Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Angalin

R+L=J v.45

672 posts in this topic

The theory that Wylla was the fisherman's daughter is based on a quote from Mr. Martin saying you can tell where people are from based on their names and the fact that Wyman and Wylla are Manderly names. If she was Eddard's mistress it is not surprising he would find her a position in a far away household where he had good relations after the affair was over.

In other words, the fact that she has served House Dayne for several years does not necessarily mean she was originally from Dorne.

Are you sure GRRM wasn't talking about surnames instead of first names? Because people have the same first names all over the realm there's even a Rhaegar Frey. It makes more sense that he would have been talking about surnames since you can identify what house someone is from by their surname whether bastard or noble which then would indicate the region the house lives in as well. So I don't really see how her first name being Wylla means or indicates in anyway whatsoever that she's not from Dorne? Like I said ppl have the same first names all over the realm now if we knew what her surname was and that it was a name of the North then maybe you could make that assumption, but since we don't i'd say that logic doesn't make much sense.

Ruby, I've read pages and pages of your posts and I'm sorry but I'm still not sure what you're positing here. What is your fundamental opposition to R+L=J?

Also, can I ask what is your opinion of the Tagaryens in the context of the story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon Icefyre, I will look for the quote. I believe he talked about surnames but also mentioned the Targaryen "ae", which only appears in first names.

UVA, when I read A Game of Thrones, I had two theories that are relevant here. First, Jaime Lannister killed Jon Arryn. Second, Rhaegar and Lyanna were Jon Snow's parents.

The Petyr/Lysa revelation in A Storm of Swords seemed cheap because it was out of the blue. But if you look back, the clues were there all along.

It is the same with the Barristan chapter about Ashara in A Dance With Dragons. The Rhaegar/Lyanna story seems right the first time through but actually he has been telling us it was Eddard/Ashara all along. (Or, less likely, that it was Wylla all along.)

As for the Targaryens, they are still a huge influence even if Jon is not one of them. But as I said before, I think Daenerys'' story will converge eventually with Jon's and that will be the song of ice and fire (not ice and fire and more fire).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon Icefyre, I will look for the quote. I believe he talked about surnames but also mentioned the Targaryen "ae", which only appears in first names.

UVA, when I read A Game of Thrones, I had two theories that are relevant here. First, Jaime Lannister killed Jon Arryn. Second, Rhaegar and Lyanna were Jon Snow's parents.

The Petyr/Lysa revelation in A Storm of Swords seemed cheap because it was out of the blue. But if you look back, the clues were there all along.

It is the same with the Barristan chapter about Ashara in A Dance With Dragons. The Rhaegar/Lyanna story seems right the first time through but actually he has been telling us it was Eddard/Ashara all along. (Or, less likely, that it was Wylla all along.)

As for the Targaryens, they are still a huge influence even if Jon is not one of them. But as I said before, I think Daenerys'' story will converge eventually with Jon's and that will be the song of ice and fire (not ice and fire and more fire).

I just told you there was a Frey named Rhaegar and his father's name was Aenys Frey and there's plenty of other non Targs in Westeros past and present that have/had the "ae" in their names like Daegon Shepherd, Daemon Sand, Daemon Velaryon, Aegon Frey, Aemon Constayne, Aemon Estermont, Baelor Blacktyde, Baelor Hightower, among many others, hell there's even a Viserys Plumm(no ae but still Targ sounding). So once again i'm not seeing any real validation that Wylla's first name alone indicates that she's not from Dorne.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Reference guide.

The Tower of the Hand has an excellent analysis of this theory:

Jon Snow's Parents

And Westeros' Citadel also provides a summary:

Jon Snow's Parents

A Wiki of Ice and Fire:

Jon Snow Theories

Frequently Asked Questions:

How can Jon be a Targaryen if he has a burned hand?

Targaryens are not immune to fire. Aerion Brightflame died drinking wildfire. Aegon V and his son Duncan are thought to have died in a fire-related event at Summerhall. Rhaenyra was eaten by Aegon II's dragon, presumably roasted by fire before the dragon took a bite. Viserys died when he was crowned with molten gold. Dany suffered burns from the fire pit incident at the end of A Dance with Dragons. Finally, the author has stated outright that Targaryens are not immune to fire. Jon's burned hand does not mean he is ineligible to be part Targaryen. For more information about the myth of Targ fire immunity, see this thread.

How can Jon be a Targ if he doesn't have silver hair and purple eyes?

