corbon

Riiiight. So the victorious rebels are going to announce to the world that Aerys named Viserys his heir. because thats important for their westeros to know. Or Aerys is going to be proclaiming to all westeros that he's just suffered a catastrophic defeat and loss and Rhaegar is dead and Viserys is the new heir over Aegon. But the rebels aren't going to announce that Aerys and Rhaegar and Aegon are dead "because that makes them 'butchery". Never mind that its provides a good reason for 'loyalists' around the continent to lay down their arms and stop fighting. There's nothing left worth supporting. Its funny how its always everyone else who is naive and simplistic...

Heh, we old timers don't just come here to argue amongst ourselves, though sometimes it feels like it. Most of us with relatively well-informed opinions didn't come by those opinions alone, but through much discussion and help from the observations and viewpoints of others. Even after more than a decade of sometimes intense discussion and argument, new ideas or points still come forth from time to time, altering our 'westerosi-worldview'. For example its only in the last couple of months through a discussion in this forum that I learned the grey girl in Melisandre's visions (that she thinks is Arya) actually fits Lyanna Stark extremely well, something I'd never considered before. Its only fair to help others along the same pathway.

It isn't. Not everything has to be explicit in the text. But things should agree or fit with what is in the text Ned didn't have a bastard when he raised the siege of Storms End No one mentioned that and there is no indication or clue anywhere that he might have done so, and it would be remarkable. Ned didn't have a bastard when he fought at the ToJ (Dorne), though only Ned and Howland and us know that. From there he went to Starfall (Dorne) and then left Dorne. The next place after Starfall he is known is Winterfell, where his bastard is first remarked upon by others (Cat said he was already there when she arrived). Based on that alone, it could be argued that Jon was born somewhere between ToJ and Winterfell. However, thats not all the relevant information. We know that the people of Winterfell speculated that Jon's mother, whom they never met, was Ashara Dayne. This shows that Jon was not born in Winterfell, but acquired by Ned before he came back to Winterfell. That points back to Dorne, as that was where Ned was before he went back to Winterfell - he may have stopped in other places along the way but thats not known. Even his reconciling with Robert may have been later. Then you add in the Dayne stories, about Ashara and Ned being in love, and Wylla, now a Starfallian wetnurse of long standing, being Jon's mother. These stories point to Jon being around Ned at or before Starfall - They know Ashara is not the mother but tie Jon to a woman residing in Dorne. Robert's conversation with Ned further ties Jon to a woman in Dorne, Wylla. Cersei's wild scattergun accusations show a consistent thread - Ned's bastard came from the south/Dorne. Every piece of evidence we have from any direction points to Jon being born in Dorne, and thats not addressing any of the R+L=J and ToJ stuff. So far the best fitting theory we have (though not all agree, even though none show good reason to disagree) is that Jon was born at ToJ, and likely Wylla was already there as a dornish wetnurse procured for Lyanna by Arthur Dayne. Wylla is the most promising candidate for the, or one of the, 'they' who found Ned holding Lyanna along with Howland Reed (HR can't be a 'they' on his own). Continuing the theory, Wylla stayed on with Ned as Jon's wetnurse, they went to Starfall together where Ned returned Dawn to the Daynes. This explains the Dayne's belief that Wylla is Jon's mother - she arrived together with Ned already nursing Jon. It also can explain Robert's belief in Wylla as the mother even without Ned telling him so - there can be no doubt that he had a report about Ned's trip there - Varys would have been needing to show his value as Master of Whisperers. If Wylla continued as wetnurse all the way to Winterfell, then when her role there had ended she returned to Starfall. Given how important the sword Dawn is to the Daynes, they owe a huge huge debt to Ned for returning it and would take Wylla on at his recommendation even if she wasn't originally an Arthur Dayne recruit. The short version is that its clear Ned had Jon before he got to Winterfell, the only known places Ned has been since he didn't have Jon are in Dorne, and all the clues from all sources except the impossible and highly unreliable Fisherman's daughter rumour, point back to Dorne. You've explained what you think, my point is that your explanation doesn't actually fit all the examples, nor does it fit the things GRRM has said about similar matters (inheritance, etc). As with most legal matter in Westeros, the answer is that there is no consistent system, just an underlying set of customs (for which your system is as good an idea as any) which are followed, or not followed according to the convenience of those involved. Glendon Flowers doesn't actually fit. Penny Jenny's origins are not known. She might have been from the Reach, but sleeping with a Reach Knight - among dozens of other men in an army containing men from all of westeros, doesn't make her from the Reach. Since the battle was supposedly near KL, and she remained in KL after the battle, its marginally more likely she was from the Crownlands, though even thats not much more than a best guess either. Assuming low probability unknowns (the Reach s one of 9 potential regions, and not the most likely), then using them to argue your case, hurts your arguments, not helps them. While this may be the reason Edric is named Storm, we don't know. I think it probably is. Same with Mya and several others. You can't use these as 'proof' of your system. They correlate with your system, but there is no indication that they are anything other than a correlation. We aren't told 'why' that name was chosen for them. I think it is prudent to acknowledge and apply what GRRM said about inheritance here, rather than trying to find a rigid system. I think that perfectly fits what we see in bastard names.

There isn't a coherent and consistent system. Bastards (who have them) mostly get their second names from where they were raised - the people around them deciding what to call them - and if they get the second same at all. Thats mostly by the mother's origin because its natural for a child to be raised where its mother is and most mothers don't shift regions, but not always. And a powerful father can change that too. Probably a clever and unscrupulous individual can change it for themselves to if they go to a new place. Frankly the whole thing is based on the convenience of those around them, IMO. This is custom, not rule or law. I think Mya is a Stone because she was raised in the vale and not 'claimed' (acknowledged) by Robert. People knew she was Robert's bastard, so she got a second name, they couldn't name call her Storm because he didn't acknowledge her, so they called her Stone. She's from the Reach. Edric is a Storm because either or both of his father acknowledged him and he was raised in the Stormlands. I think Robert acknowledging him would have more 'power' of the two in defining his name. Either way, its most convenient for those around him and involved that he be called Storm. I think in this case this is right - their father being 'known' didn't over-ride the mothers location because he was such a lecher that it made things simpler at court to differentiate by the mother's location - Aegon IV didn't care, and it was their mother's status as mistresses that gave them their place at court, so it works better to tie them to their mothers. Convenience to the people involved, no hard and fast rule. I think the Flowers name is given to him by his mother regardless of where she came from, to tie him to his father. Convenience to the mother, not by 'rule', IMO. And no one is there to deny her. Snow because he was raised as Ned's and in Winterfell. Sand Snakes are Sand's because Oberyn claims them. Convenience. Bittersteel and Bloodraven don't fit. They were Aegon's bastards, acknowledged and known by all as such. The Hull brother's don't fit. They didn't even get a name, because it wasn't convenient for those around them. Tyrion Tanner isn't Waters, despite his mother being a noble Stokeworth and his father unknown, because its more convenient (amusing) for Bronn to name him Tanner.

