for itself. 

There you go with your "everyone" statement...everyone as in a select group of people which again says nothing.You keep throwing that in as if that is somehow a derteminant on Robert as Jon's father or not.GRRM will have his say no matter what you say, i say,or anyone else's.

If you can't be honest that: 

1.The timeline that proponents of RLJ have repeatedly held up as proof of when Jon was born is wrong because of the elements used to determine that.Cat's belief,Dany's belief and memories.Viserys's memories and Jamie's "eye witness account" casts severe reasonable doubt.

I have one more thing to bring up but i will save this for the wrap up thread

2. The narrative is there and on going despite what you say .The myth is there and un going despite what you say.

3. The connection between all three is there despite what you are saying.

Yes we have seen GRRM break thropes but for the love of me and i have no doubt he will subvert this in a gut wrenching way.However, don't use that "GRRM is breaker of thropes" and push Jon Snow as a secret prince whose mother died in child birth growing up to be savior of the universe and King of Westeros on the iron throne at me when you speak about breaking thropes.This is what i mean about the lack of honesty "some of you " will say things like this over and over yet not apply it to yourselves.

 

 

 

[wolfmaid7]

Will be back on the 15th.Give me a couple of days to get settled and  we can do the wrap up threads.Also,there will be certain criteria and parameters used as measurements.Is there any suggestions from anyone as to what you want as a criteria for analysis and debate?

Timeline will be on there,theme etc 

Post here or PM me.

[J. Stargaryen]

53 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Ofcourse and puberty encompasses all you listed under the umbrella of maturity. Here's why i disgree with you that Luuwin meant intellectual.Jon when speaking to Brandon:

Uncle Benjen studied his face carefully."The Wall is a hard place for a boy Jon.""I'm almost a man grown," Jon protested and Maester Luuwin says bastards grow up faster than other children."

Jon is using Maester Luuwin's statement to back up that he is almost a man.

Are you suggesting that this is an author winky-wink that Jon, who is supposed to be celebrating his 15th birthday soon, is actually nearly 16?

I mean, I guess we can't completely rule it out just now. But if I am correct about what you are getting at, I would direct you back to my post up thread where I compared the above quote with the earlier passage from the same chapter, pointing out that Joff, a known bastard, is taller than Robb and Jon, despite being younger than both.

I would suggest that people might be misinterpreting the possible winky-wink GRRM has given us here. Or, at least what it tells us about Jon, who is shorter than known-bastard Joffrey, despite being older. Hint: maybe Jon's not a bastard after all.

28 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Will be back on the 15th.Give me a couple of days to get settled and  we can do the wrap up threads.Also,there will be certain criteria and parameters used as measurements.Is there any suggestions from anyone as to what you want as a criteria for analysis and debate?

Timeline will be on there,theme etc 

Post here or PM me.

Oh, this should be... interesting.

[Wall Flower]

3 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

It isn't its a fair observation.But i will leave that for the wrap up thread and then it will be made very evident why i said what i said.I'm not saying anything against your reading ability.If it came across that way my bad and i apologize.I'm simply saying that a subtle meaning is escaping you and that has to do with what love entails "love",the connection enacted when feelings are returned.I'm not saying that you don't know what love is and i'm sure you will recognize what i'm saying 

One doesn't react that way unless you are getting something in return.We could argue about that see  where that goes but it is impossible that Robert wasn't getting something from Lyanna. There are extremes of that which manifest into various pathology which Robert and Ned don't seem to have.

The problem with that argument for me is that we actually see Robert in a 14 year one-sided relationship with a dead girl. It really doesn't get more one-sided than that.

Personally, I think it was the fact that he never had Lyanna that makes him so unable to move on from her - unlike those other women that he swore undying love to in the morning and whose names he forgot by evening.

