Jon is not a Targaryen

[Artanaro]

I had a dream about a talking wombat once, so I guess that means all wombats talk.

, but to your point in question. Eddard has a dream where Arthur died. Jaime has a dream where Arthur is dead. For Arthur to be alive, he had to pull a hoodwink on both of them. Also, Arthur's body would need be sent somewhere. So unless all the Daynes, Howland Reed, and Eddard are on all conspiring in this plot, it wouldn't work.

For Arthur to be alive, he must go from being the best Kingsguard member of all time, to the worst. Being alive without giving his life for his king or his king's family, means he not only broke everything in the oath of a kingsguard, he is also deserter. Arthur has now gone from the purest of the pure, to the most cowardly figure in Martin's world. If only he could be caught, people would cut Jaime some slack.

Artanaro

[ItIsKnown]

Just one little point: Couldn't the reason that the Targaryens have always kept their trademarked family features is because of the you know, inbreeding? There's no reason why Jon couldn't be Rhaegar's kid or Aerys' or whoever's just because he looks like a Stark. If a Targaryen fathered him with Lyanna, that means he's not inbred, so he might not necessarily look like a Targ.

But I'm not saying Jon has to be a Targ bastard. He could be anybody's bastard. I think the Arthur Dayne theory is interesting because that would explain where Jon gets some of his talent for fighting. Even though he has Ghost to help him and he learned a lot at Winterfell, he sure has kicked a lot of ass for a teenager.

[Lord Stark]

Artanaro

1. Maybe Martin made Jon look like a Stark so that he could live in Winterfell. Like I have said, Stark Male genes may be weak because I think Neds father was the first Lord Stark in a while to sire more then one child or son. Just because someone doesn't look like their parent, doesn't mean they aren't. This is proof by Neds children who are his but only one looks like his. Lyanna is not Ned so you can't say because Ned has one child with a 'Stark' look that it would work that way for her. Also if Jon looked like a Targ it wouldn't matter much because people think he is the son of a Dayne who kinda look targ like.

2. Who says Ned tells her? Isn't Wylla already at the ToJ when he gets there? Or maybe Lyanna or Rhaegar trusted her. Arthur Dayne is Rhaegar friend and maybe Arthur knew he could trust her. She might also have been a close friend to Neds lover.

3. Ned doesn't tell anymore else because the more people that know the more danger Jon is in. As long as only a few know the secret is alot safer.

4 A. Arthur Dayne is a close friend of Rhaegar, it wouldn't be hard to get someone from his house to do him a favor.

4 B. I don't know what to say to this.

Consider my response to CP. It's not just that, it's many things you have to consider as involving some awesome luck. One or two things, maybe. At four it looks very suspicious or contrived. Since I don't consider Martin's writing contrived and reaching, I consider it proof against R+L=J.

Maybe Martin just wanted Jon to look Stark so not to give away his plot? I'm sure he didn't think about how the gene pool works.

Ahh, but the R+L=J crowd uses lots and lots of "imagery" and choice of wording about Jon's heritage to supposedly represent him as Lyanna's child (the blue rose in Dany's vision, use of "blood" instead of "son"), but why is there no foreshadowing of him being Targaryen? Hmm. I wonder. It comes down to people wanting to see what they want to see.

Jon my have Targ blood but he grew up a Stark, he believes in the same things a Stark does. He isn't just a Targ but also a Stark. Jon needs to find his own path and I don't see any reason why just because he has Targ blood that there would be foreshadowing of him being a targ.

Ahh, but the red eyes resemble those in a weirwood tree, not the violet eyes of Targaryens (at least in the case of Ghost). Also, all the wolves came from the same mother. It sounds like all them share at least one parent. OH NO. Perhaps Robb, Arya, Catelyn, Bran, and Rickon are really Lyanna's children. But that would mean... Catelyn = Lyanna. Mystery solved.

Even the other wolfs think that Ghost is different and not part of the pack. The color might have nothing to do with Jon other then to say 'I am different,' which he is.

Ahh, but being Stark clearly wiped out his Targaryen ancestory.

But Jon has no idea he is a Targ, and has grown up a Stark. Maybe there is 'some' targ in him, but it wouldn't be much because he wasn't raised one. I never knew or met my father, and so the only thing I have of him is the blood in my veins.

He assisted in the affair of Rhaegar and Lyanna. There's nothing pure about that. He also did nothing while his king was going mad. Nothing pure about that. He was a friend to Rhaegar, but didn't tell him the consequences his actions might have. What a poor friend.

I agree, as I have said I do not believe he is a 100% good guy, but a guy that holds onto his honor, and does not break his word if he can help it. I consider myself to be a guy this this but I am in no way a 100% good guy.

Also about Dayne being alive, if he were I think Ned would think about 'that' and not him being dead. It's his thoughts after all and not him telling someone. I agree with you that it's just to hard to have him live through all that, while watching his friends die too.

I just see waaaay too many holes in this to even consider it.

ItIsKnown

Good point on the inbreeding. I would think that would weaken the Targ genes after so many hundreds of years. As a bastard myself I have no trouble thinking Jon is one. Even if he is he can still become King or whatever Martin has planed for him. After all it's not really about what is legal but what one can enforce. Also Rhaegar is said to be a skilled warrior, so he can get his fighting skills from there or just from Rodiks training.

[Scuba Steve]

A. To begin with, whether or not he's Targaryen, Jon is not a "true dragon". Notice how Dany stands in a huge funeral pyre and emerges unburnt (because, we're led to believe, of her dragon blood), while Jon has a stiff, scarred, burned hand from a house fire that he started while fighting off a wight. If I recall, the pain was described as excruciating. So whoever his parents are, Jon is no more a "true dragon" than Viserys was. That alone should make us less excited about him going off and riding dragons and such.

GRRM has stated that what happened with Dany emerging unburt from the funeral pyre was an unusual event, even for a Targ. To say that someone isn't a "true dragon" if they are burned by fire is misleading.

[Artanaro]

Lord Stark, if any of this comes off as harsh, my apologies. Sometimes when you've said the same arguement to dozens of people and they still won't answer your complaints, well being annoyed builds up. Just remember that, so don't take anything I say too seriously.

1. Maybe Martin made Jon look like a Stark so that he could live in Winterfell. Like I have said, Stark Male genes may be weak because I think Neds father was the first Lord Stark in a while to sire more then one child or son. Just because someone doesn't look like their parent, doesn't mean they aren't. This is proof by Neds children who are his but only one looks like his. Lyanna is not Ned so you can't say because Ned has one child with a 'Stark' look that it would work that way for her. Also if Jon looked like a Targ it wouldn't matter much because people think he is the son of a Dayne who kinda look targ like.

It has nothing to do with Stark genes or not. It has to do with the probability of all things considered. The Baratheon arguement is a very rare case (where children always look like the Baratheon parent). Generally some kids will look like one parent, and others like the other. The problem with R+L=J is you must accept a bunch of contrived circumstances (that if true make the theory work), but in reality are still contrived. Since people like to say Martin is unpredictable and his writing isn't contrived, accepting a contrived theory is contradictory to their very opinion of ASOIAF.

2. Who says Ned tells her? Isn't Wylla already at the ToJ when he gets there? Or maybe Lyanna or Rhaegar trusted her. Arthur Dayne is Rhaegar friend and maybe Arthur knew he could trust her. She might also have been a close friend to Neds lover.

My points 4a and 4b are to address to two theories about where Eddard meets Wylla. There are major faults with both. But let me go through your arguements.

I. Rhaegar or Lyanna trusted Wylla

On the latter why would Lyanna have any reason to trust her when she's a northerner. She has probably had very little contact with people from Dorne, and Wylla is part of the Dayne household. Now concerning Rhaegar, why would Rhaegar trust a dornishwoman after he has just alienated (to a major degree) all of Dorne by running off and having an affair with Lyanna. This makes no sense. Martin has even said Dorne didn't support Aerys' efforts as much as they could have, because they were angry with Rhaegar. So what reason is there to trust a peasant from another house? Ashara is a friend to Elia. She should be pissed at Rhaegar also. To all of Westeros, he has insulted Elia and her children. Why would Ashara want to be an accomplice in Rhaegar's infidelity?

On the matter of Arthur Dayne, he hasn't lived at Starfall for years. There is no reason he could trust Wylla (someone who is at least the same age as Arthur if not younger), especially when all Dorne is angry. Knowing a servant in your household and treating them like a friend is one thing. Trusting that servant with the location of your mistress (who was the cause of an entire war) is another matter entirely.

3. Ned doesn't tell anymore else because the more people that know the more danger Jon is in. As long as only a few know the secret is alot safer.

This is one of the major logical fallacies that doesn't make any sense. People hear Benjamin Franklin's cliche "three can keep a secret if two of them are dead" and take it for fact. I'll agree, the assumption holds true if the people involved are not trustworthy.

For example, three people who are suspect as potential traitors are better than four people with similiar dispositions. But in every situation, 5 people who are trustworthy is far better than 3 people who have no reason to keep faith.

So this statement is not true. There is every reason to be able to trust Catelyn. They've lived together for 14 years. If Robert finds out about Jon(if he was a Targaryen), Eddards life is forfeit as well as Lyanna's child. But if Eddard has no problem with trusting Wylla (someone he has no reason to trust) with even the knowledge that Jon isn't her child, then he has every reason to trust Catelyn. The only reason not to tell Catelyn is if learning about Jon's parents doesn't change her opinion on sending him to the wall (aka Jon is still Ned's bastard).

4 A. Arthur Dayne is a close friend of Rhaegar, it wouldn't be hard to get someone from his house to do him a favor.

4 B. I don't know what to say to this.

These are the two different theories people propose to explain R+L=J. I commented on the Arthur assumption above. On the matter of finding Wylla at the Tower of Joy. Just because she was trusted to be a midwife/wetnurse to Lyanna with a company of Kingsguard, doesn't make her trustworthy. Eddard would need to keep her close to insure she keeps faith. Really, the only way the conspiracy to conceal Lyanna's child can work is if Wylla never knows about Lyanna's child. But if a stranger comes up to you and asks you to assume the identity of a strange baby, you'll be very suspicious.