Not all Targaryens had the typical Valyrian look. Alysanne had blue eyes. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) had the Dornish look. Some of the Great Bastards did not have typical Valyrian features. Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had her mother's Dornish look.

If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him?

Much is made over the fact that Arya looks like Lyanna, and Jon looks like Arya. Ned and Lyanna shared similar looks.

How can Jon be half-Targ if he has a direwolf?

Ned's trueborn children are half Stark and half Tully. Being half Tully didn't prevent them from having a direwolf so there is no reason to think being half Targaryen would prevent Jon from having a direwolf. If Lyanna is his mother, then he's still half Stark. Furthermore, there is already a character who is half Targaryen and half blood of the First Men and was a skinchanger: Bloodraven.

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?

The evidence that Jon is probably the legitimate is that Targaryens have a history of polygamous marriages which makes it a possibility that Rhaegar had two wives. Three Kingsguards were present at the Tower of Joy when Ned arrived. Even after Ned said that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead and Viserys had fled to Dragonstone, the KG opted to stay at the TOJ stating they were obeying their Kingsguard vow. The heart of a KG vow is to protect the king. With Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon dead, the new king would have been Viserys, unless Lyanna's child was legitimate making him the new king of the Targaryen dynasty. For a comprehensive analysis of Jon's legitimacy, see the detailed explanations in the two linked articles.

This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true?

The theory is not obvious to the majority of readers. Some will get it on first read, most will not. Keep in mind that readers who go to online fan forums, such as this one, represent a very small minority of the ASOIAF readership. Also, A Game of Throneshas been out since 1996. That's more than 15 years of readers being able to piece together this mystery.

Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother?

Ned doesn't think about anyone being his mother. He says the name 'Wylla' to Robert, but does not actively think that Wylla is the mother. He also doesn't think of Jon as his son. There are numerous mysteries in the series, and Jon's parentage is one of those. If Ned thought about Jon being Lyanna's son, it would not be a mystery.

Why should we care who Jon's parents are? Will Jon care? Who cares if he's legitimate?

Once one accepts that the evidence is conclusive and that Jon's parents are Rhaegar and Lyanna and that he is most probably legitimate, these become the important questions.

Quote

Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread” (thread one)

Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread” (thread two)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon thread (Part III)” (thread three)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon thread (Part IV)” (thread four)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part V)” (thread five)

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part VI)” (thread six)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon Thread Part VII” (thread seven)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part VIII” (thread eight)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part IX” (thread nine)

The Rhaegar + Lyanna =Jon Thread, Part X”(thread ten)

The R+L=J thread, part XI” (thread eleven)

The R+L=J thread, part XII” (thread twelve)

R+L=J Part XXIII” (thread thirteen)

R+L=J Part XXIV” (thread fourteen)

R+L=J XXV” (thread fifteen)

R+L=J v.16” (thread sixteen)

R+L=J v.17” (thread seventeen)

R+L=J v.18” (thread eighteen)

R+L=J v.19” (thread nineteen)

R+L=J v.20” (thread twenty)

R+L=J v.21” (thread twenty-one)

R+L=J v.22” (thread twenty-two)

R+L=J v.22a” (thread 22a)

R+L=J v.23” (thread twenty-three)

R+L=J v.24” (thread twenty-four)

R+L=J v.25” (thread twenty-five)

R+L=J v.26” (thread twenty-six)

R+L=J v.27” (thread twenty-seven)

R+L=J v.28” (thread twenty-eight)

R+L=J v.29” (thread twenty-nine)

R+L=J v.30” (thread thirty)

R+L=J v.31” (thread thirty-one)

R+L=J v.32” (thread thirty-two)

R+L=J #33” (thread thirty-three)

R+L=J v.34” (thread thirty-four)

R+L=J v.35” (thread thirty-five)

R+L=J v.36” (thread thirty-six)

R+L=J v.37” (thread thirty-seven)

R+L=J v.38” (thread thirty-eight)

R+L=J v.39” (thread thirty-nine)

"R+L=J v.40" (thread forty)

R+L=J v. 41 (thread forty-one)

R+L=J v.42 (thread forty-two)

R+L=J v. 43 (thread forty-three)

R+L=J v.44 (thread forty-four)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must agree with Jon Icefyre on this argument. First names mean nothing when it comes to heritage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must agree with Jon Icefyre on this argument. First names mean nothing when it comes to heritage.

