Jon was born in starfall

[corbon]

9 hours ago, Voice said:

Isn't there? Because you are suggesting ole dutiful Rhaegar lusted for a fifteen year old, in spite of being married and already siring the prince that was promised. There is lust and LUST. If Rhaegar did indeed bed the child-woman, away from his wife's bed, then that is an act far more akin to Robert's brand of Lust... after all, Ned makes this very observation when looking at a child-mother.

This doesn't follow your own logic corbon. I don't know if you're married, but it is extra lustful to sleep with a fifteen year old girl who is betrothed to another man away from your wife's bed. That's my point. Either Rhaegar was lustful enough to do such a thing, or he wasn't. Ned seems to have believed the latter.

Thats nothing but your heavily slanted interpretation though.
If Rhaegar has decided he needs a third child, which Elia can't provide, then Rhaegar has to 'lust' somewhere. The whole  'fifteen year old girl' doesn't mean the same thing in that society than it does in ours. Your point isn't relevant because it is based on assumptions and modern social judgements that are not relevant to the situation.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

LOL! What????

So one plus one equals one?!?! C'mon now.

Still acting the child I see, deliberately.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

Indeed. And Ned reflects upon all of this while looking down on a child-mother...

... and Ned goes on to exclude Rhaegar from the type of behavior that begets child-mothers.

We aren't actually talking about a child-mother though. Lyanna is a woman old enough to wed. Old enough apparently to defeat knights in a joust. Old enough to tell Robert's nature and reject it even though he's the most eligible batchelor in the Seven Kingdoms and clean-shaven, clear-eyed, and muscled like a maiden's fantasy. She's not a modern, sheltered, 15-year old mall girl.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

LOL Seriously?

Is this really your argument?

What an engaging and intelligent come back.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

Other wife? I think you've jumped the shark into the land of fan fiction. In my copy of the books, Rhaegar only had one wife.

You know the reference. You don't know he had only one wife.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

No, that is your interpretation of Lyanna's statement. One, I might add, that is quite convoluted compared to the simplicity and clarity of her protest.

Convoluted - I do not think that it means what you think it means.
You stick with the childish 'its the number of beds that matter and the number is one" argument, I'm perfectly happy with the more adult understanding of what bed-hopping really means to people.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

I agree. Still, the books tell us of no such arrangement.

They do tell us of such an arrangement. They just don't tell us explicitly that Rhaegar had such an arrangement. But there's more to these books than what is explicit.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

From Ned's pov, his sister died in a bed of blood at the age of 16. If 23 year old, married, Rhaegar Targaryen was in any way responsible for that, I'd think Ned would not only look upon him with some anger, he wouldn't be so quick to doubt his presence in brothels.

You think Rhaegar wasn't involved at all? Clearly he was - from Robert's accusations, to the World book information on the abduction, to Lyanna being found with Rhaegar's closest companions and the man sent to find him, Rhaegar was involved and involved deeply.
And yet Ned clearly still doesn't think Rhaegar is the sort of man to grace brothels.
You might find it more productive to examine some of your assumptions rather than argue that characters shouldn't feel what GRRM wrote them feeling.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

O boy.

Hmm. That seems rather narrow. I'd invite you to read again. Jon's nature definitely changed after Ygritte. He went from being the guy who spat the venomous, "I will never father a bastard," he said carefully. "Never!" ...to being the guy who starts thinking of baby names for Val's children.

His nature didn't change though. He developed and grew, from one attitude to another, but the base nature there is still the  same. He takes the importance of fatherhood (or the absence of it) seriously and his behaviour is founded on that. Nuance is added as he learns and grows, but that basic nature doesn't change.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

LOL a child's appreciation? I guess that explains why I'm so good with basic arithmetic.

And, yes, Lyanna's words are literal. That's why it's called literature (the words are written). LMAO

If you come with an adult appreciation, it'll be described as an adult appreciation. If you deliberately come with a deliberately simplistic and naive appreciation its will be described as such - childish.