Why is mine 'just in my head' despite exactly fitting all examples and yours, un-evidenced in the text, and literally counter-textual in the Sansa-Mya instance, not 'just in your head'? The only difference between mine and yours is the formal part. For which there is no evidence or indication independent of what fits mine. At least mine works in all cases. No, you just have the name branding system wrong, as shown by @Megorova. See. Out of your own mouth. Your 'system' doesn't actually fit known examples, but its GRRM that is wrong, not your system? I know its most likely you're just going to be more pissed and more snide at my answers, but its just possible you'll actually pay attention and re-examine. Its mostly coherent, you just have it wrong. Like most things 'legal' in Westeros its not entirely consistent and varies from case to case. Oh I didn't say its impossible. Its just amusing that you think it reasonable enough not to surprise you. Of course. You're right or he's wrong. No other possibility exists. There's more to it than that. She looked like him, he'd fucked her mother 9 months before she was born. People have brains. They can 'know' stuff without literal proof. Throwing out stupid straw men examples doesn't help you. Yep, just as predicted. Sansa, who is a social snob, doesn't understand the social customs she uses. But you have a 'system' and its always right, even when its contradicted by the books. The books and the people in them are wrong. Riiiight. Sansa thinks Mya, who is widely known to have a common mother, is unacknowledged, but has a second name anyway. And the implication is that you only get a name if a nobleman acknowledges you. Black is white and white is black. Whatever is needed to keep you 'right'. Well, I admit I left out some other rather obvious bits. I expect people to understand those. Indeed. Because their father wasn't interested in acknowledging them at that time. Taking the Waters name would have implicated a powerful Lord who didn't want to be involved. So they didn't. Thats those flexible customs thing going on. I thought the idea of someone ignoring the other unstated parts (she looked like Robert and Robert fucked her mama 9 months before she was born) was ludicrous. Except it wasn't obvious to almost anyone around Gendry. Gendry wasn't receiving funds himself, he didn't have 'spending money'or anything, Varys was secretly covering him with Tobho Mott and only Varys and Mott knew that most likely, at least until Jon Arryn. Varys wasn't telling and Mott may or may not know exactly who Varys is covering for but also isn't telling. Its not exactly good business to advertise Robert's bastard's with Cersei's range. Its only 'obvious' to noblemen who know Robert personally and have been directed in Gendry's direction. They aren't the people naming Gendry.

There is no such formal or religious event shown or referenced for any bastard in Westeros. Its not possible to create 'proof' out of two separate stories by connecting them. The connection, at least the 'proving' part, is entirely made up. pffft. Too specific? Ned picked up his bastard in Dorne. He went to Dorne without one and came back with one. Even an utter moron can narrow down (rightly or wrongly) 'some peasant woman' to 'some Dornish peasant woman' without hearing any 'rumour' about the mother. Cersei didn't 'think' anything. She just knew Ned had a bastard from Dorne (and had obviously heard a rumour or two about Ashara Dayne) and threw a bunch of generic accusations against Ned to show his 'hypocrisy'. Agreed. Cersei's brain. Ned went to Dorne without a child, came back with a bastard. Ergo the mother was probably a dornish woman, whether whore, peasant, rape victim, or some young noblewoman. The difference between them is that Mya's mother was a commoner, Edric's a noblewoman. No 'formal' acknowledgement or process is ever noted. Robert did acknowledge Edric, unlike Mya, but there is no indication of it being a formal or religious ceremony or anything like that. No, it does not. Jon's status is not like Edric's. Mya and Jon (assumed) are baseborn. Edric is nobly born on both sides. Edric has higher status. The only reason Jon has any status at all is that he has been brought up in Ned's household and treated like Ned's son. But that status doesn't seem to be a formal thing. Jon gets respect as Ned's bastard and for his upbringing, but no formal 'standing' expcet as convenient for others. If Robert brought Maya into his household like Ned did to Jon, and called her daughter, she's have status similar to Jon but still significantly less than Edric. https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/The_Hornwood_Inheritance_and_the_Whents Its all an unclear mess, is the short summary. I don't see anything more required to 'acknowledge' a bastard than a man call the child his. No formal or legal ceremony is ever mentioned or discussed. Robert acknowledged Edric, because the mother was a noble maiden so it would have been an even greater dishonour to her if he did not. Robert did not acknowledge Mya as his own, but many people around them 'knew' she was his anyway. Robert did not acknowledge Gendry, and almost no one around them knows Gendry is his. Or Bella, for example. Yeah, lets have 13 (or younger) year old Benjen Stark getting the beautiful young courtier, sister of Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning who dances with her brother (at least 21 yrs old), with Lord Jon Connington (20ish year old ruling Lord), Oberyn Martell (23ish and already known as the Red Viper) and hangs out with Brandon Stark (heir, 20ish) pregnant. Always good to see someone who knows more about the unwritten (by GRRM) rules of Westeros than the people GRRM writes who live there. Sansa knows her name is Stone. Yet she still thinks her unacknowledged. Sansa is not stupid. The clear indication is that it is not 'acknowledgement' that gives baseborn children the extra name. Its simply general usage and what is 'known'. Just Robert hanging around with her is enough for people to give her the name, and her to keep it thereafter. The Hull boys grew up with no contact or acknowledgement from their noble parent. So they didn't get a last name to keep. Agreed. Sure we do. Its pretty damn simple. Mya gets the name Stone because Robert came and visited her a lot when she was a child and it was clear to those around them that she was his daughter even though he didn't acknowledge her as such. People gave her the name and thus she kept it. Gendry doesn't get the name as Robert didn't visit him and only a few secretive people know he was Robert's bastard. most people just assume he's double-baseborn, so to speak.

Not quite. I'm not assuming that there was any 'affirmation' of Jon. Period. Nothing formal in any way at all. There is no indication at any time in any way of any such 'event'. Instead I'm assuming Ned just treated Jon as his son and instructed others to do so the same as and when necessary. Thus his dishonouring Cat in the sight f gods and men happens when he gets to Winterfell. He's not done anything public or formal at Starfall - why would he? I greatly doubt he does anything public or formal at Winterfell either, but the mere fact of him having Jon treated as his son is in effect dishonouring both himself and Cat. At starfall, its much less of a thing. But at Winterfell thats a big deal. You'll have to show an affirmation event. You can't. If you examine them as individual things, its quite clear and obvious they are individual things. Its only because you've already tied them i your mind that you can't separate them. There is no extended romance. Harwin's entire 'rumour' that he heard, and doesn't believe, is about a thing at Harrenhal, nowhere else. 'Nought like a tourney', 'words whispered in a tent', 'spring had come'. The entire circumference of what Harwin is talking about is the Tourney at Harrenhal, not before, not after. The rest is bullshit people invent to grasp at theories that have no real basis. No. This is silly. These are not a bunch of separate rumours Cersei has heard, that she's counting off. They are simply wild stabs in the dark she's making up from her own general knowledge. She was familiar with the court and keeping tabs on court machinations and people, especially around Rhaegar whom she hoped to be married to. No doubt she was aware of Ashara's demise from court and the general rumour of her death situation. She may have even heard a rumour connecting Ashara to Ned, either from Harrenhal or Ned's visit, or she might have just done that herself, I don;t think it matters in the slightest either way. The other two options are clearly just 'possibilities' that are generic for a Lord in Ned's situation. I think further analysis of the genesis of these ideas is simply people trying to be so clever they can't see their own foolishness - which can happen to me too, nothing personal here.