 

 

 

 

 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

9 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

It isn't its a fair observation.But i will leave that for the wrap up thread and then it will be made very evident why i said what i said.I'm not saying anything against your reading ability.If it came across that way my bad and i apologize.I'm simply saying that a subtle meaning is escaping you and that has to do with what love entails "love",the connection enacted when feelings are returned.I'm not saying that you don't know what love is and i'm sure you will recognize what i'm saying 

I'm only going to say this one more time. No meanings are escaping me; I disagree with what you say those meanings are. There is a huge difference between the two.

 

9 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

One doesn't react that way unless you are getting something in return.We could argue about that see  where that goes but it is impossible that Robert wasn't getting something from Lyanna.

That is an assumption which is not supported. A character in literature absolutely could react that way; there's reams and reams of literature about exactly that: one character pining for another unattainable character from afar. It's a very familiar trope. I haven't seen anything at all that makes Robert and Lyanna any different from that trope.

 

6 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

The problem with that argument for me is that we actually see Robert in a 14 year one-sided relationship with a dead girl. It really doesn't get more one-sided than that.

Personally, I think it was the fact that he never had Lyanna that makes him so unable to move on from her - unlike those other women that he swore undying love to in the morning and whose names he forgot by evening.

Bingo.

 

[LmL]

10 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

There you go with your "everyone" statement...everyone as in a select group of people which again says nothing.You keep throwing that in as if that is somehow a derteminant on Robert as Jon's father or not.GRRM will have his say no matter what you say, i say,or anyone else's.

If you can't be honest that: 

1.The timeline that proponents of RLJ have repeatedly held up as proof of when Jon was born is wrong because of the elements used to determine that.Cat's belief,Dany's belief and memories.Viserys's memories and Jamie's "eye witness account" casts severe reasonable doubt.

I have one more thing to bring up but i will save this for the wrap up thread

2. The narrative is there and on going despite what you say .The myth is there and un going despite what you say.

3. The connection between all three is there despite what you are saying.

Yes we have seen GRRM break thropes but for the love of me and i have no doubt he will subvert this in a gut wrenching way.However, don't use that "GRRM is breaker of thropes" and push Jon Snow as a secret prince whose mother died in child birth growing up to be savior of the universe and King of Westeros on the iron throne at me when you speak about breaking thropes.This is what i mean about the lack of honesty "some of you " will say things like this over and over yet not apply it to yourselves.

 

 

 

The only dishonesty comes with you misquoting me: I never said anything about tropes. I said George never draws from a MYTH without changing or rearranging. Your argument was that your specific idea of the Maypole / Beltine ritual can only be properly realized in ASOIAF by Jon being a Baratheon, and I say that's not the case, because George does manifest his influences as an exact copy. And as I said, Rhaegar being the one with the Lance already throws your correlation off.

I said nothing about tropes.. We are talking about mythological influences, and about the fact that none of them are represented in a perfect 1 - 1 correlation. 

More dishonesty comes up with you reading things into my statements that weren't there.  I asked an open question: "has anyone been swayed by any of these "not-RLJ" essays," and you said I was asking that only to RLJ supporters - but no, it was an open question with no qualifications.

I said "I think everyone's reaction speaks for itself," and you interpret this as me trying to speak for other people - but I am actually not characterizing people's reactions here.  I'm simply saying that the way these theories have been received - however you see that - testifies to how convincing they are. You keep trying to say public opinion doesn't' matter - "only George will have his say!"- but that's rubbish. If you have a great and compelling theory supported by evidence, of course many people will buy it. People buy all kinds of theories on this board. So the question remains: "How many people have been swayed by any of these heresy theories?"

Its an open question. I didn't go through and tally up the comments into "for" and "against," I am just seeing a lot people saying "I don't buy that," "that's not convincing," "what about this," and so I am wondering, "was anyone swayed? Does anyone find this compelling?"

But whatever. I'm un-subscribing from this thread. I've remembered that we don't really enjoy talking to each other, so there's really not a point. You don't even understand / agree with the very basic, most simple aspect of my mythical astronomy - that dragons coming from an exploding moon can only be meteors - and so therefore you think I'm basically out to lunch on all my ideas.  Pretty hard to have a conversation when we both think each other are full of it.  You don't think I know anything about this myth, and I think you have an overly rigid and narrow concept of this myth. We both feel the other twists their words. Also, I find your choice to abandon sentence structure and punctuation incredibly frustrating when it comes to deciphering what you're trying to say. So... 

