Eddard Stark hated Howland Reed

[Ser Leftwich]

I floated a similar theory months or years back that Ned and Howland had a falling out, but over Ned not telling Jon about his parentage sooner and/or something to do with something the Ned promised Lyanna.

Ned can respect and love Howland, but still be pissed about him wanting to spill the beans about Jon.

Also, Howland knows too much, so he can't appear on screen until Act 3.

[Forlong the Fat]

32 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

 

All of your comments fail to recognize the stakes at issue in Ned's decision to hide Jon's identity.  He did it to keep Jon from being murdered.  Your first post seemed to suggest that Ned ought to have acknowledged Jon as the "true king."  Leaving aside that Jon was not the true king, acknowledging his identity would have been completely impractical.  People, starting with Robert, would have lined up to kill Jon.  We needn't speculate on this point at all, considering that Robert tried his best to do exactly that to Daenerys.  They surely would not have cooperated in unwinding everything that occurred in the rebellion and re-seating a Targ.

It is of course true that the decision came at a cost to Jon, as it did to Ned, Cat and others.  But making a difficult decision is not dishonorable.

[JonSnow4President]

5 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

 

The easiest way to reply (unless you just don't want people quoting you) is to just double enter in the middle of a quote after a period, and it should split it up into multiple quote boxes that you can type between.

1.  Ned probably didn't find out until after the war (at least based on the information we have now.). Even if Ned knew about it ahead of time, the primary reason for the war is the breaking of the feudal contract, and not Rhaegar stealing Lyanna (you'll note there wasn't going to be a war until Jon Arryn called his banners)  The lie about R+L can only apply to the cover up or the time travel.  As the lie is necessary to protect Jon, one can argue there is no dishonor there.

2 & 4. Call it my bad memory then. 

3. The counter to this of course is what Ned will be able to do about it.  He thinks he can't tell Catelyn without risking Jon's life.  Outside of Catelyn and Catelyn alone, Jon is cared for and lives a life better than all but a few families in the kingdom.  I don't think you can stop the abuse without telling Cat the truth, which endangers Jon unless Ned knows 100% how she will respond.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

8 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

The easiest way to reply (unless you just don't want people quoting you) is to just double enter in the middle of a quote after a period, and it should split it up into multiple quote boxes that you can type between.

1.  Ned probably didn't find out until after the war (at least based on the information we have now.). Even if Ned knew about it ahead of time, the primary reason for the war is the breaking of the feudal contract, and not Rhaegar stealing Lyanna (you'll note there wasn't going to be a war until Jon Arryn called his banners)  The lie about R+L can only apply to the cover up or the time travel.  As the lie is necessary to protect Jon, one can argue there is no dishonor there.

2 & 4. Call it my bad memory then. 

3. The counter to this of course is what Ned will be able to do about it.  He thinks he can't tell Catelyn without risking Jon's life.  Outside of Catelyn and Catelyn alone, Jon is cared for and lives a life better than all but a few families in the kingdom.  I don't think you can stop the abuse without telling Cat the truth, which endangers Jon unless Ned knows 100% how she will respond.

0: Because I try to reply easch point at the time I find it easier to write my answer like that.

1:Well we don't know if the war would had started then. Heck even if the Starks hadn't done something either the Baratheon, and by extension the Arryns, or the Martells would have reacted. Even after the war Ned could had told the truth, yet he prefered the dishonorable thing to do even if he had good intentions.

3:I agree. However he could had force her either to treat him right or else there would be consequences. That might not be what the rest of Westeros would had done but we had been told over and over again that the Starks aren't like everyone else.

[JonSnow4President]

5 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

0: Because I try to reply easch point at the time I find it easier to write my answer like that.

But it's so easy! (Click, enter, enter)

5 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

1:Well we don't know if the war would had started then. Heck even if the Starks hadn't done something either the Baratheon, and by extension the Arryns, or the Martells would have reacted. Even after the war Ned could had told the truth, yet he prefered the dishonorable thing to do even if he had good intentions.

Robert didn't call his banners until well after Lyanna was kidnapped, specifically because his own head was called for.  And telling the truth after the war endangers Jon.  Like we've pointed out ad nauseum, reinstalling the Targaryens makes no sense because of the actual reasons for the rebellion, which don't go away upon finding out R+L.  So why is it dishonorable to point out that thousands of lives were lost in a movement to overthrow a tyrant, instead of continuing to allow people to believe that thousands of lives were lost in a movement to overthrow a tyrant with a wee bit of personal vengeance on the side.  Especially when the difference between the two protects an innocent baby's life?