To be fair, the information that there was no body is evidence, of a kind, that she may not be dead after all. It creates a much stronger possibility that stories of her death are incorrect, than if we hadn't been informed that no body was found. But this is not absence of evidence being evidence. Its an actual data point, evidence that the other evidence we have (rumours or tales) may be significantly less strong than it appears. Harwin, nor his rumour, never addresses any end to it. There was no stain on Ned's honour to that particular part of any rumour. Other rumours, or parts of rumours, which may have stains were not addressed at all. It is a fallacy, and blatantly incorrectly, to assume that rumours of Ned and Ashara romancing at Harrenhal are not separate from rumours of Ned and Ashara creating Jon. They may be connected, but they are two different things at different times. And Robert. Ned implies it and Robert clearly takes up the implication. So anyone else who's been involved will have the same perspective. Thats more indications than the other direction which has zero people even implying that Jon is older than Robb. I agree, as it happens. But Ned goes further than this, explicitly That is clearly a reference to the conception. By the time he publicly claimed Jon as his own at Winterfell, and committed his dishonor, Robb had already been born and Cat was no longer 'carrying' him. By stating that he committed the dishonour after he married her, he is implying that Jon is younger than Robb. He didn;t directly address the conception, but his statement doesn;t work for when he met Cat at Winterfell. Agreed, more or less. I don't think there was any affirmative under oath or anything, just letting the world, especially Winterfellians and Cat, believe Jon was his son, does the trick for me. I don't agree that we can dismiss the obvious wider implications. Its clear that Robert takes the implication that its his marriage vows that Ned dishonoured, and its clear Ned reinforces that with his statement. We can't ignore that. No, not ie. Its a separate rumour. It may be connected by others and spoken (or unspoken), it may be connected by Cat herself (probably not alone). No, after that all the whispering stopped. At least to Cat's knowledge. Not just the whispering about Ashara. True. But its not absurd to think that Cat, like others, may have put the two together. The fact is, that what she describes hearing is not the two together. Changing the fact just because Cat is likely not the only one who could see such a connection is not warranted.

No disrespect intended to @Megorova, but she is in the habit of stating some of her wilder theories as fact, despite them not being supported by the text. Its always worth a listen though as there is gold amongst the dross on occasion. It is not possible to tie down the dates this accurately. All of this is supposition and does not fit with the words or actions of various characters. First, note that Harwin heard the tale and doesn't believe it. Second, this tale implicitly excludes any pregnancy. Words or kisses, maybe more, but where's the harm in that? 'More' might even include penetrative sex - 'where's the harm in that' (if its not proven). But a pregnancy, for an unmarried noble maiden, is extremely harmful, enough to destroy a life path entirely. Further, not Jon is definitely not conceived at Harrenhal. He'd be much much too much older that Robb in that case, This is simply wrong. Cat explicitly believes Ned fathered a child while on campaign, off at war in the south while she remained at Riverrun - after they were married in other words. Before they are married, while campaigning, he's almost entirely off in the north of her, not south, and she's not 'remaining' in Riverrun. She also references Ned's needs and her inability to fulfill them due to separation, further indicating she believes those needs were 'fulfilled' by someone else after they were married. No. It was while he was on campaign. Not on some un-referenced, utterly illogical, and impossible time-wise trip virtually the length of the continent while Ned is supposed to be marshalling and collecting his troops and marching them south to join his fellow rebels. It confirms nothing for any theory. All it says is that Cat only has one clue who Jon's mother was and if that clue isn't right she has no clues at all. No. Absence of evidence is not evidence. There is no requirement for Bran to have mentioned Robb's birthday. That he did not does not show Robb has not had his birthday. Flawed assumptions before calculations lead to flawed results. There is no evidence that Jon is older than Robb (he may be, though not by much) and plenty of evidence that Robb is considered by all to be older than Jon.

He could have been conceived any time up to when Rhaegar left Lyanna to return to KL and take command. Who knows? Perhaps they waited until they were married? Perhaps it wasn't initially a lust/attraction/whatever 'abduction? Perhaps they only fell in love after the abduction? After all, there is no record of them spending any significant time personally interacting before the abduction, is there? My wife and I were older than is common when we married, in our mid-late 30s. Although we'd have liked to have spent more 'unencumbered' time together, we tried for a family immediately due to our ages. Conception took at least 5 months of trying, given our first child was born mid Dec a year after a early Nov wedding.

Yes, though I don't 'know' it. Its just the most likely scenario from what GRRM has given us at this stage. I don't believe so. The data points connecting her to Ned and/or Jon are all clearly dubious and/or disconnected from any actual association from the people or events as they happened. I think it likely she did it to cover going into voluntary exile to care for her friend Elia's child (which may be real or fake, but she believes to be real), Aegon. I think Ned being there at the same time or very close time was a fortuitous coincidence for both of them, though its not entirely coincidental as both spring out of the situation and relationships she and her brother had with Rhaegar (and perhaps Elia).

He didn't tell Robert Jon's mother's identity either, just the name of the woman Robert thinks is Jon's mother. I know thats another argument, but you are using a false assumption. It also seems to me not to be consistent. He didn't 'hide' Ashara's name from Cat either. He just shut down all conversation about Jon's mother. Which is exactly what he did with Robert. Agreed absolutely. Hence he needs to keep Wylla closer rather than further away. Its not even that she might talk voluntarily. Its that if she is out of his power, he has no control over what happens to her. Away from KL I can agree with. All he has to do is make a side trip to KL on the way home. I've speculated before the weturse and Jon 'never got off the boat' or similar (as a possible example) while Ned went up to the Red Keep. There are other ways too. Other than that, frankly, one place is much like another. Robert, Varys, and many others have reach wherever Wylla might be. The only 'different' place, is Winterfell, where Ned has both immediately proximity should anything happen and absolute authority.. Thats a logical fallacy. Thats not the only thing that makes this story really possible. There is an even simpler explanation that fits what we see through the books even better. Ned turned up at Starfall with Wylla and Jon in tow and didn't say anything. He ensures Jon is treated as his blood, and people make the usual assumptions. Thats even simpler and better fitting with what we see from Ned. The only extra thing needed is that Wylla never comments - which we frankly expect she wouldn't anyway, both for reasons involving any loyalty to the true parents, and Ned's reasons. So her silence, or refusal to comment, is taken as acceptance, assuming she is ever actually confronted with the rumour. I agree. I doubt this, but its possible. This 'cover story' business doesn't fit Ned's actions, his character, his intellectual temperament. IMO Godric's story is a simple localised story that puts a local flavour on an exotic story of the 'rich and famous'. The sort of modern equivalent of the small town story about some local interaction with a movie star that passed through town for a few days in the 2000s I agree, and thats precisely why I think Ned has to take her to Winterfell initially, rather than leave her in Starfall and get a new wetnurse. Except they don't force him to do so. There is risk at Starfall, if anyone investigates, and indeed, it seems she is not 'hidden' there. There is risk as well at Winterfell, agreed, but IMO the authority he has there and the ability he has to manage that risk in Winterfell far far outweighs the benefits of leaving her in Starfall. I can agree with that part. I don't think you've provided good arguments why (unusually for you IMO). But we can agree to disagree on that. No chaos and danger here mate. We don't have the same depth of literal delusion in our society yet, and our politicians, little though I like them, actually acted decisively (some, including me, would argue too decisively, but the results are proof, so it was worth it), unlike the delusional and incompetent and actively malpracticional liars who seem to infest your governments at state and city levels and who actively made things worse due to their delusions and lies at the start and continue to do so. Hope you and yours are staying well though.