Enjoy your weekend. I'm going to spend my writing time writing instead of commenting on this thread and watching you throw accusations of bias, dishonesty, and "lack of understanding" at every single person who simply doesn't agree with you. At least we all know not to take it personally, since you throw these accusations at everyone who disagrees. 

Bye now. 

[Ygrain]

13 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Are you suggesting that this is an author winky-wink that Jon, who is supposed to be celebrating his 15th birthday soon, is actually nearly 16?

... or it's just like a seventeen years old claiming that they are almost adult, which is exactly what Jon does :-)

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

On 13-5-2016 at 5:42 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

So we are in agreement.Jon's age has nothing to do with him being percieved as a threat.My point is let say Cat did conciously notice something about Jon the thought processes of people during this time would not go to Jon must be older.Her observation of Jon is has relevance only within the setting of how much he is more or less like his father.There's enough variables i.e. Robb being so small....Those are the values for people in this depicted society.

All I was saying with the post you quoted, was that I was never arguing that his age has an influence on him being a threat. That's all I was saying. Because we were discussing why Catelyn would ever notice him, and the reason for that is quite clear.

 

Summarizing my over-all point from the last few posts, Wolfmaid, is that Catelyn has plenty of reasons to notice Jon. Because he is a threat, in her eyes, as we've clearly established. Thus, if Jon was indeed 1,5 years older than Robb, as you are claiming he is, there's little to no reason for her not to notice that, since the differences should be significant. 

Since Catelyn does not notice any significant differences between the two boys, they should be rather close in age, instead of the 1,5 years you are proposing.

[wolfmaid7]

On 5/14/2016 at 11:24 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

Are you suggesting that this is an author winky-wink that Jon, who is supposed to be celebrating his 15th birthday soon, is actually nearly 16?

I mean, I guess we can't completely rule it out just now. But if I am correct about what you are getting at, I would direct you back to my post up thread where I compared the above quote with the earlier passage from the same chapter, pointing out that Joff, a known bastard, is taller than Robb and Jon, despite being younger than both.

I would suggest that people might be misinterpreting the possible winky-wink GRRM has given us here. Or, at least what it tells us about Jon, who is shorter than known-bastard Joffrey, despite being older. Hint: maybe Jon's not a bastard after all.

Oh, this should be... interesting.

Yeah i remember this arguement and the issue is that the only thing to be sure of is the irony worked in favor of Joff and only after it was confirmed that Joff was a bastard.I'm still saying Jon is a bastard and much of that belief comes from Ned's thought which was a revealing and off the hand inner thought.I'm speaking of the brothal chapter and the whole if the gods hated bastards so much why plague men with such lust (paraphrasing) i mean it would of worked better if he didn't think of Jon in that light but he does.

On 5/14/2016 at 1:34 AM, Wall Flower said:

The problem with that argument for me is that we actually see Robert in a 14 year one-sided relationship with a dead girl. It really doesn't get more one-sided than that.

Personally, I think it was the fact that he never had Lyanna that makes him so unable to move on from her - unlike those other women that he swore undying love to in the morning and whose names he forgot by evening.

 

Wall flower very different my friend very common when speaking of prolonged grief on loosing a loved one and your  actually proving my point.Robert's grief is no different than individuals who have lost children,spouses,significant others and can't move on.But that's the point isn't it.They were people with whom an intimate relationship was established.

You don't know if it was a fact he never had Lyanna i'm saying Robert's behavior is not that of a person that was going to have someone,lost them and couldn't get over it.Its was of someone who did have someone and lost them and not able to get over it.

"Your sister back and mine again."

On 5/14/2016 at 8:18 AM, The Ned's Little Girl said:

I'm only going to say this one more time. No meanings are escaping me; I disagree with what you say those meanings are. There is a huge difference between the two.