Maybe Martin just wanted Jon to look Stark so not to give away his plot? I'm sure he didn't think about how the gene pool works.

When Martin is deciding on twists, he probably considers all angles. People believe R+L=J, because they can't fathom a scenario that explains all the current facts (because if Martin gave all the facts necessary, he couldn't provide a twist). The point about considering what would happen to Lyanna's child if he looked Targaryen is very important. People are choosing the easy explanation, but that doesn't make it true. Hypotheticals allows us to use conjecture in determing possible scenarios that explains all the facts equally well, and in doing so you can arrive at a better explanation.

Some people on this board say R+L=J has flaws, but then a perfect theory should account for those flaws. R+L=J fails to do that.

Jon my have Targ blood but he grew up a Stark, he believes in the same things a Stark does. He isn't just a Targ but also a Stark. Jon needs to find his own path and I don't see any reason why just because he has Targ blood that there would be foreshadowing of him being a targ.

My arguement has nothing to do with what Jon thinks about his heritage. People use "story evidence" as a way to support R+L=J. The arguement is, Martin wants to allow us to predict who Jon's parents are, so he uses foreshadowing. But no one ever explains why he's only foreshadowed as a Stark, not a Targaryen. That evidence is explained only if he is not in fact a Targaryen or Martin isn't using foreshadowing. Without "story evidence" there is nothing that presents him as the child of Lyanna.

Even the other wolfs think that Ghost is different and not part of the pack. The color might have nothing to do with Jon other then to say 'I am different,' which he is.

It comes back to the question about "story evidence" or "imagery". People love using the blue rose in Dany's vision to symbolize Jon. But no R+L=J supporters use the litter of direwolves in their arguement. Why? Because it goes against R+L=J. All the direwolves share at least one parent. That only works if Ned is Jon's father.

But Jon has no idea he is a Targ, and has grown up a Stark. Maybe there is 'some' targ in him, but it wouldn't be much because he wasn't raised one. I never knew or met my father, and so the only thing I have of him is the blood in my veins.

As I said earlier, it comes back to what Martin is foreshadowing, since that's the only evidence that points to who Jon's parents are.

Artanaro

[Lord Stark]

Don't worry Artanaro I won't I've only replied to a few threads and I'm having fun in this one giving my own thoughts on the matter at hand

It has nothing to do with Stark genes or not. It has to do with the probability of all things considered. The Baratheon arguement is a very rare case (where children always look like the Baratheon parent). Generally some kids will look like one parent, and others like the other. The problem with R+L=J is you must accept a bunch of contrived circumstances (that if true make the theory work), but in reality are still contrived. Since people like to say Martin is unpredictable and his writing isn't contrived, accepting a contrived theory is contradictory to their very opinion of ASOIAF.

I don't really understand this. Are you saying that if Jon looked like a Targ it all wouldn't work? It still would work because people think he is the son of Ashara Dayne, and some Dayne's are said to have a Targ look if I'm not wrong.

My points 4a and 4b are to address to two theories about where Eddard meets Wylla. There are major faults with both. But let me go through your arguements.

I. Rhaegar or Lyanna trusted Wylla

On the latter why would Lyanna have any reason to trust her when she's a northerner. She has probably had very little contact with people from Dorne, and Wylla is part of the Dayne household. Now concerning Rhaegar, why would Rhaegar trust a dornishwoman after he has just alienated (to a major degree) all of Dorne by running off and having an affair with Lyanna. This makes no sense. Martin has even said Dorne didn't support Aerys' efforts as much as they could have, because they were angry with Rhaegar. So what reason is there to trust a peasant from another house? Ashara is a friend to Elia. She should be pissed at Rhaegar also. To all of Westeros, he has insulted Elia and her children. Why would Ashara want to be an accomplice in Rhaegar's infidelity?

Well Lyanna might have no reason to trust her you are right about that. But also remember that Ashara is said to have loved Ned deeply. It's not a far jump to say that she might have asked Wylla to help the sister of the man she loved, whatever her feeling for her or Rhaegar.

On the matter of Arthur Dayne, he hasn't lived at Starfall for years. There is no reason he could trust Wylla (someone who is at least the same age as Arthur if not younger), especially when all Dorne is angry. Knowing a servant in your household and treating them like a friend is one thing. Trusting that servant with the location of your mistress (who was the cause of an entire war) is another matter entirely.

Arthur Dayne Sword of the Morning, one of the best known knights in Westeros. If Wylla is a servant to Ashara, then all Arthur needs to do is ask his sister if she had send him someone she trusted the most. Someone who could give milk to a baby. Wylla doesn't need to know anything.

This is one of the major logical fallacies that doesn't make any sense. People hear Benjamin Franklin's cliche "three can keep a secret if two of them are dead" and take it for fact. I'll agree, the assumption holds true if the people involved are not trustworthy.

For example, three people who are suspect as potential traitors are better than four people with similiar dispositions. But in every situation, 5 people who are trustworthy is far better than 3 people who have no reason to keep faith.

So this statement is not true. There is every reason to be able to trust Catelyn. They've lived together for 14 years. If Robert finds out about Jon(if he was a Targaryen), Eddards life is forfeit as well as Lyanna's child. But if Eddard has no problem with trusting Wylla (someone he has no reason to trust) with even the knowledge that Jon isn't her child, then he has every reason to trust Catelyn. The only reason not to tell Catelyn is if learning about Jon's parents doesn't change her opinion on sending him to the wall (aka Jon is still Ned's bastard).

Well just because you can trust someone doesn't mean they can't give away your secret. Go to a pub one night get drunk and give it away. It might not be because he didn't think he couldn't trust her that he didn't tell her, but because he knows that as long as only he and Redd know then know one else can ever find out and his secret will die with him. Reed has been hidden in his moving city and not many people go to see him so the secret is safe there. As I said Wylla may not even know or she might have known before Ned got there. If she does but the greatest knight in her house told her to keep her mouth shut I'm sure she would. We also don't know much about Wylla who for all we kow can't talk because she is mute... yeah I know big leap but I didn't know what else to say

These are the two different theories people propose to explain R+L=J. I commented on the Arthur assumption above. On the matter of finding Wylla at the Tower of Joy. Just because she was trusted to be a midwife/wetnurse to Lyanna with a company of Kingsguard, doesn't make her trustworthy. Eddard would need to keep her close to insure she keeps faith. Really, the only way the conspiracy to conceal Lyanna's child can work is if Wylla never knows about Lyanna's child. But if a stranger comes up to you and asks you to assume the identity of a strange baby, you'll be very suspicious.

All Ned has to tell her is, he is my blood and I shall raise him as my blood. He can't take the baby from her so she must go to Winterfell and we know she does. If Wylla doesn't know the secret and Ned says that he wishes to take care of the child as his own son, she wouldn't think twice on it. Or maybe she got to the ToJ after Rhaegar left and thinks what everyone else thinks, that he raped her. If she did think that then she might understand why Ned would not want the child to know his mother was taken and raped and that is how he became... Trust mean that isn't something you want to learn.

When Martin is deciding on twists, he probably considers all angles. People believe R+L=J, because they can't fathom a scenario that explains all the current facts (because if Martin gave all the facts necessary, he couldn't provide a twist). The point about considering what would happen to Lyanna's child if he looked Targaryen is very important. People are choosing the easy explanation, but that doesn't make it true. Hypotheticals allows us to use conjecture in determing possible scenarios that explains all the facts equally well, and in doing so you can arrive at a better explanation.

Some people on this board say R+L=J has flaws, but then a perfect theory should account for those flaws. R+L=J fails to do that.

Well R+L=J does have flaws but there are many more books to come. Of course we wouldn't have the full story yet. I believe in R+L=J but do I believe that Martin might have something in mind that I can't see yet, yes of course, but I believe he has clues in the books that points to them. I just haven't seen them yet if R+L=J isn't true.

I'm sure Martin does think up everything he can, but thinking how the gene pool works isn't something a writer would think about. Sure he could have but I somehow don't think he did.

My arguement has nothing to do with what Jon thinks about his heritage. People use "story evidence" as a way to support R+L=J. The arguement is, Martin wants to allow us to predict who Jon's parents are, so he uses foreshadowing. But no one ever explains why he's only foreshadowed as a Stark, not a Targaryen. That evidence is explained only if he is not in fact a Targaryen or Martin isn't using foreshadowing. Without "story evidence" there is nothing that presents him as the child of Lyanna.

Maybe there will be some in the future. Maybe Martin wants to tell about what happened with R and L before he gets into Jon. If he had written everything he has, plus plus foreshadowed Jon as a Targ, then there would be no surprise. No one would think there was a rape at the start of the book and it wouldn't be as fun to read. Martin doesn't want to put all his eggs in one basket, and there are a couple more books to come.

It comes back to the question about "story evidence" or "imagery". People love using the blue rose in Dany's vision to symbolize Jon. But no R+L=J supporters use the litter of direwolves in their arguement. Why? Because it goes against R+L=J. All the direwolves share at least one parent. That only works if Ned is Jon's father.

But what is the Sigil of House Stark? A direwolf and how many have been seen south of the wall in the last 100 year? Martin couldn't have 2 dead direwolves right next to each other to show different parents. He used the direwolf to show that all the child are from a Stark but Jon is not a true Stark. I don't think the direwolf is meant to be 'Ned'. The fact that the wolf pups have the same mother goes to show that the Stark kids have the same blood in them, but that Jon's blood is a little different.

As I said earlier, it comes back to what Martin is foreshadowing, since that's the only evidence that points to who Jon's parents are.

But there are more books that can have this foreshadowing. I'm sure Martin wouldn't want to foreshadow Jons parents at the same time he explains what happens to Lyanna.

[Artanaro]

I don't really understand this. Are you saying that if Jon looked like a Targ it all wouldn't work? It still would work because people think he is the son of Ashara Dayne, and some Dayne's are said to have a Targ look if I'm not wrong.