While I agree wholeheartedly (and more importantly, whole headedly) with most of ths post there are a few points of exception. Why except Robert? That makes no sense. I would use exactly the same idea, to come to the reverse conclusion. First, there's a pretty simple first thing to clarify. Either Wylla knows about Jon's true other, or she doesn't. If she doesn't, there's no reason to exclude her from Winterfell. If she does, then she's almost certainly not someone that Ned knew and trusted long before a sudden need for a wetnurse while in Dorne. Therefore, I think that Ned would be more likely to keep her under his eye and control - ie let her continue with him as Jon's wetnurse to Winterfell, rather than leave her somewhere he has no 'eye' on her and no control over her. Sure, people may ask pointed questions. But if she's under his eye and authority, then he can manage that (exactly as he did with the Ashara rumour, note). If she's at Starfall, people still might ask questions - not so many perhaps, but those that do could be infinitely more dangerously for him. After a longer time under his eye, he's more likely to trust her enough to release her to return south if the North and/or Catelyn do not agree with her. Cat says Ned brought Jon (and therefore the wetnurse) home with him. Its not ironclad, but we should roll with what we have, not alter it unnecessarily IMO. Or at least a simple truth, even if its not the whole truth. If Wylla knows the whole truth, where is it best for Ned to have her? You say not-Winterfell, I say Winterfell. There is no evidence she acknowledges it in Starfall. That Edric thinks it true does not mean she has been confronted with it. His source is likely Allyria. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed Absolutely.

Its not. I agree that Cat probably met Wylla, but its not certain, and not explicit anywhere. When Cat arrived at Winterfell Jon, Ned and an un-named wetnurse were already there. Its possible Ned changed wetnurse some time before Cat arrived in Winterfell, maybe even at Starfall, and that Wylla was not the un-named wetnurse at Winterfell. I don't see why he would, but its possible he did.

Did I say you did? Or mention that subject. There is no magic word. No one word can convey that depth of information. At least not in English - the germans could probably make one I guess. Lyanna is tied to the ToJ, and so is her Bed of Blood, which is well established as a metaphor for childbirth. You don't have to like it, or even agree with what it means, but you don't have to lie about it either. And if you are going to equate comments on your posts with Pavlov's dogs, that makes you Pavlov, which means you are a troll - testing for a specific response, rather than genuinely engaging in discourse.

Well, its not even accurate for a start. Lyanna's name appears twice in Ned's ToJ dream. Once in his description of what the dream is about, and once when she screams.

I don't see how you can pin any of that down. We have far too little information, especially on the kidnapping of Lyanna, where we have virtually nothing at all on the timing (just that Rhaegar left in early January on a trip that ultimately (which means after an unknown number of other stops and events over an unknown amount of time) culminated in him 'falling on' Lyanna near Harrenhal. I do know that the Harrenhal date you use is the most likely rough timing. But even that is not actually pin down-able. The language used to tie it to near the end of 281 is not definitive. It is possible Harrenhal could be much earlier in 281, maybe mid year even. Though, I'l repeat, your timing is the most likely for that event. GRRM has explicitly warned against this sort of calculation, because he's lazy/sloppy about travel times etc, so it may work out wrong. Thats said, its better than nothing. But it does need to be deliberately 'roughened' if and when use it. Agreed. A lot gets packed into the first few months. It may be less than nine months between weddings and trident, we need to give plenty of wiggle room. Robb was born 9 months after the wedding, while Ned was away in the south - so after the Sack most likely, but within a few months of it. The weddings happened shortly after the Bells. They (Lysa's at least) were "hastily arranged" (Cat I ASoS). And arranged specifically (Lysa's) because Jon Arryn's heir died in the BotBells and he had no remaining options for a new one expect make a baby. Sure. And it would have taken months and months to get it set up. Thousands of jars were used and the making of it was much slower than in Tyrion's day, when the return of the dragons seemed to have a magical effect. It was, for him. Word of 'god' doesn't count as word of 'god' from out of a character's mouth, because then its afflicted with the character's own perceptions and biases. Fair enough. I don't agree, but fair enough. I'd perhaps compare it more to Granicus. The rebels (Alexander) won a significant battle, putting the Royalists (Persian Empire) on notice that this shit was serious, and it took greater battle(s) later, to actually decide the outcome - and if Darius had won Gaugamela and killed Alexander, he would have won the war, just as Rhaegar would have if he'd won at the Trident and killed or captured Robert, I think. Its also the word of god that Lysa Tully's marriage to Jon Arryn was hastily arranged due to old man Arryn needing a fertile young wife to get an heir on after JonCon slew his backup heir during the battle of the Bells. We have two incompatible scenarios. One is one sentence alone, the other is referenced in multiple ways and relevant in several minor plot points. Its likely that the one sentence version is a minor error. You are free to think that. But Griff has a different way of speaking than you (and I) do - less lols and mad sailings and whatevers and stuff. What '17 years have come and gone' means is that literally the 17th anniversary has past already. If the 18th anniversary had past we'd expect him to say 18 years have come and gone, so we expect that the 18th anniversary has not come and gone. Yes, it might be also appropriate to say 'more than 17 years' , or 'nearly 18 years' or some other phrase, but GRRM gets to choose what he uses to say what he means.

What a lot of verbiage nonsense. The moment people show interest in Jon Snow is the moment they find Ned Stark with a bastard he's not telling about. Because 1) Alaynne is old enough for her mother to be irrelevant. A newborn sans mother, is not. 2) Because a mother is irrelevant, no one cares and Littlefinger doesn't need to address this. 3) No one gives a shit what Littlefinger did a decade and a half ago while he was nobody, either at his shithole 'castle' on the littlest of the Fingers or in the stews of Gulltown as a minor official. Agreed. He didn't actually tell Robert exactly when he fucked Wylla. He just used his marriage vows and the 'shame' of breaking them as an excuse to shut down the conversation. he could have. Pretty damn stupid though, claiming Jon was several years older than he was when numerous eye-witness must have seen Jon as an extremely new infant at Starfall and even Winterfell. Sure, probably its no big deal. But what if someone asks, or checks, or even just notices? Why lie unnecessarily? That shows you are hiding something when/if it gets found out. Jon Arryn. Stannis Baratheon. Ned Stark. All investigated bastards. Varys knew about Roberts, Cersei tracked many down and killed them. Lyanna even knew about Mya Stone. LV simply talks about his own headcannon, not ASOIAF. Yep, thats the only possible reason! Curiosity? Not possible. Following up on conflicting information? Not possible. Being interested in the doings of the 3rd or 4th most powerful man in the realm? Nah, who gives a shit. Wanting something to 'use' on Ned as leverage or for the future? Who could possibly? Oh, wait. We like to talk about ASoIaF here, not one individual's personal headcannon. Maybe there is more than one possibility? Maybe people in ASoIaF act like real people, and like the characterisations GRRM gave them?