5 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

3:I agree. However he could had force her either to treat him right or else there would be consequences. That might not be what the rest of Westeros would had done but we had been told over and over again that the Starks aren't like everyone else.

He might have and she ignored him.  Like I said, outside of being cold and distant (and I'd like to point out that to him, she is merely the wife of his father, in a society which mostly lacks the role of a stepfather, particularly in how it relates to today), and outside of the chamber with Bran, we have no evidence of her being actively mean to Jon that I can recall (please correct me if I'm wrong).  Damnably cruel is about Catelyn arguing with Ned about Jon, and not anything Catelyn specifically does to Jon.  

By contrast, wouldn't forcing Cat to be warm with Jon be emotionally abusive towards his wife (since we're going with cold and distant as abusive)?  A boy born from a woman he claims to have cheated on Catelyn with? If Ned has stopped the child "abuse," would you now be arguing about how he emotionally abused his wife by making her be warm to the product of his cheating?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

12 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

1. But it's so easy! (Click, enter, enter)
2. Robert didn't call his banners until well after Lyanna was kidnapped, specifically because his own head was called for.  And telling the truth after the war endangers Jon.  Like we've pointed out ad nauseum, reinstalling the Targaryens makes no sense because of the actual reasons for the rebellion, which don't go away upon finding out R+L.  So why is it dishonorable to point out that thousands of lives were lost in a movement to overthrow a tyrant, instead of continuing to allow people to believe that thousands of lives were lost in a movement to overthrow a tyrant with a wee bit of personal vengeance on the side.  Especially when the difference between the two protects an innocent baby's life?
3. He might have and she ignored him.  Like I said, outside of being cold and distant (and I'd like to point out that to him, she is merely the wife of his father, in a society which mostly lacks the role of a stepfather, particularly in how it relates to today), and outside of the chamber with Bran, we have no evidence of her being actively mean to Jon that I can recall (please correct me if I'm wrong).  Damnably cruel is about Catelyn arguing with Ned about Jon, and not anything Catelyn specifically does to Jon.  
4. By contrast, wouldn't forcing Cat to be warm with Jon be emotionally abusive towards his wife (since we're going with cold and distant as abusive)?  A boy born from a woman he claims to have cheated on Catelyn with? If Ned has stopped the child "abuse," would you now be arguing about how he emotionally abused his wife by making her be warm to the product of his cheating?

1. Every time I try it, it ends really badly with things that I cannot delete.

2. We don't know what would had happened if Brandon hadn't act before the others. In any case I am not saying that Ned should had claimed the Throne for Jon, but he could had told him who he really was when Jon would had been mature enough.

3. "Damnably cruel" was Ned calling out Cat for what she really was and Robb seemed to know how she was and that is why he asked Jon about Cat. If Ned had told her and she had ignored him then he should had *punished* in some way.

4. I am not saying that she should had been forced, of course not. But if we had to protect the feeling of an innocent child or a petty adult, which is what Cat seemed to be since she told that she was jealous or even hurt over the fact that Jon had been at WF before herself and that Jon looked like a Stark, I would had choose to protect the feelings of the child. 

[JonSnow4President]

6 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

1. Every time I try it, it ends really badly with things that I cannot delete.

2. We don't know what would had happened if Brandon hadn't act before the others. In any case I am not saying that Ned should had claimed the Throne for Jon, but he could had told him who he really was when Jon would had been mature enough.

We don't know what would have.  But we have what did.  We have a perfectly reasonable (and IMO justified) reason for rebellion.  That negates the fact that certain players there may have had personal reasons as well, even if those personal reasons were incorrect.

6 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

3. "Damnably cruel" was Ned calling out Cat for what she really was and Robb seemed to know how she was and that is why he asked Jon about Cat. If Ned had told her and she had ignored him then he should had *punished* in some way.

He's calling her out for not letting Jon stay in Winterfell because she is being cruel to someone he loves, but cannot explain why she shouldn't be cruel towards him.  

6 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

4. I am not saying that she should had been forced, of course not. But if we had to protect the feeling of an innocent child or a petty adult, which is what Cat seemed to be since she told that she was jealous or even hurt over the fact that Jon had been at WF before herself and that Jon looked like a Stark, I would had choose to protect the feelings of the child. 