And here you are, enjoying the trolling of this childish joke so much you extend it to 'literature' too. "Literature" extends beyond what is written on the page. Thats why we don't classify dictionaries or bureaucratic documentation or other examples of words that are written as "literature" even though they are all written words.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

I find it highly ironic you would protest my word choice in "seek," while spinning a yarn about another marriage, but clearly, you have a strong attachment to a certain theory.

Protest 'seek'? I guess so. But thats because its a a deliberate spin insinuating Lyanna looked for the relationship rather than found herself in one. You are saying "here she complains of X, but then she looks for something that is just the same as X" whereas its more like "here she complains about X but then she finds herself in a relationship that has superficial similarities to X but is actually Y". The first makes no sense, the second is very human and natural.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

House Targaryen not only existed, it remained a threat to Robert until his death.

Ned didn't think so, but ok, you can have this. Its a question of degree anyway, and I was disagreeing with the degree of antipathy (and friendship) you appeared to be assigning.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

I make no claims as to the closeness of houses Stark and Dayne, though I do believe the two most ancient houses in Westeros share some historical bonds. What I do contend, as was my original point, is that the two houses were not hostile towards one another they way houses Stark and Targaryen were.

I don't think the Starks had any major beef with House Targaryen. Remmber the Pact of Ice and Fire? I think the Houses got on fine, more or less. It was just the Mad King doing his mad thing and demanding Ned's head for no reason. No choice then but to fight. Robert certainly did have a beef, to the point of irrationality.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

Citation?

I assume you are not the type of person to make such a firm declaration without proof.

Citation?

I assume you are not the type of person to make such a firm declaration without proof.

Sigh. We are talking major theories with lots of evidence here. I'm not going to explicitly write that out on every second sentence for you.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

Something we agree upon. The same was true for Robb and Jaime of course. Tell me, if Robb killed Jaime, and was even inaccurately connected to Cersei's suicide, do you think Tywin would name his heir Robbard if he returned Jaime's sword to Casterly Rock?

Well, first, lets acknowledge that Jaime is not a good example. Sure, Jaime is in the KG, just like Arthur, but Tywin is not exactly rational where Jaime is concerned and still considers him his heir. So Tywin might not be rational about the man who killed Jaime either. OTOH he did nothing to help Jaime when Robb had him hostage, so its difficult to tell with Tywin where his pragmatism ends and his irrationality begins.
Then there's the inaccurately connected part. If Tywin knows its an inaccurate connection then it shouldn't factor in. It still might though because Tywin's again not entirely normal in these things - he is more concerned about the appearance of things than the facts of them. So he might hold it against Robb in his actions because he thinks that its important people see Robb can't get away with that shit, even if he knows Robb didn't have anything to do with that shit.
Then there's the fact that Jaime's sword is more or less irrelevant, as opposed to Dawn.

So lets make that a slightly different scenario.
Lets say it was Tyrion Lannister, Lord of Casterly Rock, and the 'deeds' of Ser Mysterios are finding and bringing back an aged Gerion Lannister with Brightroar, and, oops, killing Jaime during the melee at the Battle of Whispering Wood (an alternate universe here obviously). I don't know, Tyrion might name his next son Mysterian. The odds go up if it Brightroar had a tenth the significance of Dawn though.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

Apparently I am. Clearly, it meant more to the Lord of Starfall than his own brother and sister...

Only in your version of the universe. In my most likely (I'm not entirely settled on which of many versions) version of the universe it meant more to the Lord of Starfall than the death of the last Targaryen Kingsguard (who happened to be his brother) and he knows the whole sister-suicide thing isn't true anyway.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

And what would Tywin do for the man who buried Jaime under some bloody stones?

Again, noting Tywin is not exactly rational about Jaime, but can also be terribly pragmatic... I don't know. Quite possibly nothing at all. There needs to be a lot more to this story than total isolation of one factor.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

Something we agree upon. A clink!