There is no reason Ned had to 'trick' anyone. If he rides in to Starfall with Wylla and Jon in tow, has Jon treated as his son, he doesn't need to say anything at all. People will make their own conclusions, thats what people do. All we know about 'Wylla' is that there is no mention of her, or any other woman like her, on any connection with Ned except with Jon. There is no hint in Ned's thoughts, deeds or character, nor in anyone else's recollections who was around him, of him being 'with' any women. Robert thinks it was his 'one time' in other words, there were no times that Robert knows of, just this one that he wasn't around for. Robert literally complains Ned was a stick up his ass, too much honour, never a boy having fun, type, even in his youth. There is also no mention of Wylla or any woman leading up to the Tower of Joy. Ned and 6 male companions rode up. No Wylla. Yet by the time he's at Starfall, Wylla is around and people are clearly guessing she's Jon's mother. For Wylla to have been Jon;s mother, Ned's squeeze, she needs to have been around Ned before. And she hneeds to have a reason to have 'appeared' in Dorne between pre-ToJ and Starfall. Thats right. I'm the one pulling answers out of my ass. Would those be statements like "people don't enquire about bastards, as we know"? If you ever had any credibility you loaded it into a cannon and blew it to shreds with that statement! I'm not the one making definitive statements here. I'm pointing out entirely reasonable possibilities that counter definitive statements that have been made by others that simply don't fit the available evidence. I agree we don't 'know' she was a Dornish native. Or that she had lived at Starfall before meeting Ned. What we do know is that she first appears out of thin air (as far as we are concerned) somewhere in Dorne. She acts as Jon's wetnurse for a time. She later has a long term position at Starfall and was Edric Dayne's wetnurse. Here are some interesting other data points. i) Jon appeared after the ToJ fight and at or before Starfall. ii) Starfall believes Wylla is his mother, not Ashara. iii) Lyanna Stark is very tightly connected to ToJ(by the title of Ned's dream and her voice there) and probably died there. iv) a baby without a mother, or with a sick or weak mother, needs a wetnurse v) Arthur Dayne was at ToJ. Where did she come from and why was she chosen as Jon;s wetnurse by Ned or his predecessors as Jon's wetnurse? Why is she given a position at Starfall after nursing Jon? I don;t think its unreasonable to posit potential answers to these questions that fit well with these know facts and other data points. Thats you making shit up. A small number of people try, sometimes. The rest make assumptions. Exactly. Therefore Wylla was with Ned and Jon already when he arrived at Starfall. Which perfectly explains why Starfall (and Robert) think Wylla is the mother. Ned rides up with a baby and a woman nursing him. The woman is clearly not noble and not his wife, but he has the baby cared for as though his son. the obvious (only possibility with some support) inference, unless Ned says something, is that the woman is the child's mother. Ned has no need to spin a story. He merely has the child treated as his bastard, and people will form their own conclusions in lieu of other evidence. There is no 'protection racket'. No one is 'obscuring anything on Ned's behalf. They just make the most reasonable inferences from what they see. Its pretty clear he's not just showing who calls the shots. He's icy angry and scares Cat for the only time. He's not hurting, protecting wounds, he's angry, protecting secrets. As I've said, time and time again, Ned's not busy 'misdirecting' anything. His policy is 'shutting down' anything he can. That incidentally results in people, everywhere, making their own guesses based on the limited information they have. Thats why the 'story' is different everywhere. Ned says as little as possible - to most people thats nothing at all except to call Jon his son or his blood. At Starfall they say Wylla was the mother, but Ashara was the love - they saw the arrival, but added the Ashara bit out of Allyria's romanticism is my guess. Harwin thinks the Ashara-lover story is unlikely. Robert says Wylla was the mother (but ignores Ashara). Cat hears about this beautiful and tragic noblewoman, and guesses Ashara. The Stepstones put together the fisherman's daughter scenario. Because Ned's not a master plotter, cleverly messing with everyone's heads, he's a simple guy doing his best to shut down talk around a dangerous secret he has. Cat wasn't in love with him. She barely knew him. Which is told to us by Robert, not Ned. All Ned says, in either conversation that we know of, is the name Wylla. Period. Certainly not me, but you love your straw men... Thats what I'm saying, yes. You're saying he told Robert a whole lot more. Umm, its not very hard. She's at Starfall, there's no secret there. Arya's tracked her down by accident. Robert already 'knows' she was Ned's squeeze, the mother of his bastard. Its apparently no secret (generally speaking) that Ned rode away from Starfall with a bastard from somewhere in Dorne. Cat knows, Cersei knows, Robert knows there is no secret in that part. So you start at Starfall, and what do you know, she's right there and its more or less common knowledge she was Ned's bastard's mother. Edric is surprised Arya doesn't know. Its not a secret there. blah blah blah straw men. We know they did talk, because Ned told Robert the name before. I guess it was when they reconciled over Lyanna's death, probably on the way back to Winterfell (but Robert didn't meet Wylla, so either she went on ahead with Jon, she stayed away from the castle, or Ned did change the wetnurse at Starfall, which seems unnecessary to me). I don't think at all Ned went around 'broadcasting' he had a bastard. But he was travelling, and would want the child treated well, so its going to be obvious to people. I don;t know if Ned would have informed Robert himself if he could avoid it. Its reasonably none of Robert's business and I suspect Ned could have used the 'shame' aspect particular to him to explain to Robert why he said nothing if necessary. But I am sure Robert would have heard, one way or another. the King's best friend, the third or fourth greatest Lord in the land (Robert, Jon Arryn, Ned/Tywin), travelling with a bastard that may be his first child? There are going to be reports. I agree. But if Robert broached the subject, having had reports (and no doubt being a bit gleeful that his stick up the ass friend was just like other men after all), Ned can;t exactly deny it. My thought is that Ned probably shuts down the conversation as best he could, giving as minimal information as possible, all of it being truthful and unimportant. Apparent, despite that being exactly what we see from Ned later, some people here think thats impossible. Apparently Ned must have confessed a whole sordid false story. Apparently there is no other way Robert could have made the conclusions he obviously has made. I think the people advocating that have paid zero attention to GRRM's characterisation of Ned and the clues he gives us in what he chooses to show us. I don;t think Cat's back in the picture yet when Ned see's Robert. If it is a later visit, after Ned's already been home, then it ought to be easy enough for Ned and Robert to get some alone time away from Cat. Heck, I'd think even Robert would have enough sense to keep those sorts of questions to a private session. Thats possible I guess. I think its wildly unlikely that the Master of Secrets couldn't find out the open secret that the King's best friend, the 3rd of 4th noble of the realm, had a bastard that he picked up 'down south' while doing some personal business. Robert, I'm absolutely certain, will have had reports about Ned's visit to Starfall. Heck, Arthur Dayne is still in the mix somewhere without the story of Ned returning his sword to Starfall! So Robert knows Jon was born already by then. We don't know whether Robert already 'knew' Jon was conceived after Ned's wedding or not. Thats not clear from the conversation we saw. I don't really think it matters anyway. But there is no indication Robert already knew that before Ned told him in the second conversation. And even if he did, I'm positing that the first conversation went much like the second - Robert comes in with pre-assumptions, having had a report about Ned's trip to Starfall, Ned gives minimal and unimportant information without lying and shuts down the conversation leaving Robert to believe his pre-assumptions. And its not necessary that the conversation must have been like that. You're the one stating the 'fact' that Ned told Robert Wylla was Jon's mother. I'm merely pointing out a reasonable alternative that fits the facts (better than yours) and has Ned not at any time stating Wylla was Jon's mother, and still leads to the exact conversation we witnessed. I think there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that Ned is not Jon's father, nor Wylla his mother. So there is no true shame on Ned's part for breaking his vows (perhaps shame for leading Cat to believe their whole married life that he did and how it affected their family). But I agree he uses the 'shame' as a shield to avoid discussing it. Nope. Why would Ned say anything explicit at all at Starfall? He has no need to and we see how he avoids doing so even a decade and a half later. All Ned has to do is ride and and have/ask/demand/ Jon to be treated as his son/blood. Starfall people will fill in the gaps themselves, especially if he refuses to discuss it. Thats what people do. See above. Why would he say anything? If he did, why would he change policies later? How can he control what people 'conclude' anyway? Especially outside of Winterfell. And why wouldn't he let them 'conclude' various scenarios. As long as those scenarios are not the truth of his secret, thats a good thing. People who have an answer stop looking for one. His only focus is on stopping talk. IMO because talk can lead to new thoughts, new conclusions. Its perfectly possible to hold there two thoughts at once, and they are even complimentary. i) stop all discussion, becasue that leads to new or better ideas, or even the truth ii) if people think a lie is true, who cares And even hold them while being very careful about not lying yourself. Formally? Maybe, but I doubt it. Publicly? Clearly he did. At very least by deed, and maybe by word. What I see is that Ned had Jon treated as his bastard son. And casually included him in his 'sons' in public (by which time mind you, Jon truly was his son, even if not from his seed). Ned may have formally, or informally, called Jon 'son'. In the North at least. While still in the south, I can see lots of possibilities. But my guess is that in whichever one of them is the truth, Ned was very careful about what he said exactly and tried not to lie unless he had to. No he would not. As above. And even if he did, thats literally all he has to say on the matter. He is not obliged to give more detail to anyone except Robert , and maybe b=not even Robert. Ned is the King's best friend and the 3rd or 4th ranked noble in the Kingdom. He's a very big deal, especially for those who don't know him. He's got some pretty high powers. And he just 'disappeared' with a small band of close friends after accepting the surrender (thats one of those high powers) of the Tyrells at Storms End. Then he 'reappears' at Starfall with Arthur-friggen-Dayne's sword. Oh, and a bastard from no-where. Thats more than just kitchen gossip. "Armor"? Oh, 'pre-armed'. Wow, Thats a hell of a clanger on your part. No wonder its so painful trying to have a discussion with you. You think so. I don't. As an experienced user of this strategy (deliberately in my case, in games mostly), I know that having told the exact truth is a very very good defense against claims of lying to people. The real ientity of a false bastard is not the reaosn for investigating the bastard - thats presupposing the knoweldge of the result. No one cares because Littlefinger's bastard is of no interest because they all look down on Littlefinger. The only potential 'interest' she might possibly have is to use her to worm in with Littlefinger, in which case her identity as his bastard is the key to her values anyway. Because people are curious, especially about those in power. And Ned's an important enough guy, with an interesting 'thing' who is tiht lipped? Thats much more 'mysterious' and 'interesting' than Littlefinger's easy non-chalance. And it s not that they definitely would. Its that they might. the last thing Ned needs is having to answer to Robert why he lied about Jon Snow. Assuming he lied that is. If he just to'd the truth, its a very very effective defense. And he still has the "I didn't want to discuss it with you because I'm ashamed, so I didn't argue with your beliefs defense up his sleeve. Agreed. Though I think he treated the boy as his bastard, which led people to assume it so that it became effectively true over time. And I allow plenty of room for the literal calling the boy his bastard too. Just not for telling unnecessary lies about the bastard's origins which he is later extremely reluctant to discuss. Really? Why is he so aggressive in shutting down any talk about it. "Never ask me about Jon". Don't tell me shame and hurt - Jon's not actually his, so there is no actual shame and there is no indication anywhere of a past great love in Ned's head, or that sort of emotional pain - other than for/over his sister. Did you read the books? Do you remember what KL is like as far as trust and the value of a man's word is? Yeah, sure. No issue with Robert over Dragonspawn. No issue over Lyanna's son by Rhaegar. Suuure. Thats why there's a different rumour about it everywhere you listen. No one wonders how/why honourable Ned, the humourless stick up his ass friend of the king got himself a bastard. But actually, I partially agree. No ne does wonder, much. Because they already have done the wondering and come up with answers that work for themselves so they stopped thinking about it (except Cat). They 'know' already. Nothing to puzzle out hear. Rubbish. Its not proof, it not even particularly suggestive. And never mind that Jon has grown p to look like Ned and the dangers have massively lessened as a result. No, just your straw man. None of that scene reads like Ned bossing Cat 'because he could'. Its the same icy anger and shut down as he uses with Robert, but more forceful, because he has the power. Having the power is not the reason for the icy anger, it merely modifies how he deals with the situation. He shut down that story IMO because any discussion of Jon's origins invites cross pollination of knowledge and new ideas. It carries danger. Suppose someone came up with the idea that Jon was Lyanna's? And Robert heard? Rhaegar frikken Targaryen's dragonspawn and Ned's betrayed him by hiding it!?! Howland Reed has his own knowledge and his own judgement on how to deal with it. He's not Ned, and not in the same situation as Ned. As seems to be always the case, your arguments, made up out of whole cloth from what you feel should be, as opposed to what GRRM writes, are directly contradicted by the text.