The conspiracy for R+L=J would not work in the sightest if Jon looked like a Targaryen. Remember, over half the people on this board still can't believe Eddard fathered a bastard. Now, Robert, someone who knows Eddard far better than any of us, would take one look at a child with blond hair, Targaryen eyes, and make the connection. Even Robert has trouble believing Ned would break his vow on Catelyn, but he believes it because Jon looks like him. And remember this, no one in Starfall claims Ashara had a child. If Ashara has already covered up her pregnancy, then how can Eddard claim Ashara is the mother when she's hidden that she's pregnant?

Well Lyanna might have no reason to trust her you are right about that. But also remember that Ashara is said to have loved Ned deeply. It's not a far jump to say that she might have asked Wylla to help the sister of the man she loved, whatever her feeling for her or Rhaegar.

It's a jump across the Grand Canyon. Here's why.

1.) Rhaegar is supposedly off to a secret hide out with Lyanna. This is happening the same time the realm is falling apart. Aerys, the king of Westeros, can't find his son, so he has to turn to other people to end the rebellion. So no one in King's Landing has any idea where to find Rhaegar, yet Ashara is kept in contact about the entire affair, even though she is one of Elia's good friends. I don't buy it.

2.) Rhaegar and Lyanna's relationship was secret, but it seems whatever was between Ashara and Ned was secret also. There isn't much time after Harrenhal between these lovers' trysts and when the realm goes to hell. Neither Rhaegar or Lyanna would have any reason to know about N+A, since they just meet at Harrenhal. Would you trust someone you're younger brother has been dating for two weeks at most? I don't think so. Since there is no reason, to trust Ashara, why would Lyanna or Rhaegar do so? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Arthur Dayne Sword of the Morning, one of the best known knights in Westeros. If Wylla is a servant to Ashara, then all Arthur needs to do is ask his sister if she had send him someone she trusted the most. Someone who could give milk to a baby. Wylla doesn't need to know anything.

This is exactly how plots fail. If this happened as you say, Arthur is putting blind trust again into Ashara, someone who has every reason to be angry with Rhaegar. Very contrived. Also, there's this big assumption that wetnurses are always near mothers when they give birth. This is a bad assumption. There are not always wetnurses available for children. Mance's son is a good example. Despite all the wildlings, only Gilly was the potential person to fill the role. If a baby's mother dies during the childbirth, the child may get lucky and have a wetnurse near, but rarely can anyone have a wetnurse on hand in case something bad happens.

Well just because you can trust someone doesn't mean they can't give away your secret. Go to a pub one night get drunk and give it away. It might not be because he didn't think he couldn't trust her that he didn't tell her, but because he knows that as long as only he and Redd know then know one else can ever find out and his secret will die with him.

You've described a person who is not trustworthy. Saying Eddard can't tell Catelyn, a person who exhibits significant self control (with the one exception of when her kids got killed) as being a liability when Jon's future is on the line, is contrived. If Eddard doesn't tell Catelyn about his nephew, Jon will be sent to the wall. Jon doesn't understand the ramifications, but Eddard definitely does. This is all reaching for an explanation to make facts fit, rather than seeking to logically examine those facts.

Reed has been hidden in his moving city and not many people go to see him so the secret is safe there. As I said Wylla may not even know or she might have known before Ned got there. If she does but the greatest knight in her house told her to keep her mouth shut I'm sure she would. We also don't know much about Wylla who for all we kow can't talk because she is mute... yeah I know big leap but I didn't know what else to say

This is also trying to rationalize facts to make R+L=J fit. If the only reason to trust Wylla is because Arthur Dayne told her to keep her mouth shut, this theory is contrived, and there is every reason to think a contrived theory isn't true.

All Ned has to tell her is, he is my blood and I shall raise him as my blood. He can't take the baby from her so she must go to Winterfell and we know she does. If Wylla doesn't know the secret and Ned says that he wishes to take care of the child as his own son, she wouldn't think twice on it. Or maybe she got to the ToJ after Rhaegar left and thinks what everyone else thinks, that he raped her. If she did think that then she might understand why Ned would not want the child to know his mother was taken and raped and that is how he became... Trust mean that isn't something you want to learn.

None of these explanations hold. You can't have a woman claim a child as her own without reasons to make sure she won't blab about a strange guy who asked her to make up a weird story. With R+L=J, the only way Wylla can not know about Lyanna's child is if she was never at the ToJ. But in that scenario, there's still no reason to trust her by Eddard. If you want a conspiracy to work, you can't go up to a strange person on the street, ask her to be a wetnurse for your child and to claim the baby as her own. This story would be shot so full of holes in a second. Anyone who knew her would know the child wasn't hers, so there'll be rumors all across Westeros about Eddard claiming a strange baby. Those rumors will get to Robert in no time.

Well R+L=J does have flaws but there are many more books to come. Of course we wouldn't have the full story yet. I believe in R+L=J but do I believe that Martin might have something in mind that I can't see yet, yes of course, but I believe he has clues in the books that points to them. I just haven't seen them yet if R+L=J isn't true.

Let me reemphasize a point many people don't understand (this isn't directed at you but I need to put it somewhere).

Proof of Lyanna and Rhaegar having a child ISN'T proof that Jon is that child. It keeps coming back to this problem everytime I get into this debate. Because people can't see an alternative, they use that as evidence that R+L=J is true.

I'm sure Martin does think up everything he can, but thinking how the gene pool works isn't something a writer would think about. Sure he could have but I somehow don't think he did.

As I said earlier, it's not about the gene pool. My point about Arya being the only child that looks like Ned is to show how contrived R+L=J must be. It requires so many forced leaps of faith that it falls down under every logical approach. The world doesn't follow contrived situations where every fact must benefit someone in order for things to turn out right. It's also not how you write a story that people can relate to.

Maybe there will be some in the future. Maybe Martin wants to tell about what happened with R and L before he gets into Jon. If he had written everything he has, plus plus foreshadowed Jon as a Targ, then there would be no surprise. No one would think there was a rape at the start of the book and it wouldn't be as fun to read. Martin doesn't want to put all his eggs in one basket, and there are a couple more books to come.

Here's the thing. If someone ignores the "story evidence" for Jon as Lyanna's child, there is no evidence whatsoever for R+L=J. There is only circumstantial evidence tha Lyanna had a kid. And the "story evidence" relies on what you already believe.

But what is the Sigil of House Stark? A direwolf and how many have been seen south of the wall in the last 100 year? Martin couldn't have 2 dead direwolves right next to each other to show different parents. He used the direwolf to show that all the child are from a Stark but Jon is not a true Stark. I don't think the direwolf is meant to be 'Ned'. The fact that the wolf pups have the same mother goes to show that the Stark kids have the same blood in them, but that Jon's blood is a little different.

But then, what's all this talk of a "blue rose"(you haven't done it yet, but others will). Martin uses imagery to show connections. The one direwolf is a good example. The "blue rose" can be explained because Jon is still a stark. The single direwolf cannot. People see what they want to see. And if the direwolf isn't Ned, than Rickard hasn't told us about two more of his children.

But there are more books that can have this foreshadowing. I'm sure Martin wouldn't want to foreshadow Jons parents at the same time he explains what happens to Lyanna.

So if there's nothing to prove R+L=J now, why does everyone believe it? Hmm, perhaps Martin likes it that way.

Artanaro

[Lord Stark]

The conspiracy for R+L=J would not work in the sightest if Jon looked like a Targaryen. Remember, over half the people on this board still can't believe Eddard fathered a bastard. Now, Robert, someone who knows Eddard far better than any of us, would take one look at a child with blond hair, Targaryen eyes, and make the connection. Even Robert has trouble believing Ned would break his vow on Catelyn, but he believes it because Jon looks like him. And remember this, no one in Starfall claims Ashara had a child. If Ashara has already covered up her pregnancy, then how can Eddard claim Ashara is the mother when she's hidden that she's pregnant?

Well Robert might not havce believed Ned fullt, but he was like a brother to him, if Ned told him it was his son I believe robert would drop it but maybe distrust him a little. Point is Reobert would need more then looks to kill a baby that Ned claims is his. Ashara can't say anything because she is dead or in hiding. Again Robert might find flaws if he went to find the trust but he would never know if Ned doesn't tell him. Also Jon does look like a Stark so it doesn't matter. If he looked like a Targ the story might have gone a different path so we can say alot but we just don't know what would happen.

It's a jump across the Grand Canyon. Here's why.

1.) Rhaegar is supposedly off to a secret hide out with Lyanna. This is happening the same time the realm is falling apart. Aerys, the king of Westeros, can't find his son, so he has to turn to other people to end the rebellion. So no one in King's Landing has any idea where to find Rhaegar, yet Ashara is kept in contact about the entire affair, even though she is one of Elia's good friends. I don't buy it.

2.) Rhaegar and Lyanna's relationship was secret, but it seems whatever was between Ashara and Ned was secret also. There isn't much time after Harrenhal between these lovers' trysts and when the realm goes to hell. Neither Rhaegar or Lyanna would have any reason to know about N+A, since they just meet at Harrenhal. Would you trust someone you're younger brother has been dating for two weeks at most? I don't think so. Since there is no reason, to trust Ashara, why would Lyanna or Rhaegar do so? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

1. Never said Ashara knew about R+L all the while. I said that Arthur could have asked his sister, someone who I bet he trusted, to help him out. Whatever she might have felt, that is her brother and I'm sure she would have helped him if she could.

2. I also never said Rhaegar or Lyanna knew about N+A. Ashara would know Lyanna is Neds sister, and if she was asked to help Ned's sister she might have done what she could have. Also Lyanna might not have been told about Lyanna, but just asked to send someone she trust and someone who could keep a secret. Rhaegar doesn't have alot of people to turn too, so he asks his good old friend who he can trust to help him out, and he gets his sister who he can trust to help him out. No reason he has to tell her anything more then what she has to know.

This is exactly how plots fail. If this happened as you say, Arthur is putting blind trust again into Ashara, someone who has every reason to be angry with Rhaegar. Very contrived. Also, there's this big assumption that wetnurses are always near mothers when they give birth. This is a bad assumption. There are not always wetnurses available for children. Mance's son is a good example. Despite all the wildlings, only Gilly was the potential person to fill the role. If a baby's mother dies during the childbirth, the child may get lucky and have a wetnurse near, but rarely can anyone have a wetnurse on hand in case something bad happens.