If Lyanna were married to Rhaegar, and Jon was their child, I do not see the literary necessity of Ned and Arya's meeting.

GRRM wants to impart certain information to us. He's laid some false trails, but they are pretty stale by now, and the information from this meeting serves to refresh those false trails.
Several books later he's still keeping the basic secret after all.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

Yet you assert Wylla was not in service to Starfall when Ned was said to have impregnated her.... do you see the hole?

No, there is no hole. Wylla nursed Jon after he was born. She nursed Edric at Starfall several years later. Nether of those impact on her employment 9 months before Jon was born.

Wylla can't be Starfall's wetnurse before Jon was born because Starfall thinks she is Jon's mother. Therefore she wasn't around Starfall at the time of Jon's conception, because she has to be with Ned in the Riverlands for it to be possible for her to be Jon's mother.
And since we are sure she wasn't actually Jon's mother for numerous reasons, she therefore wasn't sitting around in Starfall growing pregnant-er by the day as Jon grew inside her. And she also wasn't sitting around Starfall being flat and lean and un-pregnant or they wouldn't believe when she suddenly has a mysterious baby.
Clearly she wasn't at Starfall leading through most or all of Jon's conception to birth.
And that makes sense.
She was probably hired to ToJ to be a wetnurse/midwife/cleaner/whatever multitasks fit. ToJ needs various such services and we know there were more people there than have been mentioned because of the "they". She probably had some connection to Starfall (Arthur Dayne is at ToJ and the 'player' closest to his home territory here) but she definitely wasn't at Starfall through the conception and most of the pregnancy period. Ned needs a wetnurse to get Jon from ToJ to winterfell and uses her for at least some of that way - no reason to change and plenty of reasons not to. Starfall (and Robert's spies/reporters etc) see her ride in with Ned and Jon and assume she is the mother, which assumption Ned does not disabuse them of (nor Robert, later). After Jon is weaned she returns to Starfall and takes up residence there as a wetnurse. There she later nurses Edric. 
It all fits perfectly.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

And it doesn't strike you as peculiar that the same lie could be told hundreds of leagues apart sixteen years after the fact? You are the one arguing against any alliance between houses Dayne and Stark, remember.

Nope. For Starfall its a simple observation, not a lie. Ned rides in with Wylla and Jon in tow and they assume she is the mother. He ignores that.
For Robert, its the same. He no doubt got reports of Ned's visit to Starfall. And either the reports state Wylla is the mother (as Starfall believes) or Robert makes the assumption on his own.

In both cases its a perfectly natural assumption and not a "lie" told by anyone (note that neither Ned nor Wylla are known to claim this, only others claim it for them).

9 hours ago, Voice said:

Uh, if the books naming Ned and Howland as the only two riders to leave the tower long fallen, and Edric Dayne saying Wylla served his house for years create an "almost certain" picture in your mind of Ned bringing Wylla and Jon to Starfall, I'm not sure what to tell you.

The books don't say that Ned and Howland were the only two riders to leave the tower. The books say that of the 10 combatants, only Ned and Howland rode away.
Edric also says that Wylla is Jon's mum. But we know that Lyanna died in a bed of blood at ToJ, and that the KG there had KG-ly reasons to stay there instead of sending at least one of their number to their unprotected King Viserys. Clearly Jon was at ToJ. And clearly others were at ToJ as well because 'they' found Ned holding Lyanna. So we have an infant baby at ToJ, needing to get to Starfall. We have people at Starfall telling us that the infant's momma is Wylla. We have Wylla nursing Jon. We have unknown extras at ToJ and a need to get baby Jon from there across a mountain range and a major river to Starfall. Baby Jon needs a wetnurse to get from ToJ to Starfall and we know he had wetnurse to Winterfell and was nursed by  his 'mother' Wylla. Starfall says Wylla was the momma but we know Jon was at ToJ first so what makes them think Wylla was the mother? It all adds up and the only logical answer is that Wylla was at ToJ, nursed Jon to Starfall, which caused them to think she was the mum, and then later got a job as a wetnurse at Starfall before Edric was born (several years later) - probably on Ned's recommendation and probably due to previous connections there.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

I do have some questions though.