You're quote indicates it was the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end. Its only after the BotBs the Targaryen's start taking things seriously. Thus the end of the beginning, and the beginning of the middle, so to speak. Further there are many things going in that paragraph over a long time. Aerys didn't even send Hightower to find Rhaegar until after the BotBells. So Hightower needs to find Rhaegar, then Rhaegar returns, then summons Tywin, who has to get there with his army, plus the royal army is reassembled by Selmy and Darry, the Dornish forces need to be gathered and march to KL... there's months and months in there. The passage you quoted is explicitly Jaime's memory wandering (floating) in a hot bath, not carefully listing a precise and tight order of everything. It wasn't exactly decisive. The Loyalists still outnumbered the rebels at the Trident, plus Tywin was uncommitted, plus the full Tyrell power was sitting at Storms End. The Trident itself was only decisive because of two things - Rhaegar's death robbing the royalists of both a leader and a future to fight for, and Tywin's committing at the Sack and ending the Dynasty. At least a year? Apparently not. Not even close I think. The best ASoIaF timeline I've seen (in terms of research) has Tyrion escape KL in early February 300, meeting up with Griff and co in early March 300 and being kidnapped in April 300. The Lost Lord chapter where your quote is from is in April/May 300. The sack of KL is placed in 283 according to the ADwD appendix, so BotB can't be 284! "17 years have come and gone" means more than 17 years, probably less than 18 years. Thus if BotBells was, say, June 282, then any time up to May 300 would fit for JonCon to say that. Can if your maths is wrong around the fuzzy edges. And the edges are fuzzy. Most of our information comes from casual imprecise language - like "17 years had come and gone" which has almost a full year's play in it. Its only rarely that we get a precise date - the only two I can think of are both "the first day of the year" (purple wedding and snows in KL pre-rebellion). Sure. We are using our months to make sense of their calendar. What of it? Their year is approximately the same as ours. "Twelve moon tuns to a year, as on earth"