Feelings, schmeelings.  This sounds like an argument for public safe spaces and all the other new age theory.  Catelyn has no more obligation to treat Jon warmly than I have to the four year old in the apartment above mine. I have certain societal obligations decreed by law that don't necessarily apply to Westeros (not walking around naked with my windows down, closing the blinds while watching porn/graphic shows, etc.), but no obligation to be warm and welcoming.  Personally, I would be a dick if I didn't respond when she says hi when I see her outside, but it wouldn't classify as abusive. Even if I never said hi for 17 years (one year short of adulthood seems like a fair comparison for Jon's age). That is all we know Catelyn is guilty of up until the Bran's bedchamber scene: not being warm and welcoming to the result of her husband's infidelity.  

That is hardly abuse under current standards, let alone a dynastic governmental system where he and his children present a threat to her children and their lines.  Asearchoficeandfire isn't working on my work computer right now, but I believe I specifically recall her thinking of his sons and grandsons as the real threat, not Jon himself.  

And I love Jon.  He's my favorite character.  Not only is he my name for this forum, but he's my Steam username.  I already know I'm naming any light colored dog I get Ghost.  But I can't agree with you on this one.

[JonSnow4President]

23 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

1. Every time I try it, it ends really badly with things that I cannot delete.

2. We don't know what would had happened if Brandon hadn't act before the others. In any case I am not saying that Ned should had claimed the Throne for Jon, but he could had told him who he really was when Jon would had been mature enough.

3. "Damnably cruel" was Ned calling out Cat for what she really was and Robb seemed to know how she was and that is why he asked Jon about Cat.

 

If Ned had told her and she had ignored him then he should had *punished* in some way.

It should work if you do it immediately after a period before a linebreak.  A random period should just do like the above.

23 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

4. I am not saying that she should had been forced, of course not. But if we had to protect the feeling of an innocent child or a petty adult, which is what Cat seemed to be since she told that she was jealous or even hurt over the fact that Jon had been at WF before herself and that Jon looked like a Stark, I would had choose to protect the feelings of the child. 

 

[evita mgfs]

4 hours ago, Risto said:

First, welcome to the boards. Second, unfortunately, that is not the case. Bran's recollections of Ned's stories about Howland show us that he indeed loved him, and even Robb stated that Ned respected Howland. So, based on what we do know from Ned's kids, I would say that Ned was rather fond of Howland. 

As for his absence, he is a man who knows too much. That is why he is still not presented because the time has not come yet for that particular knowledge to be revealed.

Yes, this,^ and I have long held a theory that Howland is a greenseer of a different ilk, one who watches the “grey waters” from his moving castle Grey Water Watch.  Not that he is bound as it seems BR is.  HR’s magic is the same, but different.

[grinny]

4 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

1. Every time I try it, it ends really badly with things that I cannot delete.

2. We don't know what would had happened if Brandon hadn't act before the others. In any case I am not saying that Ned should had claimed the Throne for Jon, but he could had told him who he really was when Jon would had been mature enough.

3. "Damnably cruel" was Ned calling out Cat for what she really was and Robb seemed to know how she was and that is why he asked Jon about Cat. If Ned had told her and she had ignored him then he should had *punished* in some way.

4. I am not saying that she should had been forced, of course not. But if we had to protect the feeling of an innocent child or a petty adult, which is what Cat seemed to be since she told that she was jealous or even hurt over the fact that Jon had been at WF before herself and that Jon looked like a Stark, I would had choose to protect the feelings of the child. 

And what should this punishment be? Physical? Emotional? Shaming her private or public by withholding money and power from her?

None of that would improve Jon's situation in any way. It would more likely harm him and Ned's other kids. Do you think, Cat would have just take such disrespect against her lying down? Cat is the mother of his trueborn children, she is the first one to teach them. She would most likely react with being cold to Ned as well as Jon. You want to see a relationship in the serie where the parents are child to each other, look at Stannis marriage, or one where the mother withheld the children from their 'father', there we have Robert and Cersei.

Do you thing something like this is a healthy environment for any child? Nevertheless the one who's siblings grow up, that the messed up relationship is all Jon's fault?

Apart from the fact that Ned would make himself the leading stock of the north. (Oh, winter at least came into the Stark 's wedding bed.)

[JonisHenryTudor]

8 hours ago, Ser Boros said:

I've been a lurker for close to 6 months and made an account just to bring up this topic. ( To my knowledge, it's never been posted.) 