Why didn't Edric tell Arya her father brought the Wetnurse?

He doesn't know. He wasn't born and is just repeating the gossip he 'knows'. For him, Wylla is Jon's mother, not Jon's wetnurse. For him this is not something you question the how or the why or the wherefore, it just is. You don't even question how it is that Ned and Ashara were in love but somehow Ned was banging Wylla on the side...

9 hours ago, Voice said:

Why has GRRM insisted that Howland and Ned are the only two who rode away from the tower of joy?

He hasn't 'insisted' that at all.
He wrote a nuanced memory that came from a particular angle to Ned.  Ned is thinking about Jory's death and burial which leads to Jory having to lie beside his grandfather (not father) which leads to why his father isn't buried in the north which leads to Neds recalling the bitter memory of Martyn's death.
"I gave them over to the silent sisters, to be sent north to Winterfell. Jory would want to lie beside his grandfather.
It would have to be his grandfather, for Jory's father was buried far to the south. Martyn Cassel had perished with the rest. Ned had pulled the tower down afterward, and used its bloody stones to build eight cairns upon the ridge. It was said that Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy, but for Ned it was a bitter memory. They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed.
The memory here is about the fight, the 7 vs 3, and Ned losing his comrades. Of the 7v3, only two rode away. That says nothing at all about the cheering fans, the St Johns ambulance crew, the event marshals, the police presence etc etc. Ok, so its my turn to be silly here. But the 'only two rode away' is all about 'the 10' and ignores anyone else there who may or may not have ridden away also. The non-fighters are relevant to that memory.

Perhaps there is also an SSM that you are referring to? If so, I have no doubt that its GRRM answering fan theories about one or more of the other 8 who died not actually being dead. And I'll lay anything you like on it that his words do not refer to or exclude anyone riding away other than the 8 who Ned built cairns for.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

Did Ned have Lyanna's body strapped to a horse?

Possibly. Or maybe there was a cart. Or maybe he used fire to rendered down the remains already. Or maybe she was pickled in a giant jar like an arabian nights donkey. Or something. We don't have any real clues. But certainly she was there and certainly she died there and certainly he took her bones back to Winterfell at some stage.

9 hours ago, Voice said:

Why would a man who loved/married Lyanna have left her to die in the Red Mountains, instead of leaving her with the medical care of a maester in a castle?

1. She wasn't dying when Rhaegar left, months earlier. She was pregnant already for sure, but probably otherwise in good health.
2. A Maester in a castle means spies who can give away her location to the rebels or even to Aerys, which would possibly be even worse.
3. Who says she didn't have a maester at ToJ? We know someone else was there. (I actually doubt that there was, but 95%+ of westerosi women deliver without Maesters all the time... and the presence of maesters didn't stop other women dying in childbirth, like say, Rhaella and Joanna)

9 hours ago, Voice said:

Considering that a "wetnurse" is not the same thing as a "midwife," are we to conclude that Rhaegar planned for Lyanna to die in bed of blood in the middle of nowhere --- and that Ned was cool with that?

Well, the conclusions you take depend on the quality of your analysis. If you come up with really stupid conclusions like that, then its a good clue for you that your analysis is deeply flawed. Instead of sticking with flawed assumptions and analysis that lead to stupid conclusions that are clearly opposed to the text, try adapting your parameter choices until you find the conclusions you reach make sense and fit the text.
Then perhaps you won't be stuck with such silliness as:
"Rhaegar isn't the lustful type but he bed-hops to a child-mother betrothed to someone else anyway because, lust"
"The number of beds is one because, number one, not because of what hopping beds really means"
" Rhaegar is solely responsible for Lyanna dying in a bed of blood at age 16, but Ned still thinks he's great because, Ned"
"Ned murdered Arthur Dayne and caused Ashara Dayne to commit suicide but Lord Dayne thought he was so great he named his heir after him."