So, does it mean Battle of Bells happened adter the wedding? because currenlty wiki says it happened before the wedding. I believe its an error, on top of a technically poor piece of writing (GRRM's excuse being its from some Maester, not him). The Riverlands had already entered the war before the twin weddings, fighting at the battle of the bells. We know this because Deny Arryn who was Jon Arryns heir, died in the battle of the bells. Jon Arryn only married Lysa because he suddenly needed an heir (his nephew Elbert was one of Brandon Stark's companions, judicially murdered by Aerys). Denys was already his 'emergency heir' - a distant cousin with the right name who married Jon's niece, and so was the nearest thing to a remaining male Arryn associated with the main line. This is wrong. The BotB was relatively early in the war. Robert had been beaten by Tarly very early on (a lot happens in a short space of time, probably with rather small forces, relatively speaking) and forced to retreat north towards his allies. He was still recovering from his wounds. We can see from above the that the BotB was before the twin weddings, and Ned and Cat were only apart for a year, and the war lasted for about a year. Robb was born while Ned was away in the south, but Ned didn't spend more than half a year away - Ned and Cat were apart for a year. That puts the BotB/wedding about 3-4ish months in, matching with Robert's doings, and giving Ned 3ish months after the Sack of KL to do his business in the south and get home. You could extend that out to maybe 6 month in at a stretch, but not more. The absence of a named Hand after JonCon does not mean JonCon lasted until near the end. Rhaegar was sought when JonCon was dismissed, and returned, and clearly took charge. There probably was no Hand needed - Rhaegar fulfilling that function, until Rhaegar left before the BotTrident. Also of note, we don;t know exactly when the war started. Many people incorrectly assume its early in 282, due to mis-understanding Rhaegars's trip. He left on the first day of 282 on a trip that ultimately (ie after an unknown but considerable length of time and through several (unknown how many or where) other locations led to him meeting and 'abducting' Lyanna in the Riverlands. That could be February or June/July even, who knows. Then add in some more time for people to get word, Brandon's response, Aerys sending for B's companion's fathers, trials and executions, Rickard to arrive, and Aerys to send word to Jon Arryn demanding Ned and Robert's heads. The rebellion may not have begun until mid-late 282.

