If Ned's bastard was really Lyanna's, why didn't Ned just tell Cat?

[Fire Eater]

Jon wasn't the Targaryen's heir. There was no one who could have support his claim, not even Ned. Having him is loosely similar to keeping Theon, the son of a rebel. In this case, the son of a dethroned Prince.

He was Rhaegar's legitimate son so that technically made him the Targaryen heir. Comparing Ned keeping to Jon to Theon, is a bad analogy, as Ned kept Theon as a hostage, to be killed if Balon rose up again while Ned raised Jon out of a promise to protect him.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

I love how Westeros is so messed up that we simply assume that, if Cat had known and treated Jon like a human being, people would have assumed there was something rather odd about him instead of simply say "wow, Stark's wife is a nice woman, accepting his bastard and all that" :lol:

[MyaStoned]

Jon wasn't the Targaryen's heir. There was no one who could have support his claim, not even Ned. Having him is loosely similar to keeping Theon, the son of a rebel. In this case, the son of a dethroned Prince.

Jon was the Targ heir - still is. And last I checked Theon didn't have the king after him.

As to Cat, I think, intentionally or not, she'd have let it slip in some way, at some point. Her kids would have known. Then the household would have known. And then, who knows?

I read the scene of Ned and Robert first discussing Dany as a complete vindication of Ned's decision, and I suspect Ned saw it that way too. Robert, even years later, would have slaughtered Jon without hesitation if he'd known.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

He was Rhaegar's legitimate son so that technically made him the Targaryen heir. Comparing Ned keeping to Jon to Theon, is a bad analogy, as Ned kept Theon as a hostage, to be killed if Balon rose up again while Ned raised Jon out of a promise to protect him.

That's why I said loosely. Having Jon and keeping him alive wouldn't mean that he would plan to raise him to take the throne. And we don't know if he's really his legitimate son.

[Leonardo]

Jon was the Targ heir - still is. And last I checked Theon didn't have the king after him.

As to Cat, I think, intentionally or not, she'd have let it slip in some way, at some point. Her kids would have known. Then the household would have known. And then, who knows?

I read the scene of Ned and Robert first discussing Dany as a complete vindication of Ned's decision, and I suspect Ned saw it that way too. Robert, even years later, would have slaughtered Jon without hesitation if he'd known.

Jon was never legitimized, Lyanna and Rhaegar's marriage witnesses(if there were) are all dead, so there is no one to vouch for a lot of these claims. It's very similar to how Aegon just cropped up; most people aren't going to believe him probably until he is sitting the Iron Throne or waving Blackfyre around. The Dunk and Egg novella hinted heavily that Aegon will need Blackfyre to help rally people to him, or he is going to have to rely on marriage alliances and taking the land by force.

As an end point, Viserys and Dany are both ahead in succession before Jon because they aren't bastards.

[MyaStoned]

Jon was never legitimized, Lyanna and Rhaegar's marriage witnesses(if there were) are all dead, so there is no one to vouch for a lot of these claims. It's very similar to how Aegon just cropped up; most people aren't going to believe him probably until he is sitting the Iron Throne or waving Blackfyre around. The Dunk and Egg novella hinted heavily that Aegon will need Blackfyre to help rally people to him, or he is going to have to rely on marriage alliances and taking the land by force.

As an end point, Viserys and Dany are both ahead in succession before Jon because they aren't bastards.

None of this has one bit of textual or logical support.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Jon IS not the Targaryen heir.

There are clues and hints that tell us that he might be.

Jon might be Rhaegar's son, but we don't know yet if he's a legitimate son. Jon is Ned's "son" but he wasn't meant to inherit Winterfell nor have any rights like his "siblings".

And even if Robert EVER finds out he's Rhaegar's son, Ned would never say anything like "yes, and he's also legitimate heir to the throne because they got married and stuff". He's would say he's Rhaegar's bastard, with no rights at all so he would have a small little chance to have his life spared.

[MyaStoned]

Jon IS not the Targaryen heir.

There are clues and hints that tell us that he might be.

Jon might be Rhaegar's son, but we don't know yet if he's a legitimate son. Jon is Ned's "son" but he wasn't meant to inherit Winterfell nor have any rights like his "siblings".

And even if Robert EVER finds out he's Rhaegar's son, Ned would never say anything like "yes, and he's also legitimate heir to the throne because they got married and stuff". He's would say he's Rhaegar's bastard, with no rights at all so he would have a small little chance to have his life spared.

We do know. "We took a vow."

Explain the line if it means anything else. And the last bit is just silly. Robert would slaughter him just as quickly. He's Lyanna's son WITH RHAEGAR. That bit shows you don't get Robert or the situation. It has nothing to do with rights or the throne.

[A Bastard Snow]

I love how Westeros is so messed up that we simply assume that, if Cat had known and treated Jon like a human being, people would have assumed there was something rather odd about him instead of simply say "wow, Stark's wife is a nice woman, accepting his bastard and all that" :lol:

If you remember Cersei says that Cat must have milk for blood for not smothering Jon as a child.

Bastards don't have a good life as trueborn children are born of love while Bastards are born of lust (that's the prevailing idea)

I mean you got to feel for Jon being a bastard.When Alys Karstark came to WF as a child she danced with Robb (her father hoping he would take a fancy to her) and she also danced with Jon only as a fallback (if she couldn't marry a pure stark marry a bastard as it would still be a step up)

[Leonardo]

None of this has one bit of textual or logical support.