[Valens]

Posts such as these are tiresome to read, a pain in the neck. Can't you divide them into two posts?

[Sly Wren]

On March 18, 2016 at 3:31 AM, corbon said:

It does seem like that, but not just this thread, a number of others. Its not just you either. It feels like (ie this is my bias talking) there is a significant group of people whose major angle almost to the exclusion of all else (see, my bias again) is to find hints and parallels no matter how vague, interpret them their own way and twist the narrative to fit their interpretation of the past (man, you can really see my bias against this style of analysis in your face here!). Sorry, just explaining out the sense of frustration...

No worries. It's one of the reason l like the forums. We all see things different ways. Gets the brain moving.

On March 18, 2016 at 3:31 AM, corbon said:

But again, thats my issue, its just good to let it out for a while instead of bottling it.

Let it out any time.

On March 18, 2016 at 3:31 AM, corbon said:

See, from my pov, the key words here are "fragments", "hints" and "echoes".
All these things give incomplete and inaccurate pictures. Their very nature is distortion through incompleteness even when they are accurate, and as hints and echoes they needn't even be accurate. They serve exactly the same purpose as hints and echoes by matching up only in certain ways, buy not being the same, only being similar.

Fair point. But Martin does go to certain lengths to point out that people are repeating variations of history: Robert says flat out that his intent is for Sansa and Joffrey to do what he (Robert) and Lyanna never could: join the houses. And that's what Ned agrees to do. Thus, Sansa is repeating some of the very few facts we have on Lyanna: wolf-maid, Stark maid, intended to marry the "Baratheon" heir, and it all goes to hell.

I fully grant that the idea that we can KNOW what will happen is ignoring the fact that the books are unfinished. And we have an author with an occasionally impish desire to surprise us. But it does seem like he tells us stuff like this for a reason. 

On March 18, 2016 at 3:31 AM, corbon said:

I also don't believe the 'everything old is new again' premise. I think that the now is a new story, inevitably different in infinite ways from other stories. Yes, there will be repeated patterns and themes - people are people and often react in similar ways when faced with similar circumstances. And have similar motivations and observe familiar patterns. Inevitably some parallels will emerge.

I agree that there will be large variances. We've already seen them. But. . . the Others are back. The dragons are back. The Long Night is coming. The Red Kings (Boltons) are fighting the Starks. Again. A civil war is back. Westeros is repeating its history--as humanity always does. So, the present as showing us what happened before and the past as showing us what could happen in the future--those seem to be basic human history ideas that Martin is working with.

On March 18, 2016 at 3:31 AM, corbon said:

But to use the Stark maid analogy from below, I don't see it is remotely logical, even from a literary perspective, that a Stark maid will necessarily limit herself to things that other Stark maids have done past or future. She will d what is appropriate for her in her circumstance. Sometimes that will be similar to what was appropriate for another Stark girl in a similar circumstance, sometimes it will not.

Agreed that they will do what's best for them. As Sansa and Arya, both Stark maids, deal with things (or don't) according to their circumstances.

On March 18, 2016 at 3:31 AM, corbon said:

All the analysis done based on these fragments hints and echoes must choose a subjective and entirely 'decided upon' thing thats the purpose and the simple fact is that that can't possibly be known until after the fact. For example, you say above that (paraphrased slightly):
"Stark maids are hidden under disguises in plain sight in strongholds or on the move. NOT in out of the way towers".
But thats based on VERY little, just two instances I think (each different from the other) and it would just as correct to stop that phrase after 'sight'. Or you could add Sansa's time at Drearfort and say she was hidden in an out of the way tower. Or you could argue Lyanna wasn't disguised at ToJ. Or any number of other possibilities.