Arthur wouldn't put blind trust in anyone. He asks his sister who he can trust to help him. He asks her to send him a wetnurse that she can trust with holding a secret. Dorne may have been mad at Rhaegar, but Ashara would have no reason to mistrust her own brother. Arthur doesn't even have to say that the wetnurse is for Rhaegar's mistress or whatever Lyanna was to him. I'm not sure when Wylla gets to the ToJ, for all we know Lyanna was already going to die when they call for her.

You've described a person who is not trustworthy. Saying Eddard can't tell Catelyn, a person who exhibits significant self control (with the one exception of when her kids got killed) as being a liability when Jon's future is on the line, is contrived. If Eddard doesn't tell Catelyn about his nephew, Jon will be sent to the wall. Jon doesn't understand the ramifications, but Eddard definitely does. This is all reaching for an explanation to make facts fit, rather than seeking to logically examine those facts.

Because someone has a bad day and gets drunk and maybe tells a secret he shouldn't doesn't mean you can't trust them before that. That is the whole point, you never know what will happen in the future, and the more people that know the more risk there is that the secret can come out. Who is to say Catelyn would understand? I'm sure she would but maybe Ned thought she wouldn't. Maybe also he doesn't want Jon to know the truth and wants him to believe he is his son. Also Ned could be shielding Jon more then anyone else. Learning your mother was raped, if it happened or not that is what Westeros thinks and Jon would likely think it happened that was, is not a good way to grow up.

Also when you have a secret you can't be sure that the person you tell will tell no one else. Ned might have thought that Catelyn would tell one of her friends or maids. A risk he cannot make if he thinks Robert will kill him if he finds out.

This is also trying to rationalize facts to make R+L=J fit. If the only reason to trust Wylla is because Arthur Dayne told her to keep her mouth shut, this theory is contrived, and there is every reason to think a contrived theory isn't true.

We don't know enough about Wylla to know anything. I'm just suggesting things that could have happened but most likely they don't happen that way. My point was that we don't know enough about her and there could be 1 out of a 100 reason why she would keep a secret.

None of these explanations hold. You can't have a woman claim a child as her own without reasons to make sure she won't blab about a strange guy who asked her to make up a weird story. With R+L=J, the only way Wylla can not know about Lyanna's child is if she was never at the ToJ. But in that scenario, there's still no reason to trust her by Eddard. If you want a conspiracy to work, you can't go up to a strange person on the street, ask her to be a wetnurse for your child and to claim the baby as her own. This story would be shot so full of holes in a second. Anyone who knew her would know the child wasn't hers, so there'll be rumors all across Westeros about Eddard claiming a strange baby. Those rumors will get to Robert in no time.

Wylla is a servant to House Dayne. If she was ordered to protect the child by members of House Dayne before Lyanna dies then she may very well keep a secret and go along with what Ned says. Also I don't think it would be that hard to hide the fact that one is with child in Westeros. When you take into acount that the time to travel between places takes a while no one might think anything about it. There may be holes in this but if the person who claims to be the mother, and the father say she is then people can't really say anything. Most likely the onlt person who can say otherwise is dead or in hiding.

Let me reemphasize a point many people don't understand (this isn't directed at you but I need to put it somewhere).

Proof of Lyanna and Rhaegar having a child ISN'T proof that Jon is that child. It keeps coming back to this problem everytime I get into this debate. Because people can't see an alternative, they use that as evidence that R+L=J is true.

No there is no proof it is Jon, but the fact that Ned comes home with a baby after seeing what we have from the ToJ Jon is a likely person for that child. Do I believe Martin can fool us and have it be someone else, yes but as of right now he is the most likely person to be the child of Lyanna.

I want to be clear I know there is no proof but we are not guess without clues as to who it may be.

As I said earlier, it's not about the gene pool. My point about Arya being the only child that looks like Ned is to show how contrived R+L=J must be. It requires so many forced leaps of faith that it falls down under every logical approach. The world doesn't follow contrived situations where every fact must benefit someone in order for things to turn out right. It's also not how you write a story that people can relate to.

The fact that Ned has only one child that looks like him has nothing to do with Jon if he is not his father. The fact is if Ned is not Jon's father then the same things that are true for Ned are not true for Lyanna. People look the way they do because Martin has them look that way. I don't see how it takes any faith to show that a child of a Stark would look like a Stark. If Jon is the child of Lyanna and Rhaegar then they are from the familes of Stark and Targ, well Neds kids are from the families of Stark and Tully. Different parents mean different outcomes.

But then, what's all this talk of a "blue rose"(you haven't done it yet, but others will). Martin uses imagery to show connections. The one direwolf is a good example. The "blue rose" can be explained because Jon is still a stark. The single direwolf cannot. People see what they want to see. And if the direwolf isn't Ned, than Rickard hasn't told us about two more of his children.

As I said I think the direwolf is meant to show House Stark and not 'Ned' as the father of all. I think breaking down something like the direwolves into meaning somethign with as much detail as Ned is the father of all is not Martin like. I think all it was meant to show was Jon is different and hard times for the Stark are ahead. Yes we all may see something different but to say Jon is Neds because his wolf is from the same mother as Robb's is just not something I can believe.

So if there's nothing to prove R+L=J now, why does everyone believe it? Hmm, perhaps Martin likes it that way.

There is no proof that R+L=J but as I have said it's not a blind guess. It's a guess of the most likely person to be the child of R+L. Yes Jon could be Ned's bastard, and that would be fine by me but once you track down the kids that can be Lyanna's, the list gets small.

[Artanaro]

Well Robert might not havce believed Ned fullt, but he was like a brother to him, if Ned told him it was his son I believe robert would drop it but maybe distrust him a little. Point is Reobert would need more then looks to kill a baby that Ned claims is his. Ashara can't say anything because she is dead or in hiding. Again Robert might find flaws if he went to find the trust but he would never know if Ned doesn't tell him. Also Jon does look like a Stark so it doesn't matter. If he looked like a Targ the story might have gone a different path so we can say alot but we just don't know what would happen.

If you saw someone who looked like a Targaryen, and you knew your friend was too honor-bound to have a bastard, and you knew your betrothed, also a Stark, was raped by a Targaryen, it doesn't take rocket science to make this connection. You say Jon doesn't look like a Stark, so it doesn't matter. Perhaps Lyanna's child did look like a Targaryen, but Jon isn't Lyanna's child.

1. Never said Ashara knew about R+L all the while. I said that Arthur could have asked his sister, someone who I bet he trusted, to help him out. Whatever she might have felt, that is her brother and I'm sure she would have helped him if she could.

If someone asks Ashara for a wetnurse they can trust, you have to let Ashara know what they must be trusted with. If you asked someone on the street what time it is, you would trust them to tell you the truth. That's no big deal. If you ask a stranger to hold a door for you when you're carrying your groceries into a building, no big deal. Would you take a stranger off the street, ask them to hold your wallet, your wedding ring, and a rolex watch for an hour while you go meet someone at a restaurant, I don't think so. Lyanna's child is more precious and dangerous than any amount of wealth. Wylla could sell the secret of Rhaegar's child to Robert to make her son a lord.

2. I also never said Rhaegar or Lyanna knew about N+A. Ashara would know Lyanna is Neds sister, and if she was asked to help Ned's sister she might have done what she could have. Also Lyanna might not have been told about Lyanna, but just asked to send someone she trust and someone who could keep a secret. Rhaegar doesn't have alot of people to turn too, so he asks his good old friend who he can trust to help him out, and he gets his sister who he can trust to help him out. No reason he has to tell her anything more then what she has to know.

But you still haven't answered me about why Rhaegar would have a reason to trust Ashara. In Rhaegar's mind, Ashara is just a friend of Elia who he has just offended.

Here is your quote.

But also remember that Ashara is said to have loved Ned deeply. It's not a far jump to say that she might have asked Wylla to help the sister of the man she loved, whatever her feeling for her or Rhaegar.

Ashara must have a reason to offer to help Rhaegar. If Rhaegar doesn't know about N+A, he has no reason to ask for help. If Ashara doesn't know about R+L, she has no reason to send word to Rhaegar to offer her services.

Arthur wouldn't put blind trust in anyone. He asks his sister who he can trust to help him. He asks her to send him a wetnurse that she can trust with holding a secret. Dorne may have been mad at Rhaegar, but Ashara would have no reason to mistrust her own brother. Arthur doesn't even have to say that the wetnurse is for Rhaegar's mistress or whatever Lyanna was to him. I'm not sure when Wylla gets to the ToJ, for all we know Lyanna was already going to die when they call for her.

Arthur must divulge to Ashara with what the person needs to be trust with. Also, look at this from Ashara situation.

Without any inside knowledge, this is what Ashara is probably thinking when Arthur makes a random request to find someone to be a wetnurse for Rhaegar(remember Lyanna wouldn't need a wetnurse until after the war was almost over).

1.) Rhaegar has run off and raped the sister of the man I loved.

2.) Rhaegar has stepped on the heart of my best friend, Elia.

3.) Rhaegar has been the catalyst that cost the man I love his father and brother.

If Rhaegar or Arthur can't be upfront about the entire situation, and explain how Lyanna went willingly with him and make her believe in this "prophecy", Ashara would have no reason whatsoever to want to help Rhaegar. So if Arthur asks Ashara for her help, he has to tell her what he would need Wylla for. But that still doesn't give Ashara reason to help him out.

Because someone has a bad day and gets drunk and maybe tells a secret he shouldn't doesn't mean you can't trust them before that. That is the whole point, you never know what will happen in the future, and the more people that know the more risk there is that the secret can come out.

This is a contrived situation, that doesn't fit the personality of Catelyn. Eddard has reasons to tell Catelyn. It would be a terrible wrong to let his nephew, who was placed in his trust by his sister, to send him to the Wall. Point after point, R+L=J only works if it's terribly contrived. It doesn't follow any understanding of human nature or personal motivations.