Just because you don't like an idea, doesn't make it impossible or even unreasonable. People have disagreed, no one has shown the ideas to be untrue or even unlikely. Thats simply not true, but if all you've got is a clear lie as an argument, anyone can see it. The words are there in black and white. I happy to leave this exposed as a flat lie. Ahh, so logical constructs are defined by 'would', according to your opinion. ok. I can see why we reach different conclusions. And did again, with nothing more, while angry and refusing to talk about it. Evidence that he said X while refusing to talk about Y is not evidence he said more than X while previously talking about Y. Except, Robert does not ask for Jon's mother. He asks "what was her name" and clarifies who he means by several additional statements. Wylla is in fact 'her' name, whether she was Ned's common girl for real, Jon's mother for real, or nothing but a wetnurse that Robert believes to be more. The most logical assumption is that Ned refused to talk about it the same as he does when we see him. But gave Robert minimal safe information the same as he does when we see him. Even more so in literature than real life. The author gives us clues by his characterizations as to how those characters would react in similar circumstances. So you make definitive statements of fact about what Ned told Robert and then refuse to back them up. Your 'assumption' is good enough and defines fact. Understood. We know where we stand. Thats possible. Its not very likely. There is no indication Ned had more people along with him than his companions when he left Storms End or when he rode up to ToJ. Nor that he knew of a child before leaving on his very private trip south after the war and therefore brought with him a potential wetnurse. There is indication that Wylla was with him nursing Jon by the time he got to Starfall. It is also known that after nursing Jon Wylla returned to Starfall. The apparent and most likely answer is that Wylla was a Dornish native who had nothing to do with Ned and was nowhere near him, until his trip to Dorne after the war ended. And if thats true, then claiming Wylla as Jon's mother, when she was in Dorne when he was conceived, is a very very foolish thing indeed. Yep, sure. Thats possible. He could have told such a story. It rather fails the sniff test though. In that case why is Ned hiding it from Cat? Why is he so aggressively defensive about talking about Jon's mother. If thats true, there is nothing to it really. Catelyn tells us as much. Never mind all the actual R+J=L evidence which points to a conclusion that also tells us exactly why Ned is hiding the story and refuses to discuss it to the point of anger and scaring his wife (the only time he ever does so) and being rude to his king. The fact is that is not what Ned's story is. We don't even have a story from Ned, because he gets icily angry and shuts down any conversation discussing it. No, I don't need to make stupid shit up. The other common people around her? They don;t need to 'watch her', just confirm, if asked, the truth that she was at X place through Y months during the rebellion. Except he doesn't do that. He doesn't have anyone he 'tells people' was the mother. If he did, why would Cat think it was Ashara? Yet Cat has no thought to Wylla/the wetnurse. I know there is no evidence she was with Ned, while he was fighting in central westeros after his marriage and its certainly unlikely given what we do know of her, and Ned, that she was. Indeed. He wasn't even born at the time. But someone told him. And it wasn't Ned. It also wasn't Robert. I don't know for certain but I think its a very safe bet that it wasn't Ned or Robert who told Edric's source either. But apparently its impossible that that other someone, directly or indirectly, also told Robert. Only Ned could have done that according to Frenin. That in fact is partly the scenario I think most likely, out of several possibilities. That Ned rode in to Starfall with Wylla nursing Jon, and people at Starfall made assumptions (after all, they know Ashara wasn't the mother and choosing the mother as a wetnurse for a bastard (thus giving her a reward both economic and relational, for her troubles) is an age-old, even biblical, story for dealing with a bastard baby). A report of Ned's trip to Starfall (including the bastard kid and its mother, the giving back of Dawn, the apparent death of Arthur Dayne, possible the suicide of Ashara Dayne) makes its way to King Robert (Varys perhaps trying to demonstrate his competency and value to his new master) and thus Robert goes into his first conversation with Ned pre-armed with assumptions just as in the second conversation. Its not the only possibility, but its a very reasonable and probable one as a general idea. And its one that fits Ned saying almost nothing and staying in character then and 'now'. You are allowed to make assumptions but apparently I'm not? Truth is, I don't even assume that. I note that Ned is very careful about lies and avoids telling them where he can. I don't care whether that is deliberate and subtle, or accidental and merely the by-product of his character. What I do care is that its consistent, and fits the rest of his characterization by GRRM. Really? As it happens, I mostly agree. I doubt he 'expected' investigation, and I doubt he carefully planned what to say to give the best impression. But he did have to be aware that he, and Jon, could be investigated, and therefore making up silly lies that he can't control is unwise. His answer is not to make up anything, but to shut down any conversations and only tell the truth, small safe truths, when he can't escape them. Sure. No plot points there at any time! Littlefinger was an unremarkable nothing nobody to those in power. He still is to a large extent. Sansa as his bastard daughter even now has very little relevance, which is why nobody cares. Ned Stark's male bastard, close enough in age to be his firstborn, is another thing entirely. Even more so if you throw in the circumstances of the bastard's appearance. Aside from your whole argument here being farcical, its irrelevant. He didn't, did he. I don't see pain and hurt and inward emotion, I see anger and protectiveness, outward emotions. He's icily cold, icily explicit. Its not about the mother, or Ned's relationship with her, its about Jon. And Ned wants to know the source of the rumour so he can squash it, which he does, at least within Winterfell. You might. Ned isn't you. Ned can't do that. His love for Robert is deep and real and predates Jon's arrival. He's also much less afraid for Jon's life now as he was back then. He still won't talk about it, because that increase the danger, but we see how he responds when Robert brings it up. Except when we see him pushed his answer isn't a 'story' but to shut down the conversation. Deciding he must have a story because he must, when we see him not actually use one but instead shut down such conversations, more than once and with more than one person and with more than one other option. If he had a story, why is he never telling it? The answer is that your 'sense' is flawed. It may make no sense to you, but its how Ned operates and in his circumstances with his character it works, at least as GRRM writes it. Its funny how I can apparently assume Ned is a master plotter and a complete moron at the same time. Or maybe thats just the silly lengths you need to go to try and counter my arguments. Rather than assume anything, rather than put myself in his place and think what I would do, I look at his words and behaviour and build my thoughts from that. Thats not what Ned does. He simply puts up a wall and they find their own 'path' around it. Perhaps we can assume that there is no conclusion - Jon never had a mother? The male equivalent of the virgin birth? Or perhaps we can see that there are multiple conclusions that are drawn by different people, quite possible none of which are actually right! Well, you 'know' it. The rest of us have read the books and actually followed whats in them. We know that Ned told Robert her name. We don't know that he 'talked about her' - ie said anything more than that. Robert's words don't imply anything other than that they once had a conversation in which Ned told him the name Wylla and afterthat conversation (possible also before) Robert believed her to be Ned's 'one time', his 'common girl', the mother of his bastard. Its possible. Lots of things are possible. Its possible Ramsey is yet another of Robert's bastards that everyone missed. Or that there are ICBMs under Winterfell. But given Ned is on record as shutting down such topics with icy anger every time they are broached, and going further to kill them when he has power to, its not very likely he broached it himself. If he did, GRRM is pulling a very dirty trick in his writing. Well, I guess you are the .master plotter' that Ned isn't exactly.

There are multiple ways to make that logic jump without Ned's aid. I've detailed several many times before, ones with a high probability. You assume that Ned told Robert more than we know, and therefore, Robert is not making assumptions. The only thing we know Ned told Robert is the woman's name. Everything else is an assumption. And not a very sensible one. Thats false logic. Agreed, neither of us know for sure what the contents of the first conversation were. But the correct logical construct is not that "Ned must have told Robert that Wylla is the mother", but that "Robert came away from the conversation believing Wylla is the mother". Given that (i) Ned lying that Wylla is the mother is a foolish and dangerous move for it is almost certainly verifiably false (ii) Ned has demonstrated even explicitly to Robert's face, with anger at the king, that he does not like talking about Jon's mother and will not do so (iii) we have witnessed a conversation where Ned doesn't actually tell Robert Wylla was Jon's mother but it seems to a casual observer that he did it simply is not 'the most logical assumption' that Ned told Robert that Wylla was Jon's mother in the first conversation. The most logical assumption is that (i) Ned was careful not to tell Robert verifiable lies, (ii) Ned did not talk freely about Jon;s mother and (iii) that the first conversation followed a similar pattern as GRRM showed us in the second.

Yeah, right. No reason, just thats what we literally see him doing. As always, you are right, the text is wrong. "Clearly" there is no way Robert could know Ned fathered Jon Snow after he married Cat without Ned telling him various important contextual details, like who the mother really was. Told him what, exactly? Show the passage. Riiight. Lets tell him a provable lie. Wylla almost certainly wasn't with Ned around the time of Jon's conception, having been brought into the picture only as a wetnurse when one was needed down south (either by Ned after he found Jon, or by Lyanna or her captors/protectors before Ned found her). Its unlikely she was in isolation either. Which means its almost certain that someone else can show Wylla being not-with-Ned until close to Jon's birth date. Someone out of Ned's ken and out of Ned's control. Ned can't back up that Wylla was his squeeze unless she really was, and there's no reasonable evidence of that. The same goes for any important detail Ned told Robert. If its not the truth, then its likely to be verifiably a lie, if someone digs hard enough. The simplest, best, and most of all safest way to deceive people is to tell them a limited truth and let them make their own false conclusions. I don't even think Ned does this as a deliberate policy, its just who he is. But he does it admirably well, as we see in several conversations. With Robert we see Robert making assumptions, and Ned giving out the minimal information (<whats the name of the woman I'm thinking of> "her name is Wylla and I'd sooner not speak of her" - a second time) which is truthful yet leads Robert to confirm his own false beliefs. With Cat we see Ned being exactly truthful with minimal information given ("he is my blood and that is all you need to know") and yet Cat comes away from the conversation stronger in her mistaken suspicion that Ashara is Jon's mother.

Indeed. But we have no context on the first conversation. The only thing we know about the first conversation is that Ned said the name Wylla and Robert connected that name to his bastard's mother (and that Robert never met Wylla). Exactly as we saw in the second conversation. There is no evidence at all that Ned made the connection for Robert. What evidence we do have is contained in the example of the second conversation - Robert makes assumptions or statements, Ned answers precisely the question asked and only that, not confirming or denying anything else, and thus Robert continues with his false assumptions. No, you just assumed that. We don't know how that first conversation went at all. You literally use the exact same sloppy thinking as Robert uses to make a statement of fact out of an unknown..