Ah--sorry. I wasn't trying to assert that Stark maids couldn't do otherwise. But to assert that Martin's drawing similarities between our three known Stark maids for a reason. Could Lyanna have done something not at all shown in the books? Of course. But I really think he's showing us Sansa and Arya for a reason--not just their characters, but as clues to the past. 

Like he's showing us elements of the Night's King. And the nature of dragons. And the role of wargs. To give us evidence of what came before. That's part of why he tells us Arya and Sansa have parallels/connections with Lyanna: to show us what she did.

He may just be giving us 5,000 pages of set-up and character building. But it really seems like he's drawing out attention to similarities to give us information.

On March 18, 2016 at 3:31 AM, corbon said:

He includes it because IHO thats what Littlefinger (and Lysa) would do. Remember, gardner, not architect. Most of his non-essential plot comes from his character vision, not from deep design in what he wants to tell us. The Drearfort episode is very much character driven and character revealing.
Again, this is seeing what you choose to see in a scene. I don't see the scene telling us anything at all about what you see in it. And I have to say, your vision of its meaning seems very much architectural, whereas mine is very much gardening, so given GRRM's own words, I don't find your vision remotely convincing.
Each to their own, remember.

Agreed--gardner, not architect. 

But if he's told us Sansa is repeating part of Lyanna's story. And we know an unnamed tower was part of the story. As well as the woman falling to her death in a castle with white towers. So--is this just random world building? Or the gardner finding ways as he writes to tell us what the baseline history was? A history/basic plot he had in his head as he started the garden (and I'm now remembering I need to weed the vegetable garden.)

On March 18, 2016 at 3:31 AM, corbon said:

It isn't until you have a few conversations like this that you realise just how frikken good GRRM is...

Amen! 

[Black Dragons]

I believe the same thing tha he was born in Starfall not in the tower of joy, but people like to dream like Tyrion being a Targaryen he is NOT. Jon was born at Starfall Ned lied about Jon's age when he arrive at winterfell he told people that about 4 months old but he actually 9 months.

[corbon]

56 minutes ago, Sophia [email protected] said:

Jon was born at Starfall Ned lied about Jon's age when he arrive at winterfell he told people that about 4 months old but he actually 9 months.

Robb was only about 3-4 months at that time. It is not possible for that many people to believe that a 9 month old baby is younger than a 3 month old baby. Its not a question of size, its a question of developmental stages, cognitive, social and other.
For example, an approximately 3 month old baby is just learning to hold its own head up, roll over, recognise/respond to its own name, and similar sorts of things. An approximately 9 month old baby is standing, maybe even starting to walk, socialising with people, often verbally (even if not with actual words yet) and similar.

[The Sword of the Evening]

I assumed Jon was born at the Tower of Joy until I read that quote from GRRM that "Howland and Eddard" were the only people to leave the Tower of Joy alive.

[Ser Yorick Ampersand]

On 09/02/2016 at 1:11 AM, house of dayne said:

I think its obvious that he was not born at the tower of joy...such a small structure would be a poor place to hide a pregnant woman...the text only supports that neds men fought and killed the kingsguard at the tower amd only two left...ned and reed..furthermore it seems obvious that rhaegar and arthur would choose the comforts of the dayne family seat...if we accept that jon must have been born in starfall, ostensibly under dayne care, how does that change your view of jons parentage?

I would very much like for Jon to be a Dayne and I think House Dayne will play a bigger part from WoW forward but the Ice/Fire Stark/Targaryen + Bael the Bard parallel fits so well that its hard not to stand by it.

You would have to counter all the arguments in favor of R+L=J or have a very solid theory of Jon being a Dayne.

PS: I wish he could be Stark+Targ+Dayne

[IceFire125]

3 hours ago, The Sword of the Evening said:

I assumed Jon was born at the Tower of Joy until I read that quote from GRRM that "Howland and Eddard" were the only people to leave the Tower of Joy alive.

He said only the two men left the tower alive.