It's also in Jon Icefyre's name, Jon not alone held to the North, you also have the name Edric, seen in Dorne and the Storm Lands. Bot I don't think that is true for all names, like in the real world you probably have common names, Robert, Arthur, Jamie, Brandon, Jon, and then you probably also have regional names and family names. Not all are limited to one area.

Martin gave us the time of Jon's birth to within a month. I highly doubt Wylla was riding around with Ned while she was 8-9 months pregnant, giving birth or having just birthed Jon. In order for Wylla to get south Ned would have had to have brought her with him for no reason at all. Or sent her to Starfall for no reason at all, then took her son away from her for no reason at all. The Dayne's would have then taken in the mistress of the man who broke Ashara Dayne's heart for no reason. To me Wylla does not add up, at all, in any way shape or form. I think she knows who Jon's mother is though, as well as house Dayne. He didn't send Cat on any long road trips with Robb when she was late in pregnancy or when Robb was first born. Cat got to Winterfell after Ned returned with Jon. Given distance and a stop or two I know Ned made. Your talking about 5 or 6 months afer Robb was born as a rough guess, could have been a litle sooner or even a lot later than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory that Wylla was the fisherman's daughter is based on a quote from Mr. Martin saying you can tell where people are from based on their names and the fact that Wyman and Wylla are Manderly names.

I don't get this though. The fisherman and his daughter were from the Fingers. The Manderly's are from the North, by way of the Mander, in the Reach.

Not to mention there appears to be no regional exclusively with other Manderly names; there are non-Manderly Wyman's (Wyman Webber) and non-Manderly Wendel's (Wendel Frey).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one assumption I want to challenge.

Is the Wylla that Robert Bartheon speaks of the same Wylla that was Jon's milk mother?

Was "Wylla" the real name of this woman? Was the "fisherman's daughter" really a fisherman's daughter?

Could the information those characters have been operating under been in fact aliases and disguises?

If Lenore is Ashara, could this not in fact be the first time she assumed an identity that was not her own?

The timeline would be Ashara sneaks away from Casterly Rock to see Ned in the Vale as "Wylla" (common name she is familiar with). Possibly because of Aerys's instability. The Brandon/Aerys incident occurs. Ashara accompanies Ned up to the point where she has to catch passage south to Starfall (pregnant, posing as a fisherman's daughter), where upon she meets Ned again around the time of the Tower of Joy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one assumption I want to challenge.

Is the Wylla that Robert Bartheon speaks of the same Wylla that was Jon's milk mother?

Was "Wylla" the real name of this woman? Was the "fisherman's daughter" really a fisherman's daughter?

Could the information those characters have been operating under been in fact aliases and disguises?

If Lenore is Ashara, could this not in fact be the first time she assumed an identity that was not her own?

The timeline would be Ashara sneaks away from Casterly Rock to see Ned in the Vale as "Wylla" (common name she is familiar with). Possibly because of Aerys's instability. The Brandon/Aerys incident occurs. Ashara accompanies Ned up to the point where she has to catch passage south to Starfall (pregnant, posing as a fisherman's daughter), where upon she meets Ned again around the time of the Tower of Joy.

When was she ever at Casterly Rock? This theory is 100% speculation and based off of no evidence whatsoever in the book to suggest this. So you're "challenge" isn't really a challenge as far as this thread's standards go because you're not basing it off any textual evidence therefore there's really no point in arguing with someone that is making everything up in their head and then trying to pass it as a legitimate theory. What you're doing is crackpot in it's crackiest form, it's a known fact that Ned had to sneak out of the vale to avoid loyalists still in the Vale as that was during the earliest stage of the rebellion, so do you really think Ned would risk bringing a pregnant Ashara with him? No nobleborn pregnant woman is going to be traveling all over Westeros as you're suggesting Ashara was doing. Anyone can say, "Oh well this theory works if this person was actually pretending to be this person blah blah blah." But where's you're proof?

You're trying so hard to create something out of nothing in order to disprove R+L=J to the point where now you're trying to say Ashara was pretending to be Wylla for the sake of creating you're own made up convenient situation where Ned could have impregnated Ashara in order to validate you're own theory, when the truth is we already eliminated the whole Wylla=the fisherman's daughter theory to begin with. It is never once stated in the books that the fisherman's daughter's name was Wylla and I provided the quote to prove it in the last thread R+L=J 44 maybe you should go back and read it. The whole Wylla being the fisherman's daughter is solely from fan speculation based off of some misunderstood interpretation of what GRRM might have meant in an interview about ppl's first names when in reality he was most likely talking about surnames, so some fans think Wylla's first name tells us she's not from Dorne. But the first name, which I already established at the end of thread 44 and the beginning of this thread does not guarantee where someone's from in Westeros in the slightest.