Who is to say Catelyn would understand? I'm sure she would but maybe Ned thought she wouldn't. Maybe also he doesn't want Jon to know the truth and wants him to believe he is his son. Also Ned could be shielding Jon more then anyone else. Learning your mother was raped, if it happened or not that is what Westeros thinks and Jon would likely think it happened that was, is not a good way to grow up.

Catelyn would be more than thrilled that her husband kept faith. Assuming your nephew as your son to save his life as well as to honor the memory of your sister is an extremely noble deed. Catelyn should love Eddard even more after hearing about it. So why can't he tell her? Because if Jon is his son, it changes nothing. And on your second point, he doesn't have to tell Jon, he just has to tell Catelyn in order to keep him at Winterfell. And the arguement that Lyanna is raped is something nearly everyone on R+L=J agrees most likely didn't happen, so I won't even go there.

Also when you have a secret you can't be sure that the person you tell will tell no one else. Ned might have thought that Catelyn would tell one of her friends or maids. A risk he cannot make if he thinksobert will kill him if he finds out.

Yes you can. Eddard had no trouble with Howland Reed knowing the secret, because he proved himself to be trustworthy many times over. It's also why Eddard brings seven people with him to the Tower of Joy. There are many people he could trust. Strangers have no reason to keep your trust, but your wife has every reason, especially when revealing the secret will mean your head. I'm not saying Eddard had to tell Catelyn when she asked the first time (she was still a stranger), but he would have every reason to tell her before he left for King's Landing.

We don't know enough about Wylla to know anything. I'm just suggesting things that could have happened but most likely they don't happen that way. My point was that we don't know enough about her and there could be 1 out of a 100 reason why she would keep a secret.

But there's not one good reason why Eddard should trust her. But we do know a fair amount about Wylla. She lived at Starfall. She served the Dayne household. She claimed to be the mother of Jon. The fact R+L=J requires a few of these things makes it contrived.

1.) Wylla, a peasant, is taken in on one of the biggest secrets in Westeros, the Rhaegar-Lyanna love Affair.

2.) The entire Dayne household would see nothing wrong with her disappearing for an extended period, let alone all the household servants.

3.) The fact she can assume to be the mother of Jon without raising any suspicion. Someone's going to notice if she wasn't pregnant.

4.) That Wylla has no problem assuming the child as her own, without any questions asked.

Wylla is a servant to House Dayne. If she was ordered to protect the child by members of House Dayne before Lyanna dies then she may very well keep a secret and go along with what Ned says. Also I don't think it would be that hard to hide the fact that one is with child in Westeros. When you take into acount that the time to travel between places takes a while no one might think anything about it. There may be holes in this but if the person who claims to be the mother, and the father say she is then people can't really say anything. Most likely the onlt person who can say otherwise is dead or in hiding.

So let's add to the toll of the number of people who know about R+L=J or know something fishy is going on: Wylla, most of the Daynes, possible any midwives in the area, Howland Reed. And Eddard still can't tell Catelyn. Oh what rotten luck.

But on your other point. It's not about concealing someone's pregnancy. It's about why would Wylla conceal she was having a child? If she is knocked up by some lord, she may lie about the father, but she would still go around pregnant. The point is, if she isn't pregnant, no one will believe the child is hers. She's a wetnurse, so she seems to have been pregnant at one time. Ok, that helps Eddard out. However, did her baby just vanish one day and did lucky Eddard arrived before she let that cat out of the bag? So perfect.

No there is no proof it is Jon, but the fact that Ned comes home with a baby after seeing what we have from the ToJ Jon is a likely person for that child. Do I believe Martin can fool us and have it be someone else, yes but as of right now he is the most likely person to be the child of Lyanna.

Jon is only a likely candidate if you ignore the facts of the case. R+L=J continues to be a case, where because we haven't met another candidate for Lyanna's child, then Jon must be it, even though he fails to pass many tests that would verify his identity (a single direwolf mother, why wasn't Ashara's body found, how does Wylla come into the conspiracy, not a single piece of foreshadowing with dragons).

I want to be clear I know there is no proof but we are not guess without clues as to who it may be.

There are clues he is a stark. There isn't one clue he is a Targaryen . Awfully weird don't you think.

The fact that Ned has only one child that looks like him has nothing to do with Jon if he is not his father. The fact is if Ned is not Jon's father then the same things that are true for Ned are not true for Lyanna. People look the way they do because Martin has them look that way. I don't see how it takes any faith to show that a child of a Stark would look like a Stark. If Jon is the child of Lyanna and Rhaegar then they are from the familes of Stark and Targ, well Neds kids are from the families of Stark and Tully. Different parents mean different outcomes.

As I said in an earlier post in this thread. It's not about letting one or two things go by. With R+L=J you get upwards of 6 and 7 facts that are very contrived. The fact everything must be contrived so perfectly makes it very improbable. Yes, Lyanna could have lucked out with a child that looked like Ned. But if she lucked out with Wylla being a saint, another direwolf having a little albino pup and then falling into an abyss, with Ashara's body never being found, and everyone at Starfall being very gullible, I would say Martin would be a bad storyteller. But I know he isn't.

As I said I think the direwolf is meant to show House Stark and not 'Ned' as the father of all. I think breaking down something like the direwolves into meaning somethign with as much detail as Ned is the father of all is not Martin like. I think all it was meant to show was Jon is different and hard times for the Stark are ahead. Yes we all may see something different but to say Jon is Neds because his wolf is from the same mother as Robb's is just not something I can believe.

Rationalize the wolf however you want. A blue rose is Lyanna's child to some readers, while a direwolf is just House Stark. That's why I don't like how people use "story evidence."

There is no proof that R+L=J but as I have said it's not a blind guess. It's a guess of the most likely person to be the child of R+L. Yes Jon could be Ned's bastard, and that would be fine by me but once you track down the kids that can be Lyanna's, the list gets small.

Not blind. Just illogical. You do hit the real reason why people have so much faith in R+L=J. They hate the idea Martin could bring in such an important character later in the series. That's the real reason for all this faith.

Artanaro

[Lord Stark]

If you saw someone who looked like a Targaryen, and you knew your friend was too honor-bound to have a bastard, and you knew your betrothed, also a Stark, was raped by a Targaryen, it doesn't take rocket science to make this connection. You say Jon doesn't look like a Stark, so it doesn't matter. Perhaps Lyanna's child did look like a Targaryen, but Jon isn't Lyanna's child.

But if Ned swore to Robert that it was his son then he would let it drop. Ned holds his honor high and Robert knows that. If he says it's his and Robert has no proof just how the child looks then I don't think he would kill the child. Sure he might think Ned is lying but without proof he wouldn't risj losing his friend who helped him win the war. Sure maybe Jon isn't the child, and if not maybe she had one that does look Targ but we have nothing that would lead us to believe that.

If someone asks Ashara for a wetnurse they can trust, you have to let Ashara know what they must be trusted with. If you asked someone on the street what time it is, you would trust them to tell you the truth. That's no big deal. If you ask a stranger to hold a door for you when you're carrying your groceries into a building, no big deal. Would you take a stranger off the street, ask them to hold your wallet, your wedding ring, and a rolex watch for an hour while you go meet someone at a restaurant, I don't think so. Lyanna's child is more precious and dangerous than any amount of wealth. Wylla could sell the secret of Rhaegar's child to Robert to make her son a lord.

But Wylla is not just some random person, she is a servant to House Dayne. If she was part of another house then IU would believe it more that she was just a stranger but because she is of House Dayne I think there is more too it. Also the Daynes have no love for Robert.

But you still haven't answered me about why Rhaegar would have a reason to trust Ashara. In Rhaegar's mind, Ashara is just a friend of Elia who he has just offended.

Here is your quote.

But also remember that Ashara is said to have loved Ned deeply. It's not a far jump to say that she might have asked Wylla to help the sister of the man she loved, whatever her feeling for her or Rhaegar.

Ashara must have a reason to offer to help Rhaegar. If Rhaegar doesn't know about N+A, he has no reason to ask for help. If Ashara doesn't know about R+L, she has no reason to send word to Rhaegar to offer her services.

Rhaegar would trust Ashara because Arthur is one of his closest friends. If he said that he could trust his own sister I believe Rhaegar would have faith in her. Also Rhaegar might not of known about Wylla, she could have come after he left for the battle. The point is Arthur was a close and trusted friend of Rhaegar and Arthur would have every reason to think he could trust his own sister. There is nothing that says there was a rift between them.

My thoughts are Rhaegar does not ask for help from Ashara but asks his good old friend who he can trust to help Lyanna. Maybe he knew she was already going to die when he went to battle or maybe not. Either way if Arthur was asked to protect Lyanna and the child he would do so. He wouldn't be able to give the child milk and if he knew Lyanna was going to die he might have asked his sister to send someone she trusts to help him.

Arthur must divulge to Ashara with what the person needs to be trust with. Also, look at this from Ashara situation.

Without any inside knowledge, this is what Ashara is probably thinking when Arthur makes a random request to find someone to be a wetnurse for Rhaegar(remember Lyanna wouldn't need a wetnurse until after the war was almost over).

1.) Rhaegar has run off and raped the sister of the man I loved.

2.) Rhaegar has stepped on the heart of my best friend, Elia.

3.) Rhaegar has been the catalyst that cost the man I love his father and brother.

If Rhaegar or Arthur can't be upfront about the entire situation, and explain how Lyanna went willingly with him and make her believe in this "prophecy", Ashara would have no reason whatsoever to want to help Rhaegar. So if Arthur asks Ashara for her help, he has to tell her what he would need Wylla for. But that still doesn't give Ashara reason to help him out.

The fact that he was her brother and said to be a knight of great skill and honor wouldn't make it too hard to enlist his sisters help. He might have had to tell her everything, which could be why she went into hiding if she is alive. Or he could have asked for her trust, given his word that things weren't as they seemed, and that if he didn't get the help he needed a bhild would die. Elia might have been her close friend, but Arthur is her brother and the thought that a child might die because she does nothing would be alot to bare.

This is a contrived situation, that doesn't fit the personality of Catelyn. Eddard has reasons to tell Catelyn. It would be a terrible wrong to let his nephew, who was placed in his trust by his sister, to send him to the Wall. Point after point, R+L=J only works if it's terribly contrived. It doesn't follow any understanding of human nature or personal motivations.