Obviously he was referring to Ned and Howland... not baby Jon and whoever the wet nurse at that particular time. 

[The Sword of the Evening]

8 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

He said only the two men left the tower alive.

Obviously he was referring to Ned and Howland... not baby Jon and whoever the wet nurse at that particular time. 

This is what I was referring to:

 Someone asked if "Howland, Eddard and Jon were the only people to leave the Tower of Joy alive," and GRRM amusedly said that, "Howland and Eddard" were the only people to leave the Tower of Joy alive.

[corbon]

10 hours ago, The Sword of the Evening said:

This is what I was referring to:

 Someone asked if "Howland, Eddard and Jon were the only people to leave the Tower of Joy alive," and GRRM amusedly said that, "Howland and Eddard" were the only people to leave the Tower of Joy alive.

Thats not a quote of GRRM, thats a quote of someone paraphrasing GRRM (and doing so incorrectly). GRRMs actual words were reported elsewhere as being that they were the only two men to leave the ToJ alive. Someone with better search-fu than me will need to find it.
 

[Shmedricko]

4 hours ago, corbon said:

Thats not a quote of GRRM, thats a quote of someone paraphrasing GRRM (and doing so incorrectly). GRRMs actual words were reported elsewhere as being that they were the only two men to leave the ToJ alive. Someone with better search-fu than me will need to find it.

From Duke O' Nooobs in this thread:

Quote

Someone asked if "Any other MEN besides Ned and Howland left the ToJ?" GRRM replied with no other MEN left ToJ. (This questions could have been worded a little better to get a better answer) George didn't like this question since the person who asked the above question was kinda pushy.

Quote

he specifically said no other Men (When the person tried to clarify her question, she said did any other men leave, he took it and ran with it) . BUT, technically, Jon was a boy I must say, he really didn't want to answer this question, So I think he just wanted to move on.

From /u/sopernova23 on the ASOIAF subreddit:

Quote

It was misquoted. I am the person who actually asked this question.

I asked, "Regarding the Tower of Joy, did anyone other than Ned, Howland Reed, and Jon leave?" "Any men, I mean."

My intent wasn't to be sneaky about Jon. I think R+L=J is a fact. I was actually asking because I have a tinfoil theory about Ser Arthur Dayne being alive.

sopernova23 in the R+L=J thread:

Quote

I am the one that asked GRRM this question at Conquest. I was not trying to be sneaky about Jon. I asked specifically because I have a theory about Ser Arthur Dayne being alive.

[corbon]

18 minutes ago, Shmedricko said:

From Duke O' Nooobs in this thread:

From /u/sopernova23 on the ASOIAF subreddit:

sopernova23 in the R+L=J thread:

Noted. Thanks.

So, Schmedrico, do you have anything like a batsignal we can use to call you when needed? Because clearly you are the superhero of GRRM quote searching!

Hey, maybe you can answer this one?
I am sure that somewhere significant the ToJ was referenced as an 'abandoned watchtower'. But I can never ever find it. Any idea where that might be? (Apologies to all for the thread derail)

[Shmedricko]

On 4/11/2016 at 0:46 AM, corbon said:

Hey, maybe you can answer this one?
I am sure that somewhere significant the ToJ was referenced as an 'abandoned watchtower'. But I can never ever find it. Any idea where that might be? (Apologies to all for the thread derail)

Sorry, I'm not aware of a source for that reference, nor could I find one in my searching.

[corbon]

1 hour ago, Shmedricko said:

Sorry, I'm not aware of a source for that reference, nor could I find one in my searching.

Well, thanks for looking.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

On 10/04/2016 at 2:35 AM, Sophia [email protected] said:

I believe the same thing tha he was born in Starfall not in the tower of joy, but people like to dream like Tyrion being a Targaryen he is NOT. Jon was born at Starfall Ned lied about Jon's age when he arrive at winterfell he told people that about 4 months old but he actually 9 months.

Spoken like a person who has never seen a baby. Bahahahaha