 

That is an assumption which is not supported. A character in literature absolutely could react that way; there's reams and reams of literature about exactly that: one character pining for another unattainable character from afar. It's a very familiar trope. I haven't seen anything at all that makes Robert and Lyanna any different from that trope.

 

Bingo.

 

And its ok that you disagree,its noted.I'm saying you are wrong.Robert is missing a person who he had and is NOW afar.You haven't seen it because it escaped you and that's ok.

We have seen how the term "mine" is used i gave examples of mutual as in the case of Jon and Ygritte.There's Lysa and Petyr in which Petyr had his own agenda i'm sure but they were still intimate.

This isn't a man missing a girl and the idea of a would be relationship,this is Robert missing someone he loved,and got some reciprocity from her.You don't react that way about someone,feel that way about someone and have gotten nothing in return.The last time i saw something like that a guy mistook me being innocently nice and having pleasent conversation when he made my green tea latte for something else.He did get something out of it,he just "mistook" it for something else.

I don't Robert's behavior and the achknowledgement of such as something in his head,someone close would have called that.There would and should be no ambiguity there especially if you see your friend not moving on and being handicaped by a dead girl....who if if am to believe you all had no feelings for him in that way.You say nothing when he brings her up? That there makes no sense.

On 5/14/2016 at 2:11 PM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

All I was saying with the post you quoted, was that I was never arguing that his age has an influence on him being a threat. That's all I was saying. Because we were discussing why Catelyn would ever notice him, and the reason for that is quite clear.

 

Summarizing my over-all point from the last few posts, Wolfmaid, is that Catelyn has plenty of reasons to notice Jon. Because he is a threat, in her eyes, as we've clearly established. Thus, if Jon was indeed 1,5 years older than Robb, as you are claiming he is, there's little to no reason for her not to notice that, since the differences should be significant. 

Since Catelyn does not notice any significant differences between the two boys, they should be rather close in age, instead of the 1,5 years you are proposing.

I’m putting him at being over than a year.A year and three months , but if you want to go 1.5 go for it, it doesn’t undermine the point I’m making. Again, when it comes to what Cat may or may not have “observed” that’s not a problem. I’m looking at this not absent the circumstance Cat was in and mainly what she has shown a tendency to prioritize: Point of reference.

There’s what’s immediate and what’s not. Fast forward, Cat arrives post war to Winterfell face to face with all the personal implications of that. Time for grieving and putting loved ones to rest etc. Cat the new lady of a Castle, a massive one at that getting settled into that role on top of that taking care of Robb which would be her priority at that time. Taking care of him seeing to his needs.

The last thing on her mind would be “observing” her husband’s bastard. A child out of sight and out of mind until he was of an age where he could no longer be out of sight. …..I don’t believe that Jon was kept near Cat and Robb in the Castle and so I don’t think Cat went out of her way to “observe” Jon, other things on her mind.

But, let’s say one day she happens to remember her husband’s bastard somewhere in the castle and get a little curious, the only thing she would notice is a child that looked more like Ned.

 Ned brought Jon home and that was a total diss to Cat, other priorities and out of sheer spite she treated him as if he was invisible until she could no longer avoid it, and by no longer avoid it I mean Jon old enough to explore and interact with Robb and other members of the castle household.

By the time she got a chance to “observe” Jon (who was probably kept in a different part of the Castle just not to make things more uncomfortable for Cat) size in relation to Robb wouldn’t matter.By that time the difference wouldn’t be noticible as Jon.

So to sum: Cat has one reason to percieve Jon as a threat not observe him....He's the bastard son of her husband who is living with them.That's it.

Too much going on to take the time out to observe Jon whatever that means and whatever for because he's there and by being there already a threat.

[Ygrain]

So, you perceive something as a threat but don't think you have a reason to observe it? How much more illogical can this get yet?

[wolfmaid7]

22 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

So, you perceive something as a threat but don't think you have a reason to observe it? How much more illogical can this get yet?