Jon wanted to go to the wall and there was still honor in the Night Watch. Benjen joined i see no reason why it would be hard for Ned to let Jon go. As I said the more people that knew the truth the more risk Jon is in, and it is after all about keeping Jon safe from Robert. Also we don't know what the promise Ned made to Lyanna was. Maybe he told him never to tell who he trully was. Until that is answered it's a little hard to say for sure why Ned would not tell anyone.

Also I want to add that the feeling to protect somone over rides human nature. I also believe Ned felt the less people that knew the better. Sure Catelyn might not understand but she would get over it. We see after all that she still loved him and that the thoughts pained him, maybe it pained him that he couldn't tell her because even if she loved him there is always, no matter who it is a slight risk the secret will come out.

Catelyn would be more than thrilled that her husband kept faith. Assuming your nephew as your son to save his life as well as to honor the memory of your sister is an extremely noble deed. Catelyn should love Eddard even more after hearing about it. So why can't he tell her? Because if Jon is his son, it changes nothing. And on your second point, he doesn't have to tell Jon, he just has to tell Catelyn in order to keep him at Winterfell. And the arguement that Lyanna is raped is something nearly everyone on R+L=J agrees most likely didn't happen, so I won't even go there.

Maybe people on the board agree it didn't happen but the people of Westeros think it happened and that is what matters, not what we think because we know more. I'll say it again, the more people that know a secret the better it is to come out. There is nothing you have said that has disproved this and I don't believe you can. Catelyn might have loved Ned more, but Ned couldn't take the risk. You only have one Jon, so only one chance to keep him safe. You won't take any risks no matter how much you love someone. Also as I said up top, Ned keeping the secret could be part of the promise he made.

Yes you can. Eddard had no trouble with Howland Reed knowing the secret, because he proved himself to be trustworthy many times over. It's also why Eddard brings seven people with him to the Tower of Joy. There are many people he could trust. Strangers have no reason to keep your trust, but your wife has every reason, especially when revealing the secret will mean your head. I'm not saying Eddard had to tell Catelyn when she asked the first time (she was still a stranger), but he would have every reason to tell her before he left for King's Landing.

Ned didn't know what he was getting into. He was surprised to find the KG there and I bet he was surprised to find a baby. Also Reed was with him and the only other person to live, so of course he knows the secret. He pulled Ned away from Lyanna's dead body. If any others had lived they would know the secret too, but they didn't. Also I said before that Reed is at Greywater Watch in a moving city and his people don't see to be liked by many other then the Starks. So Reed is in no danger of giving away the secret unlike Catelyn whoi lives in a big castle with Jon.

But there's not one good reason why Eddard should trust her. But we do know a fair amount about Wylla. She lived at Starfall. She served the Dayne household. She claimed to be the mother of Jon. The fact R+L=J requires a few of these things makes it contrived.

1.) Wylla, a peasant, is taken in on one of the biggest secrets in Westeros, the Rhaegar-Lyanna love Affair.

2.) The entire Dayne household would see nothing wrong with her disappearing for an extended period, let alone all the household servants.

3.) The fact she can assume to be the mother of Jon without raising any suspicion. Someone's going to notice if she wasn't pregnant.

4.) That Wylla has no problem assuming the child as her own, without any questions asked.

Well if Wylla was already there then Ned can't just send her away. He needs her to take Jon with him weather he trusts her or not.

1. A loyal servant to House Dayne doing her duty.

2. If she is gone for an extended period and it's normal maybe she was gone before then? Who is to say any other members of House Dayne had seen her in 6 months?

3. As I said above maybe she was away from Starfall for some time, or maybe she is just a large woman and no one would question her being pregnant.

4. If Ashara asked her to do what Arthur asked of her, and she was told to care for and protect the child on the honor of House Dayne then maybe she would. We just don't know enough about her, we know some yes but not enough. She seems to be a loyal member of House Dayne and if Ashara had asked her to serve her brother as she had done so for her then it's not that hard to believe.

So let's add to the toll of the number of people who know about R+L=J or know something fishy is going on: Wylla, most of the Daynes, possible any midwives in the area, Howland Reed. And Eddard still can't tell Catelyn. Oh what rotten luck.

But on your other point. It's not about concealing someone's pregnancy. It's about why would Wylla conceal she was having a child? If she is knocked up by some lord, she may lie about the father, but she would still go around pregnant. The point is, if she isn't pregnant, no one will believe the child is hers. She's a wetnurse, so she seems to have been pregnant at one time. Ok, that helps Eddard out. However, did her baby just vanish one day and did lucky Eddard arrived before she let that cat out of the bag? So perfect.

But all those people that knew are dead so it doesn't matter. They also would know before Ned knew. By the time they leave Starfall the only people who would know are Ned, Reed, and Wylla. three people isn't alot.

We have no idea how long Wylla has been out of Starfall or much else about her besides what you listed. Maybe she did have a child that died or maybe not. It doesn't matter if eyes were raised because all she has to do is say that the child is her, have Ned say she is the mother and people will drop it. This is Westeros where having a baby isn't something that is given a second thought. Also some women don't start showing until very late and if she was on the road alot maybe no one would notice or maybe like I said above maybe she was large but until we know more there is alot that can be guessed at.

Jon is only a likely candidate if you ignore the facts of the case. R+L=J continues to be a case, where because we haven't met another candidate for Lyanna's child, then Jon must be it, even though he fails to pass many tests that would verify his identity (a single direwolf mother, why wasn't Ashara's body found, how does Wylla come into the conspiracy, not a single piece of foreshadowing with dragons).

Those are not tests. As I said the direwolf does not mean Jon is Neds son. Have you ever been to the ocean? I live on the west coast of Canada and even now a days it's hard to find a body of someone who is thought to have died in the ocean. If she did jump from the a tower of Starfall over the ocean then it's not hard to believe why the body would never be found. Just like Jon isn't a full Stark he isn't a full Targ so there is no reason for dragons. Wylla can have many reason to be involved but we don't know enough about her.

There are clues he is a stark. There isn't one clue he is a Targaryen . Awfully weird don't you think.

No because we have more books that can have lots more. Jon also has dreams where he is said not to be a Stark, weird?

As I said in an earlier post in this thread. It's not about letting one or two things go by. With R+L=J you get upwards of 6 and 7 facts that are very contrived. The fact everything must be contrived so perfectly makes it very improbable. Yes, Lyanna could have lucked out with a child that looked like Ned. But if she lucked out with Wylla being a saint, another direwolf having a little albino pup and then falling into an abyss, with Ashara's body never being found, and everyone at Starfall being very gullible, I would say Martin would be a bad storyteller. But I know he isn't.

We don't know the whole story so of course there is much we don't know yet. These are things that happened and because they happened they made the story. If one of them didn't happen then the story would be different. The direwolf has nothing to do with Lyanna being Jons mother, AND AS I HAVE SAID THE DIREWOLF CAN JUST AS EASY BE HOUSE STARK AND NOT AS YOU THINK JUST "NED". Sorry about that but you keep throwing the direwolf in and it's no proof at all.

He doesn't look like Ned but looks like a Stark, I think it says he looks like Lyanna... male version of course. Alright maybe he looks a little like Ned but that is not odd, maybe familes have brothers and sisters that have children that look like the other. That is part of what family genes are, Ned and Lyanna have the same genes and so it's not weird that her child would look like another Stark, her own brother.

Rationalize the wolf however you want. A blue rose is Lyanna's child to some readers, while a direwolf is just House Stark. That's why I don't like how people use "story evidence."

A blue rose or direwolf is no evidence, and I never said they were.

Not blind. Just illogical. You do hit the real reason why people have so much faith in R+L=J. They hate the idea Martin could bring in such an important character later in the series. That's the real reason for all this faith.

Well I don't, if that happened then it happens, but it hasn't yet and so far all we have is Jon. Until I read a book that gives me from to believe other then Jon then I will keep thinking he is Lyanna's son.

[BastardSword]

If this was an actual, real situation, analyzing the genetics would make sense.

It's A NOVEL.

When a writer, particularly of a fantasy, is plotting, they're not writing a scientific treatise, or doing genealogy.

And, much as college professors may disagree, they're also not indulging in exercises in symbolism that is meant to correspond in every way.

A writer is out to entertain and to surprise.

When you get too literal about the symbols (which is a contradiction in terms ) it seems important that the direwolves shared a MOTHER not a father, but that's a total misdirection and misinterpretation of the whole purpose of the symbol in the work as a whole. The important things about Ghost are that he was DIFFERENT in appearance, had crawled away from his mother and sibs, and his eyes were open. Jon's a bastard, he's motherless, and he knows life is tough when you have to make your own way, whereas the Stark kids have to learn that the hard way.

As far as who Jon's father is, it's not a fact situation. It's a fiction, and who his father is, basically, is who will make for the coolest story later on. Working forward from the evidence we're giving only helps so much. Working backward from, what is the dramatic payoff here? is what takes us the rest of the way in what we choose to believe, which in turn determines how we weigh the evidence.

Which is going to make for a more exciting, satisfying story?

Some people think Jon turns out to be Ned's after all.

Some think Jon turning out to be a Stark on his mother's side and a Targaryen on his father's, and the heir to the throne rather than a bastard destined to spend his life on the Wall is the most exciting outcome they can imagine.

Others don't like that, because it's too 'standard fantasy cliche', or for some other reason (don't like Targs for example), so they look for another possible pop for Jonny Boy. I think Jon being Arthur Dayne's son and heir to Dawn would be cool AND a clever plot twist. If he's not, then I don't understand why such a BFD has been made of the Daynes in general and their connection to the Starks. Unless some kind of character development occurs in the future, you just did not need that kind of extensive focus on people long dead. And, as I've said before, in a book filled with grays, setting Arthur Dayne up as the One True White Knight just makes bells go off for me, expecting him to turn out to be more than just that cliche.

I'm not so wedded to my theory I want to flame anyone who doesn't share it, as I've said, Jon being Lyanna's and Rhaegar's would be okey dokey too.