So you're whole Ashara being Wylla theory doesn't work at all because from what we know so far in the series, there's no one in the Vale that actually thinks the fisherman's daughter's name was Wylla to begin with. Edric Dayne believes Wylla is his wetnurse and the mother of Jon snow so obviously Edric knows a woman named Wylla. Wylla and the fisherman's daughter are two seperate ppl not the same person...If you're trying to disprove R+L=J then creating theories that are purely based off of you're own speculation is not the way to do it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get this though. The fisherman and his daughter were from the Fingers. The Manderly's are from the North, by way of the Mander, in the Reach.

Not to mention there appears to be no regional exclusively with other Manderly names; there are non-Manderly Wyman's (Wyman Webber) and non-Manderly Wendel's (Wendel Frey).

Some theories are resistant to any amount of basic logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

Jon Icefyre, I will look for the quote. I believe he talked about surnames but also mentioned the Targaryen "ae", which only appears in first names.

I believe this is what Ruby Chevrolet refers to :

If you want to figure out a family's descent, the names are a better clue than the eyes. Houses descended from the First Men tend to have simple short names, often descriptive. Stark. Reed. Flint. Tallhart (tall hart). Etc. The Valyrian names are fairly distinct are well: The "ae" usage usually suggests a Valyrian in the family tree. The Andal names are . . . well, neith Stark nor Targaryen, if that makes sense. Lannister. Arryn. Tyrell. Etc. Of course, you also need to remember that there have been hundreds and in some cases thousands of years of interbreeding, so hardly anyone is pure Andal or First Man. “

The whole chat can be found here : http://web.archive.org/web/20010627095925/http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/2000/georgerrmartin.html (from The Citadel)

He is actually speaking about origins, whether a house descends from the First Men or the Andals or Valyria, nothing about first names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some theories are resistant to any amount of basic logic.

Haha ain't that the truth. :bang:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is what Ruby Chevrolet refers to :

If you want to figure out a family's descent, the names are a better clue than the eyes. Houses descended from the First Men tend to have simple short names, often descriptive. Stark. Reed. Flint. Tallhart (tall hart). Etc. The Valyrian names are fairly distinct are well: The "ae" usage usually suggests a Valyrian in the family tree. The Andal names are . . . well, neith Stark nor Targaryen, if that makes sense. Lannister. Arryn. Tyrell. Etc. Of course, you also need to remember that there have been hundreds and in some cases thousands of years of interbreeding, so hardly anyone is pure Andal or First Man. “

The whole chat can be found here : http://web.archive.o...gerrmartin.html (from The Citadel)

He is actually speaking about origins, whether a house descends from the First Men or the Andals or Valyria, nothing about first names.

Not to mention the fact that the only names he is mentioning are the surnames which is what I highly suspected all along. Thanks for showing us this link, it's really helpful much appreciated :thumbsup:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is what Ruby Chevrolet refers to :

If you want to figure out a family's descent, the names are a better clue than the eyes. Houses descended from the First Men tend to have simple short names, often descriptive. Stark. Reed. Flint. Tallhart (tall hart). Etc. The Valyrian names are fairly distinct are well: The "ae" usage usually suggests a Valyrian in the family tree. The Andal names are . . . well, neith Stark nor Targaryen, if that makes sense. Lannister. Arryn. Tyrell. Etc. Of course, you also need to remember that there have been hundreds and in some cases thousands of years of interbreeding, so hardly anyone is pure Andal or First Man. “

The whole chat can be found here : http://web.archive.org/web/20010627095925/http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/2000/georgerrmartin.html (from The Citadel)

He is actually speaking about origins, whether a house descends from the First Men or the Andals or Valyria, nothing about first names.

Thank you. That is the quote. The reason I say he is talking about first names (as well as last names) is he mentions the Valyrian "ae". There is no "ae" in Targaryen but there is in Aegon, Maelys, Rhaella, Daenerys, Rhaegar, Aerys, Daemon, Baelor, Aemon etc. in other words, first names not last names.