Are you serious??? Where's your context Ygrain? What's Jon going to do at  a year and change??? take his toy and choke Robb with it? What the hell is she observing a 1 year old for except the only thing that may matter and did...Does he look more like Ned than my son or not?

Any woman that would be the curiosity...Does my child look more like his father or does the bastard.That's where her mind has been shown to be.Again that's when and if she had it in her to go take a peep or have that in her fore amongst the other things she was taking care of.

[The Wolves]

This theory that Robert is Jon father is ridiculous. Lets praise GRRM that this BS ain't true. 

[J. Stargaryen]

58 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Yeah i remember this arguement and the issue is that the only thing to be sure of is the irony worked in favor of Joff and only after it was confirmed that Joff was a bastard.I'm still saying Jon is a bastard and much of that belief comes from Ned's thought which was a revealing and off the hand inner thought.I'm speaking of the brothal chapter and the whole if the gods hated bastards so much why plague men with such lust (paraphrasing) i mean it would of worked better if he didn't think of Jon in that light but he does.

I agree with the bold. Part of what I'm getting at, is that a lot of people think the line in question applies to Jon. And I'm saying that if it does, when we combine it with what it told us about Joff, that it seems to tell us that Jon is trueborn. Since Joff is taller than both Robb and Jon.

So, if you want to say it applies to Jon, I think it points to him being trueborn. If not, then it only seems to apply to Joff. In which case it shouldn't be used as a point in favor of Jon being older than he is said to be.

[wolfmaid7]

17 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

This theory that Robert is Jon father is ridiculous. Lets praise GRRM that this BS ain't true. 

Well thank you for playing so lets wait and see.

6 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I agree with the bold. Part of what I'm getting at, is that a lot of people think the line in question applies to Jon. And I'm saying that if it does, when we combine it with what it told us about Joff, that it seems to tell us that Jon is trueborn. Since Joff is taller than both Robb and Jon.

So, if you want to say it applies to Jon, I think it points to him being trueborn. If not, then it only seems to apply to Joff. In which case it shouldn't be used as a point in favor of Jon being older than he is said to be.

Two things, you are equating people's belief and interpretation of that scene as validating Jon being trueborn or not.That doesn't make sense.

Secondly, i wasn't using that scene to indicate that Jon was older,i was using it to indicate the value system of people in this era.Joff being taller than Jon and Robb is seen as them being less.

Jon did the same when he saw Robert ....Fat and wobbling vs Jamie who he thought was an image of a king.Compared to Tyrion who looked far from a King but who on speaking to Jon changed that perception when Jon commented on his shadow.

[J. Stargaryen]

1 minute ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Two things, you are equating people's belief and interpretation of that scene as validating Jon being trueborn or not.That doesn't make sense.

I'm saying, if you believe that line is connected to the one about Joff being taller than Robb and Jon, and believe that it also applies to Jon in some way, then a logical conclusion to draw is that Jon is trueborn.

1 minute ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Secondly, i wasn't using that scene to indicate that Jon was older,i was using it to indicate the value system of people in this era.Joff being taller than Jon and Robb is seen as them being less.

Jon did the same when he saw Robert ....Fat and wobbling vs Jamie who he thought was an image of a king.Compared to Tyrion who looked far from a King but who on speaking to Jon changed that perception when Jon commented on his shadow.

You can use it however you want. But, at least one other person in this thread seems to believe that line is a winky-wink indicating Jon is significantly older than his given age.

[wolfmaid7]

11 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I'm saying, if you believe that line is connected to the one about Joff being taller than Robb and Jon, and believe that it also applies to Jon in some way, then a logical conclusion to draw is that Jon is trueborn.

You can use it however you want. But, at least one other person in this thread seems to believe that line is a winky-wink indicating Jon is significantly older than his given age.

I guess what i'm getting at is in what way does said person believe the line is connected to Jon.I mean what is "some way" how does the belief affect what may be fact.We would be steering into that same type of superstitious thinking exhibited by these people don't you think?