Ned + Wylla, I would be disappointed. BOOOORING.

Ned + Ashara, unless Ashara is still alive and has a DAMN good reason for leaving her son, would piss me off.

[Lord Stark]

If N+W or N+A turns up I would also feel a little disappointed too.

I hope you don't think I flamed you before BastardSword. I think it would be cool if Arthur Dayne was Jon's father but I just don't see anything that hints at it. If you think I've been flaming please let me know and I'll cool down my tone

I also want to say that I don't believe Arthir Dayne was a 'pure white knight' but a man who also tried to do the right thing. There is no 100% pure good people we have seen so far but for me I like to think Arthur is the closest thing we have seen to one.

I agree with most of what you said and well I don't believe your theory, it's a neat one that I wouldn't be dispointed at if Martin went that way. I just don't see any hints yet, although there are more books to come so who knows what is going to come at us next.

[BastardSword]

Lord Stark, no, I didn't intend to imply you or anyone else has flamed me on the subject, sorry for the misunderstanding.

I was just trying to say that I'm not rabid about my own L + A = J theory; while right now it's my favorite, and I genuinely believe it's a possibility, I also definitely understand the strong arguments for R + L = J, and while I don't agree with any of the theories that make Ned Jon's father, I think for example that Artanaro's done a good job of championing his view.

The only thing that irritates me is when people either don't read my arguments or misunderstand them, but pooh pooh them anyway.

I figure the upside of being the only one championing a particular view is if it turns out you're right, you can really be obnoxious about what a frickin' genius you are . One time in law school it was me against the entire class on an issue and the others were not kind in expressing that they thought I was full of shite. One guy finally joined my side, but without much enthusiasm. When the prof said I was right, I not only impressed him by having had the right answer, but by having continued to hold my ground even while 30 other people talked smack about how wrong I was--a good skill for someone planning to be a litigator.

Of course if I'd been wrong I'd have made a gold plated fucktard of myself in front of everybody

To me it's worth the risk of having to eat, er, crow, if there's a chance I could be right.

[Artanaro]

Lord Stark, since this topic takes up so much time, this will probably be my last posts. Though I will comment on all the misconceptions you have, but I'll just point them out.

But if Ned swore to Robert that it was his son then he would let it drop. Ned holds his honor high and Robert knows that. If he says it's his and Robert has no proof just how the child looks then I don't think he would kill the child. Sure he might think Ned is lying but without proof he wouldn't risj losing his friend who helped him win the war. Sure maybe Jon isn't the child, and if not maybe she had one that does look Targ but we have nothing that would lead us to believe that.

You mean the same Robert who wanted Dany dead so bad, Eddard had to resign as Hand. If Robert saw a Targaryen in Jon, it would be clear as day to make sense of Lyanna and Rhaegar's child.

But Wylla is not just some random person, she is a servant to House Dayne. If she was part of another house then IU would believe it more that she was just a stranger but because she is of House Dayne I think there is more too it. Also the Daynes have no love for Robert.

Tell me which people in Winterfell besides Ned you would trust with Jon's parentage. Oh yeah. No one . This arguement is weak. You can trust Wylla, but not Catelyn. That makes no sense.

Rhaegar would trust Ashara because Arthur is one of his closest friends. If he said that he could trust his own sister I believe Rhaegar would have faith in her. Also Rhaegar might not of known about Wylla, she could have come after he left for the battle. The point is Arthur was a close and trusted friend of Rhaegar and Arthur would have every reason to think he could trust his own sister. There is nothing that says there was a rift between them.

You still haven't addressed my reasons why Rhaegar wouldn't trust Ashara and why Ashara wouldn't go along.

My thoughts are Rhaegar does not ask for help from Ashara but asks his good old friend who he can trust to help Lyanna. Maybe he knew she was already going to die when he went to battle or maybe not. Either way if Arthur was asked to protect Lyanna and the child he would do so. He wouldn't be able to give the child milk and if he knew Lyanna was going to die he might have asked his sister to send someone she trusts to help him.

It comes back to helping Rhaegar does it not?

The fact that he was her brother and said to be a knight of great skill and honor wouldn't make it too hard to enlist his sisters help. He might have had to tell her everything, which could be why she went into hiding if she is alive. Or he could have asked for her trust, given his word that things weren't as they seemed, and that if he didn't get the help he needed a bhild would die. Elia might have been her close friend, but Arthur is her brother and the thought that a child might die because she does nothing would be alot to bare.

You keep coming back to "blind trust", without giving any explanation why Eddard can't trust Catelyn. It's alright when Arthur does it, but not Eddard. So contrived.

Jon wanted to go to the wall and there was still honor in the Night Watch. Benjen joined i see no reason why it would be hard for Ned to let Jon go. As I said the more people that knew the truth the more risk Jon is in, and it is after all about keeping Jon safe from Robert. Also we don't know what the promise Ned made to Lyanna was. Maybe he told him never to tell who he trully was. Until that is answered it's a little hard to say for sure why Ned would not tell anyone.

Jon is a teenage boy. Eddard was against it, but when faced with Catelyn, he had to agree. Jon is still a boy. It doesn't matter what he thinks he should do. And for that second part I highlighted, you repeat it as if repeating it somehnow makes it true. Rhaegar or Arthur can have blind trust in Wylla and Ashara, while Eddard can't trust his wife when he has reasons to do so. So so contrived (and wrong).

Also I want to add that the feeling to protect somone over rides human nature. I also believe Ned felt the less people that knew the better. Sure Catelyn might not understand but she would get over it. We see after all that she still loved him and that the thoughts pained him, maybe it pained him that he couldn't tell her because even if she loved him there is always, no matter who it is a slight risk the secret will come out.

So now the arguement is Eddard's actions are illogical and make no sense? I don't think so. And still it comes back to the question, Eddard didn't want Jon to go to the wall. All he has to do is say a few words, and Catelyn would be fine keeping him at Winterfell.

Maybe people on the board agree it didn't happen but the people of Westeros think it happened and that is what matters, not what we think because we know more. I'll say it again, the more people that know a secret the better it is to come out.There is nothing you have said that has disproved this and I don't believe you can. Catelyn might have loved Ned more, but Ned couldn't take the risk. You only have one Jon, so only one chance to keep him safe. You won't take any risks no matter how much you love someone. Also as I said up top, Ned keeping the secret could be part of the promise he made.

If only people would say R+L=J was just their opinion I'd be happy, but the theory is so logically weak, but everyone treats it as fact.

Ned didn't know what he was getting into. He was surprised to find the KG there and I bet he was surprised to find a baby. Also Reed was with him and the only other person to live, so of course he knows the secret. He pulled Ned away from Lyanna's dead body. If any others had lived they would know the secret too, but they didn't. Also I said before that Reed is at Greywater Watch in a moving city and his people don't see to be liked by many other then the Starks. So Reed is in no danger of giving away the secret unlike Catelyn whoi lives in a big castle with Jon.

You missed my point. The reason Eddard chose northerners and only northerners was because he needed people he could trust with a secret. As I repeat but no one listens, it's not the number of people you trust, but who you trust.

Well if Wylla was already there then Ned can't just send her away. He needs her to take Jon with him weather he trusts her or not.

1. A loyal servant to House Dayne doing her duty.

2. If she is gone for an extended period and it's normal maybe she was gone before then? Who is to say any other members of House Dayne had seen her in 6 months?

3. As I said above maybe she was away from Starfall for some time, or maybe she is just a large woman and no one would question her being pregnant.

4. If Ashara asked her to do what Arthur asked of her, and she was told to care for and protect the child on the honor of House Dayne then maybe she would. We just don't know enough about her, we know some yes but not enough. She seems to be a loyal member of House Dayne and if Ashara had asked her to serve her brother as she had done so for her then it's not that hard to believe.

Blind trust. Wylla. Ok. Catelyn. Trustworthy. Bad. None of these arguements make Wylla a candidate for participating in such a conspiracy. They're just rationalizations that do not logically add up. But since people like more comments than that, let address each one.

1.) Catelyn is more than a loyal servant. If Qyburn was at the ToJ, would you say Eddard should trust him to?

2.) She suddenly appears out of nowhere after six months and this is fine? No questions asked?

3.) Back to my point. When you are pregnant, you let people know. There is no reason to conceal the fact. It's not too hard to coneal a pregnancy. It's hard to make a baby appear out of nowhere.

4.) Arthur asks Ashara, someone with plenty of motive to hate Rhaegar, to order one of her servants to help out Rhaegar's infidelity. Do you see how this doesn't make sense?

We have no idea how long Wylla has been out of Starfall or much else about her besides what you listed. Maybe she did have a child that died or maybe not. It doesn't matter if eyes were raised because all she has to do is say that the child is her, have Ned say she is the mother and people will drop it. This is Westeros where having a baby isn't something that is given a second thought. Also some women don't start showing until very late and if she was on the road alot maybe no one would notice or maybe like I said above maybe she was large but until we know more there is alot that can be guessed at.

To be a wetnurse, you must have had a baby. And look at the parts I've highlighted. This is so fake and would be the poorest conspiracy of all time if it's true. I do not understand how people can't see this story as being contrived.

Those are not tests. As I said the direwolf does not mean Jon is Neds son. Have you ever been to the ocean? I live on the west coast of Canada and even now a days it's hard to find a body of someone who is thought to have died in the ocean. If she did jump from the a tower of Starfall over the ocean then it's not hard to believe why the body would never be found. Just like Jon isn't a full Stark he isn't a full Targ so there is no reason for dragons. Wylla can have many reason to be involved but we don't know enough about her.

Actually, when you die in the middle of the ocean the body is hard to find. When you die near the coast, it's actually very common for the body to wash up on shore, because of the tide.

We don't know the whole story so of course there is much we don't know yet. These are things that happened and because they happened they made the story. If one of them didn't happen then the story would be different. The direwolf has nothing to do with Lyanna being Jons mother, AND AS I HAVE SAID THE DIREWOLF CAN JUST AS EASY BE HOUSE STARK AND NOT AS YOU THINK JUST "NED". Sorry about that but you keep throwing the direwolf in and it's no proof at all.