Uh yeah it all does lol

Jon being legitimized - hasn't happened by anyone yet aside from possibly Robb, and that legitimizes him as a Stark and Robb's heir, not as a Targaryen

No one being alive who may have witnesses the marriage of R+L - This is a given based on what we know. Even if other people came to the ToJ, they still wouldn't have been witnesses to the marriage in all likelihood

Blackfyre - Go read the Mystery Knight, because a big plot point of why the BF rebellion 2 didn't crack off was because they didn't bring the sword over. There's a moment in the story where he unsheathes a blade and everyone looks at it...

Then sees it's not Blackfyre and literally everyone deserts his cause

And the Aegon stuff is purdy well known

Viserys and Dany being ahead in succession is just common logic of succession laws lol, unless a KING legitimizes Jon he is still going to be a bastard Targ unless he can convince people otherwise(highly unlikely)

So I think it was a bit rude and ignorant to go casting all that stuff off lol

[Winterfell's Revenge]

Robert would have wanted Jon dead because of his irrational hatred of all things Targaryen. Whether he's the heir or not is NOT the point. Robert would want him dead no matter what. That's the entire point of the secret.

[NightStark]

We do know. "We took a vow."

Explain the line if it means anything else.

To obey the King and his family.

As GRRM said himself, Rhaegar was within his power to order the KG to hold the ToJ and they had to obey.

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

http://web.archive.org/web/20051103091500/nrctc.edu/fhq/vol1iss3/00103009.htm

[MyaStoned]

To obey the King and his family.

As GRRM said himself, Rhaegar was within his power to order the KG to hold the ToJ and they had to obey.

http://web.archive.org/web/20051103091500/nrctc.edu/fhq/vol1iss3/00103009.htm

I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[NightStark]

I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Yeah, clearly you know better than the man who actually wrote the books.

[MyaStoned]

Uh yeah it all does lol

Jon being legitimized - hasn't happened by anyone yet aside from possibly Robb, and that legitimizes him as a Stark and Robb's heir, not as a Targaryen

No one being alive who may have witnesses the marriage of R+L - This is a given based on what we know. Even if other people came to the ToJ, they still wouldn't have been witnesses to the marriage in all likelihood

Blackfyre - Go read the Mystery Knight, because a big plot point of why the BF rebellion 2 didn't crack off was because they didn't bring the sword over. There's a moment in the story where he unsheathes a blade and everyone looks at it...

Then sees it's not Blackfyre and literally everyone deserts his cause

And the Aegon stuff is purdy well known

Viserys and Dany being ahead in succession is just common logic of succession laws lol, unless a KING legitimizes Jon he is still going to be a bastard Targ unless he can convince people otherwise(highly unlikely)

So I think it was a bit rude and ignorant to go casting all that stuff off lol

Jon is legitimate. There is no need for a legitimate person to be legitimized.

[Frey Kings]

Ned only should've told his wife, after he came back from the war. They hardly knew each other. And after they built a solid marriage foundation of love, trust, blah blah blah. Had the kids, esp male ones to reign over WF ex: Robb Brandon Rickon. Then he should've said "oh hai this my sis's kid, stop being such a *beep* towards him". The secret should've stayed between them and not died with Ned.

Regardless, like the other poster said, hes a Stark, a northmen, and established sibling love with everyone (besides maybe Sansa???). And he is truly Ned's son.

No one should know besides Ned and Cat. And Cat won't blab, if anything, she will be relieved that Ned didn't committed Adultery and cared and protected his sis's kid from the realm.

NO ONE ELSE NEEDS TO KNOW, THIS ISNT A ANNOUCNEMENT TO THE WORLD, ONLY TO END THE BRUTAL HOSTIAL OF CAT'S DISDAIN OF JON

[MyaStoned]

Yeah, clearly you know better than the man who actually wrote the books.

The man who's presumably trying to regain a mystery that his readers solved almost immediately, yes.

[Fire Eater]

That's why I said loosely. Having Jon and keeping him alive wouldn't mean that he would plan to raise him to take the throne. And we don't know if he's really his legitimate son.

If he was then the KG wouldn't have been at the ToJ. As their name "Kingsgaurd" suggest, their job is to guard the king.

We swore a vow

You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him

Their response to why they weren't going to Dragonstone is they swore a vow to protect the king. If Jon is a bastard then, Viserys would have been King, so that reply wouldn't make sense. KG were used to protect other members of the royal family, but that was only if the king had other members of the KG with him, which Viserys didn't have.

[MyaStoned]

And Cat won't blab

Whether knowingly or not, she would have.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

We do know. "We took a vow."

Explain the line if it means anything else. And the last bit is just silly. Robert would slaughter him just as quickly. He's Lyanna's son WITH RHAEGAR. That bit shows you don't get Robert or the situation. It has nothing to do with rights or the throne.

I do believe Jon's Lyanna's son and probably, also Rhaegar's, but until we have any proof, anything related to the tower of joy is a theory and could mean anything in different context. And, at least in my case, I treat it as such. As "if"s.

"Jon was in danger because he was the Targaryen's heir" =/ "Jon was in danger because probably, he was a Targaryen heir, if he's actually Rhaegar's son and he married Lyanna".