More importantly, it is logical that names would trickle down from the area nobility to the commoners, and the Fingers, the Sisters and White Harbor are all on the same bay. So a fisherman plying his trade in that bay might very well name his daughter after the nobles in any of those three places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. That is the quote. The reason I say he is talking about first names (as well as last names) is he mentions the Valyrian "ae". There is no "ae" in Targaryen but there is in Aegon, Maelys, Rhaella, Daenerys, Rhaegar, Aerys, Daemon, Baelor, Aemon etc. in other words, first names not last names.

More importantly, it is logical that names would trickle down from the area nobility to the commoners, and the Fingers, the Sisters and White Harbor are all on the same bay. So a fisherman plying his trade in that bay might very well name his daughter after the nobles in any of those three places.

Are you really still trying to argue this ridiculous theory? As I said before there's a Frey named Aenys for godsake and the Frey towers are not in KL/the crownlands are they? But based on you're definition Aenys must be a Targ or someone from KL to have "ae" in his name when in reality he's just a Frey. People have the same names all over, perhaps the "ae" was more distinctive immediately after Aegon's landing but after centuries of having the Targs around ppl started to use their customary first names as their own so by the time of the rebellion ppl from all over the realm had names with "ae" in them infact I gave you several names of non-Targs that had/have "ae" in their names in my earlier posts. The Manderlys aren't the only ones that have first names that start with Wy, Danwell Frey's wife is Wynafrei Whent which means she's from the Riverlands not the North or the Vale so how do you explain that one? Wyman Webber was a Blackfyre loyalist back in the day that hailed from the Reach how do you explain that one? There's even a house Wyl of the Boneway in Dorne. Like I said people have the same type of names all over it's not one region exclusive so the fact that Wylla's name starts with "Wy" does not mean she's not from Dorne in the slightest. You're trying to find any little possible detail no matter how insignificant it is to support this ridiculous theory when there's really nothing there to find.

Infact the whole basis of you're reasoning for Wylla being the fisherman's daughter is the fact that her name starts with "Wy" do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Also you said earlier that it would make sense for Ned to find his mistress a place far away with a House he had good relations with, yet it's believed that Ashara committed suicide and it's a fact that Ned killed Arthur Dayne so how exactly would he have had good relations with House Dayne again? Why would House Dayne randomly decide to employ a non-Dornish woman they have never met and is the baby mama of the man who killed Arthur Dayne? What's the point of taking her from the Vale to Dorne? If he would have decided to send her during the war well don't you think that's more than a little risky to send a pregant woman from the Vale to Dorne in a time of war? Even if he waited until after the war again why is there a need to take her out of the Vale, and there's no way Ned brought her from camp to camp with him that would have been beyond risky. Anyway you slice it this theory does not add up or make sense at all so please just drop it.

Sure ppl can say the fisherman's daughter theory in general still stands I have no problem with that even though I don't think it's true. But I will not acknowledge Wylla being the fisherman's daughter as the books make it pretty clear that they are two different/seperate people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one assumption I want to challenge.

Is the Wylla that Robert Bartheon speaks of the same Wylla that was Jon's milk mother?

Was "Wylla" the real name of this woman? Was the "fisherman's daughter" really a fisherman's daughter?

Could the information those characters have been operating under been in fact aliases and disguises?

If Lenore is Ashara, could this not in fact be the first time she assumed an identity that was not her own?

The timeline would be Ashara sneaks away from Casterly Rock to see Ned in the Vale as "Wylla" (common name she is familiar with). Possibly because of Aerys's instability. The Brandon/Aerys incident occurs. Ashara accompanies Ned up to the point where she has to catch passage south to Starfall (pregnant, posing as a fisherman's daughter), where upon she meets Ned again around the time of the Tower of Joy.

Ah. a little problem here: Ned is staying not in the Vale as such but Erie, and I would very much like to see how someone sneaks in there, or how Ned inconspicuously sneaks out to have a tryst (not to mention that someone of Ashara's stunning looks would have great trouble disguising herself not to draw attention and especially, not be recognized). Furthermore, since this supposed fling would have happened before Ned's marriage to Catelyn, it would invalidate Ned's claim that he dishonoured Catelyn when she was already pregnant, i.e. after they married, and doesn't fit in the timeline for Jon being younger than Robb.

Thank you. That is the quote. The reason I say he is talking about first names (as well as last names) is he mentions the Valyrian "ae". There is no "ae" in Targaryen but there is in Aegon, Maelys, Rhaella, Daenerys, Rhaegar, Aerys, Daemon, Baelor, Aemon etc. in other words, first names not last names.