Which comes back to my problem with R+L=J every time. There is no evidence to suggest Jon is Eddard son, so for R+L=J to be true, you have to hope Martin gives the reader evidence eventually. This is a poor basis for belief in a theory, when the theory doesn't make sense logically.

Well I don't, if that happened then it happens, but it hasn't yet and so far all we have is Jon. Until I read a book that gives me from to believe other then Jon then I will keep thinking he is Lyanna's son.

This is the cornerstone about my problem R+L=J, there is nothing I can say to change people's mind, because it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But why do people accept this as fact, when they shrug off Tyrion as being the child of Joanna and Aerys. There's the exact same amount of evidence for both.

People choose Jon ONLY, because they refuse to accept the possibility Martin is saving the character for later. It bugs me to no end.

Artanaro

[Lord Stark]

You mean the same Robert who wanted Dany dead so bad, Eddard had to resign as Hand. If Robert saw a Targaryen in Jon, it would be clear as day to make sense of Lyanna and Rhaegar's child.

If you really think Robert would kill a child even if Ned claimed it was his then I can say nothing to change your mind. Robert may have wanted Dany and all Targ dead but he knows Dany is Targ he wouldn't know Jon is one ju8st because he might look like one.

Tell me which people in Winterfell besides Ned you would trust with Jon's parentage. Oh yeah. No one . This arguement is weak. You can trust Wylla, but not Catelyn. That makes no sense.

How many times do I have to say that Arthur would have asked for Wylla not Ned. two different people. Don't expect them to do the same thing. Also Wylla would have already been at the ToJ, last I looked Catelyn wasn't.

You still haven't addressed my reasons why Rhaegar wouldn't trust Ashara and why Ashara wouldn't go along.

I never said Rhaegar would trust her I said her brother would. Rhaegar has every reason to trust Arthur Dayne, he is a King's Guard and a good friend, what more do you need?

It comes back to helping Rhaegar does it not?

Of course Rhaegar would ask for help from Arthur Dayne if he needed it. Arthur Dayne is a KG who serves the royal family, he would do what he needed to aid Rhaegar in anyway he could. I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that a KG and friend of Rhaegar would want to help him.

You keep coming back to "blind trust", without giving any explanation why Eddard can't trust Catelyn. It's alright when Arthur does it, but not Eddard. So contrived.

Why do you keep bring Ned up? This is about Arthur Dayne asking for help not Ned, two different people. Brothers and sisters of the same house will most likely trust someone, why is that hard to believe?

Jon is a teenage boy. Eddard was against it, but when faced with Catelyn, he had to agree. Jon is still a boy. It doesn't matter what he thinks he should do. And for that second part I highlighted, you repeat it as if repeating it somehnow makes it true. Rhaegar or Arthur can have blind trust in Wylla and Ashara, while Eddard can't trust his wife when he has reasons to do so. So so contrived (and wrong).

Ned was not against it. His words are...

"Even a bastard my rise high in the Night's Watch," I took that from the book.

Wow how many times much I say they are brother and sister, surely they have trust in one another. We have no reason to believe there was no trust between Arthur and Ashara. Again I will say Arthur is not Ned. A brother and sister who grow up together must have at least some trust in each other unless there was a falling out, and we don't have any hints there were.

So now the arguement is Eddard's actions are illogical and make no sense? I don't think so. And still it comes back to the question, Eddard didn't want Jon to go to the wall. All he has to do is say a few words, and Catelyn would be fine keeping him at Winterfell.

Ned never says anything about Ned not going to the wall. As I said above he knows a bastard and rise high. Show me something that says Ned doesn't want Ned to go. I also never said Neds actions were illogcal, you brought up the fact that it was not human nature, not me.

If only people would say R+L=J was just their opinion I'd be happy, but the theory is so logically weak, but everyone treats it as fact.

I believe I have said a couple times that there is no proof but only hints. It is not all that weak.

You missed my point. The reason Eddard chose northerners and only northerners was because he needed people he could trust with a secret. As I repeat but no one listens, it's not the number of people you trust, but who you trust.

Yes Ned knows he can only bring people he trust, and what happens? all but one dies, that is another good reason he wouldn't want to tell anyone. This point doesn't matter much about why Ned doesn't tell Cat. He brings people he can trust most likely before he knew the secret. Also doesn't change the fact that the more people that know the easier it is to get out.

Blind trust. Wylla. Ok. Catelyn. Trustworthy. Bad. None of these arguements make Wylla a candidate for participating in such a conspiracy. They're just rationalizations that do not logically add up. But since people like more comments than that, let address each one.

1.) Catelyn is more than a loyal servant. If Qyburn was at the ToJ, would you say Eddard should trust him to?

2.) She suddenly appears out of nowhere after six months and this is fine? No questions asked?

3.) Back to my point. When you are pregnant, you let people know. There is no reason to conceal the fact. It's not too hard to coneal a pregnancy. It's hard to make a baby appear out of nowhere.

4.) Arthur asks Ashara, someone with plenty of motive to hate Rhaegar, to order one of her servants to help out Rhaegar's infidelity. Do you see how this doesn't make sense?

Wylla at the ToJ, Cat not at the ToJ. Ned can't kill the woman and can't make her forget what she has seen. Why is it hard to understand that if Wylla was there before Ned then he had no control over it and had to roll with it.

1. No he wouldn't have to trust him, but he would have to find a way to deal with it.

2. Could be, we don't know enough about her.

3. Just because you don't tell someone doesn't mean you were lying. Many, many woman don't tell people they are with child. Also it can be explain by the fact that she says it's Ned and she wanted to uphold his honor because he is a lord and she is a servant.

4. Arthur asks his sister someone he has reason to trust for help. Arthur asks for help from his sister not Rhaegar. How does that not make sense?

To be a wetnurse, you must have had a baby. And look at the parts I've highlighted. This is so fake and would be the poorest conspiracy of all time if it's true. I do not understand how people can't see this story as being contrived

This is Westeros not Earth where we can get information across the world in seconds. Again this is Westeros, a conspiracy isn't like todays conspiracy.

Actually, when you die in the middle of the ocean the body is hard to find. When you die near the coast, it's actually very common for the body to wash up on shore, because of the tide.

Only part of the time. It's very easy to be dragged out to sea from shore. We have no idea what the day was like, and no idea what the ocean was like on that day. Many, many bodies have been lost at sea from shore.

Which comes back to my problem with R+L=J every time. There is no evidence to suggest Jon is Eddard son, so for R+L=J to be true, you have to hope Martin gives the reader evidence eventually. This is a poor basis for belief in a theory, when the theory doesn't make sense logically.

There is no evidence as I have said many times, I don't know why you keep saying that. There are hints because Jon is so far the only likely person. Until we have reason to believe someone else may be the child at the ToJ then there is logic to believe R+L=J

This is the cornerstone about my problem R+L=J, there is nothing I can say to change people's mind, because it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But why do people accept this as fact, when they shrug off Tyrion as being the child of Joanna and Aerys. There's the exact same amount of evidence for both.

People choose Jon ONLY, because they refuse to accept the possibility Martin is saving the character for later. It bugs me to no end.

Wow what other people believe is not what I believe. I have never said it was fact and if it sounds like I have said it, it is only because we are talking about R+L=J and it is what I believe. Never have I had it is fact.

Also enough evidence that Joanna and Aerys = Tyrion as much as R+L=J? I don't really think so. Do we know those two slept together? I don't think so. Do we know R+L slept together, pretty much, there is a small, small chance they didn't but I don't believe that. Do we have reason to believe that Jon could be is the child of Lyanna? Yes because Ned comes home with a baby after seeing her, and because of the way the sense at the ToJ is. Could Jon not be Lyanna and be Neds? Yes.

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

[jackass]

But why do people accept this as fact, when they shrug off Tyrion as being the child of Joanna and Aerys. There's the exact same amount of evidence for both.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

[BastardSword]

"To be a wetnurse, you must have had a baby."

Actually didn't someone put that to rest already on another thread? Some women lactate without being mothers, in fact, occasionally men lactate. It's hormonal.

Carry on, dudes, I'm sittin' this one out

[Artanaro]

Actually didn't someone put that to rest already on another thread? Some women lactate without being mothers, in fact, occasionally men lactate. It's hormonal.

Just a comment, since I'm a guy I definitely make no point about being an expert on this topic, but lactation, I believe, can be artificially induced. Nevertheless, most wetnurses are women who had a baby around the same time. How common are wetnurses who didn't get pregnant, I don't know. But it definitely seems in Martin's world from what we know, pregnancy and wetnurses go hand in hand, at least from Jon's comments toward's Mance's child (goat milk seems to be the only alternative to Gilly).

Artanaro

[BeanCounter]

I feel like I"m stepping into the crossfire here, even if it is starting to die down now.

Going back to the KG at the ToJ:

Lord Stark said something about the three KG at the tower being the three whom Rhaegar could most trust. So they're supposed to be even more trustworthy than Barristan the Bold? One of the things I don't like about all these theories and backstories that people come up with is that so many people start assuming things about characters that we just don't know anything about. I mean, how can you defend the position that Ser Oswell Whent was a better or a worse swordsman than, say, Jaime Lannister? We don't know anything about Whent, except that he was on Aerys' Kingsguard, took the time to sharpen his sword before fighting Ned's band, and that his house is now gone. That's about everything that we know about him. How trustworthy was he? For that matter, how tall was he? Was he left-handed? Who can tell?

[Lord Stark]

I don't know much about Ser Oswell Whent so I can't really say anything about him. I do recall Ser Arthur being said to have been a close friend to Rhaegar, so there had to be some trust between those two at least. Also it is said somewhere in the books that the KG of that time took an oath when it meant something. My guess is Ser Oswell Whent is alot older then Jamie and he took his oath when it meant something. I think it's been said a couple times that the KG of those days took their oath when it meant something, which leads me to believe they were men the royal family could trust with their lives and anything else. I mean the Targs picked the best knights of Westeros, and then they could not marry, hold lands, or have children so there had to be trust there. But one of the reason I haven't said anything about Ser Oswell Whent, or the other KG who was there is because I can't recall much about them.