Eddard Stark was an honourable man. I'm sure that if he chose to duel someone 1 on 1, he wouldn't appreciate someone else getting involved, even if they saved his life. Ned is honorable to a fault. I haven't checked thoroughly, but Ned doesn't speak of Howland fondly. Sure, there is grudging respect there but not fondness. 

I think that explains why Howland sends his children to swear fealty to the king in the north and not go personally. Also, it explains his absence from the storyline 

Is it possible that Ned didn't speak highly and often of him to protect him? Considering that most fans agree that he knows or knows something about Jon, it would be better to not draw attention to him. 

[sweetsunray]

17 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

1. Every time I try it, it ends really badly with things that I cannot delete.

There's an alternative way:

Select the sentence you wish to quote from a post, wait for a moment and you'll see a "quote this" pop up. Click it, and the selected sentence with the author's name is copy pasted automatically in your post.

That's how I do it (for this post for example).

[The Three Whores]

I'm to lazy to read all this so if I'm repeating anything than I'm sorry, but the reason Howland hasn't made a personal appearance is, according to GRR Martin when asked why we haven't seen Lord Reed yet...

Spoiler

It's because Howland knows too much about the story.

 

[The Old Tongue]

The whole point of Ned going down to the ToJ was to rescue his sister. Wouldn't any action that his companions made to help in achieving that goal be greatly appreciated?

If Ned was so wrapped up in. Honor he would've told 4 of his men to leave, making it 3 on 3.

The OP seems to be injecting a little Jaime Lannister into Ned's pathos. In Jaime and Ned's duel we do meet someone concerned with glory and a fair fight (though merely to preserve Jaime's ego). Ned is more pragmatic and would see a cheap death of a legendary sword as a means to an end.

[Light a wight tonight]

There was no formal duel between Ned and Arthur Dayne. It purely was a fight between Ned and friends on one side and three King's Guardsmen on the other. Dayne was acknowledged as one of the premier swordsmen of his time, while there is little known of Ned's skill. I can't see any logic in Ned hating Howland for saving his life. In the word of Josey Wales, "Dyin ain't much of a livin', Boy".  

[Bael's Bastard]

It might be sort of interesting if Howland avoided Ned and Winterfell in a way somewhat similar to how Ned avoided Robert and King's Landing (even after they reconciled). But I am not sure there is a real basis for that, or the particular idea that Ned hated Howland. Perhaps Ned feels some sort of guilt over how Howland saved him, but I doubt he hates or has any hard feelings over it.

[The Old Tongue]

2 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

It might be sort of interesting if Howland avoided Ned and Winterfell in a way somewhat similar to how Ned avoided Robert and King's Landing (even after they reconciled). But I am not sure there is a real basis for that, or the particular idea that Ned hated Howland. Perhaps Ned feels some sort of guilt over how Howland saved him, but I doubt he hates or has any hard feelings over it.

If Ned feels any sort of guilt it would be for failing to get to Lyanna in time.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

We don't even know how exactly Howland "helped" Ned, right? Is even confirmed it was during a duel? Because Reed could have simply just helped Ned after he was hurt. Didn't he had to make Ned go back into his sense after Lyanna died as he wouldn't let off her body? Could be a bit of that too.

[oopeed]

Noup... Do you remember how he came with six dudes to fight three blokes? If honour was involved in this soiree, then he would have fought the KG only with two pals. So no, I doubt he cared even if Reed had treacherously killed Dayne, after all they went to kill Lyanna's captors and return her home no matter the cost.

Besides, judging by Jojen and Meera's dialogue, there does not seem to be any beef between families. Robb had Howland in high regard and the Reeds seemed to serve Bran out of a sense of duty not like to make ammends. There's nothing solid pointing at any hard feelings among Ned and Howland.

[Humble Maester]

On 8.4.2016 at 5:59 PM, The Old Tongue said:

The OP seems to be injecting a little Jaime Lannister into Ned's pathos. In Jaime and Ned's duel we do meet someone concerned with glory and a fair fight (though merely to preserve Jaime's ego). Ned is more pragmatic and would see a cheap death of a legendary sword as a means to an end.

That was actually only in the TV-series. In the books Jaime just nonchalantly orders his men to butcher Ned's men and rides away.

Otherwise I do agree, I doubt Ned would be mad about "dishonoring his duel" when he went in with 7 on 3.