More importantly, it is logical that names would trickle down from the area nobility to the commoners, and the Fingers, the Sisters and White Harbor are all on the same bay. So a fisherman plying his trade in that bay might very well name his daughter after the nobles in any of those three places.

And with the Manderlys coming originally from the Reach, which is just above Dorne, the name Wylla might actually have originated down there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. That is the quote. The reason I say he is talking about first names (as well as last names) is he mentions the Valyrian "ae". There is no "ae" in Targaryen but there is in Aegon, Maelys, Rhaella, Daenerys, Rhaegar, Aerys, Daemon, Baelor, Aemon etc. in other words, first names not last names.

More importantly, it is logical that names would trickle down from the area nobility to the commoners, and the Fingers, the Sisters and White Harbor are all on the same bay. So a fisherman plying his trade in that bay might very well name his daughter after the nobles in any of those three places.

He is not talking about first names or surnames. He talks of origins, but because he doesn’t share Tolkien’s gift for languages (as he has admitted) this is the best way he offers in order to distinguish the genres of First Men, Valyrians and Andals. He doesn’t speak of this or that region of Westeros and how to determine where an individual comes from.

I should say that I am not a R+L=J supporter myself but I respect the theory as it is well structure and all other theories that have some basis, but I have the feeling that sometimes while debating you stretch your arguments too much to support your case. I don’t want to be offensive or anything but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is not talking about first names or surnames. He talks of origins, but because he doesn’t share Tolkien’s gift for languages (as he has admitted) this is the best way he offers in order to distinguish the genres of First Men, Valyrians and Andals. He doesn’t speak of this or that region of Westeros and how to determine where an individual comes from.

I should say that I am not a R+L=J supporter myself but I respect the theory as it is well structure and all other theories that have some basis, but I have the feeling that sometimes while debating you stretch your arguments too much to support your case. I don’t want to be offensive or anything but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

No offense taken.

Think about it like this. If a common boy named Hoster shows up and you have to guess where he is from, what will you say?

Or like this. Most people assume the Wylla Eddard mentions to Robert (as the common woman who gave him a bastard) and the one mentioned by Edric Dayne are the same woman. Why? Otherwise it is a big coincidence.

Now, you might say it's a coincidence that the only other Wylla in the story is a noblewoman from White Harbor, and you might be right. But I don't think it is a coincidence. I think it is a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense taken.

Think about it like this. If a common boy named Hoster shows up and you have to guess where he is from, what will you say?

Or like this. Most people assume the Wylla Eddard mentions to Robert (as the common woman who gave him a bastard) and the one mentioned by Edric Dayne are the same woman. Why? Otherwise it is a big coincidence.

Now, you might say it's a coincidence that the only other Wylla in the story is a noblewoman from White Harbor, and you might be right. But I don't think it is a coincidence. I think it is a clue.

What how is it a big coincidence? It's pretty simple Ned and Wylla agree to make up the cover story that she's Jon's mother, they then tell house Dayne about it, and when Robert asks Ned the name of Jon's mother Ned simply gives him Wylla's name like Ned and Wylla would have previously agreed on when they decided to make a cover story so what's so coincidental about that? Once again you're tying ridiculously hard to create something out of absolutely nothing. The fact that you're inerpreting two ppl saying that Wylla is Jon's mother as this somehow being a clue that Wylla is two different people just shows how much you're tying to squeeze reasoning into this theory and i'm sorry but it's not working....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UVA, when I read A Game of Thrones, I had two theories that are relevant here. First, Jaime Lannister killed Jon Arryn. Second, Rhaegar and Lyanna were Jon Snow's parents.

The Petyr/Lysa revelation in A Storm of Swords seemed cheap because it was out of the blue. But if you look back, the clues were there all along.

This is a poor analogy. Jaime and Cersei are openly stated to be suspects in Jon Arryn's murder. Their analogs in the arguments over Jon's parentage would be Ashara, Wylla, and the fisherman's daughter, not Rhaegar and Lyanna. And by your own logic, we can expect that George will veer away from the options that are openly stated in the books, and go for something that is only hinted at, i.e. R+L=J.

Or like this. Most people assume the Wylla Eddard mentions to Robert (as the common woman who gave him a bastard) and the one mentioned by Edric Dayne are the same woman. Why? Otherwise it is a big coincidence.

Ned mentions a woman named Wylla who is said to be Jon's mother. Edric mentions a woman named Wylla who is said to be Jon's mother. Yes, it is such a mystery why people would think they're the same person. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.