R+L=J v.116

[BearQueen87]

You ever think it's lasted so long because you guys keep remaking the thread, only posting the information for why he is and never why he's not (despite when new information or counterarguments are presented), and the fact that these threads get pinned?

Seems to me like people on the forum are led to come to the conclusion. They don't independently come to it like you claim.

Um. No.

I came to the RLJ conclusion fully independent of this forum. This forum helped show me other clues, but i came here fully aware and believing in RLJ And EVERY piece of new information is analyzed. Hell, the World Book just came out! We spent quite awhile on everything we think we gleaned from that.

ETA: and you're entire counterargument is "Ned says other wise!" when Ned never thinks of himself as Jon's father at all!

[J. Stargaryen]

You ever think it's lasted so long because you guys keep remaking the thread, only posting the information for why he is and never why he's not (despite when new information or counterarguments are presented), and the fact that these threads get pinned?

Seems to me like people on the forum are led to come to the conclusion. They don't independently come to it like you claim.

Try reversing the cause and effect. It's not a conspiracy theory, ffs. Btw, which new information that shows R+L=/=J are we supposedly suppressing?

[markg171]

This #%^%&%$Y% sentence needs to be stapled to this damn thread and all iterations hereafter.

WORD to this sentence. Just...WORD

/grumpy

/tired

did you miss the part where I said "other references?" Do you want someone to spell every single one of them out?

I would yeah because nowhere when Gilly is giving birth does it mention a bloody bed.

[J. Stargaryen]

I would yeah because nowhere when Gilly is giving birth does it mention a bloody bed.

So?

[markg171]

Uh...his name is Howland Reed...

OR his name is Bran via the weirnet. You know...the kid who sees into the past?

If Howland Reed says there was no one but Lyanna at the TOJ, is he a liar too? Or is he only trustworthy if he says they find Jon there? You can't doubt every character but then accept one without question.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

You ever think it's lasted so long because you guys keep remaking the thread, only posting the information for why he is and never why he's not (despite when new information or counterarguments are presented), and the fact that these threads get pinned?

Seems to me like people on the forum are led to come to the conclusion. They don't independently come to it like you claim.

I'm not talking about the thread series on this forum. Do you seriously think that this is where the theory began? It's older than dirt in Internet years; it predates this thread series and even this forum. And someone had to actually make the first thread. People absolutely did (and do) come to it independently. If you don't believe me, look up any thread about how posters figured out R+L=J (and there are several, maybe even dozens, in the forum archives). Look at how many people say things like, "I had an idea that R+L=J, and went on the Internet and found out that other people had figured it out too." It's a lot. Some people figure it out on their own, and some don't, but it's pretty rare that someone who hadn't figured it out is presented with the evidence and then still doesn't believe it. At this point even people who don't want it to be true still believe it (which is also enshrined in the forum archives; plenty of people say things like "I don't like R+L=J but I still think it's true").

The reason the thread keeps getting recharged is, at this point, mostly willfully ignorant and/or contrarian people, usually noobs, who flat-out refuse to accept the theory based on who the fuck knows what.

You're also free to peruse the earlier versions of the thread, which contain counterarguments for who Jon's parents might be, and the arguments against them.

Finally, "because the book says so" is not a counterargument that anyone on here worth his or her salt is going to take seriously.

[BearQueen87]

If Howland Reed says there was no one but Lyanna at the TOJ, is he a liar too? Or is he only trustworthy if he says they find Jon there? You can't doubt every character but then accept one without question.

But we know there were other people at the TOJ besides Lyanna. Arthur Dayne, Whent, and Hightower for a start. Then there were the servants! What servants you ask? Well, "they" found Ned Stark holding Lyanna's body. But only Howland was reported to have survived the fight at the TOJ.

Howland Reed does not a "they" make.

There were other people there. And I think you're neglecting the obvious: Ned TOLD Howland what Lyanna had told him before she died AND they questioned the servants before bringing down the TOJ

[markg171]

Thanks to AM and Ygrain. The Damphair one is a great example.

There is also, of course, for our current doubter the actual act of giving birth which is--literally--a bloody experience. This isn't a cute turn of phrase or idea that GRRM invented. It's actually what happens when women give birth.

Ya and Robert getting gored by a boar made his bed bloody too.

[markg171]

Indeed. I can tell when someone has no idea what the birthing process is like when they try to argue that a birthing bed wouldn't be described as bloody (and yes people have tried to argue that).

I have never said a birthing bed couldn't be bloody. All I've said is that a bloody bed doesn't have to mean a child was born. I hope you can at least admit that beds can get bloody from other means, especially when there's instances in the books when they do. My issue is that you guys are using 2 instances (that's what you've provided as evidence) to say that a bloody bed must mean that Lyanna just gave birth.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

If Howland Reed says there was no one but Lyanna at the TOJ, is he a liar too? Or is he only trustworthy if he says they find Jon there? You can't doubt every character but then accept one without question.

And why do you think that Howland has yet to make an appearance? Could it possibly be because he has some pretty pertinent, sensitive information that GRRM doesn't want to reveal until the opportune time?

I would yeah because nowhere when Gilly is giving birth does it mention a bloody bed.

The POV for Gilly's birth is Sam, who 1. doesn't even see where she's giving birth (he's downstairs, she's up in the loft) and 2. is not a midwife or at all experienced with women and childbirth or even women in general.

[J. Stargaryen]

Ya and Robert getting gored by a boar made his bed bloody too.

Yet, curiously, this is not referred to as a bloody bed. Weird, huh? It's almost as if GRRM has reserved those phrases for some other use.

In fact, that passage is actually a good argument in favor of "bloody bed/bed of blood" only meaning birthing bed, since an otherwise bloody bed is not designated as such.

[markg171]

Try reversing the cause and effect. It's not a conspiracy theory, ffs. Btw, which new information that shows R+L=/=J are we supposedly suppressing?

The new thread is always started with only the information saying why he is. Every piece of information that says otherwise is never included. So it leads you to believe that none of the hundreds of threads that have come before, ever had anything to say counterwise.

You might not be actively suppressing information (or you might, who knows) but it serves that the pro arguments are always presented, but not the counter arguments. That hardly seems fair.

[BearQueen87]

I have never said a birthing bed couldn't be bloody. All I've said is that a bloody bed doesn't have to mean a child was born. I hope you can at least admit that beds can get bloody from other means, especially when there's instances in the books when they do. My issue is that you guys are using 2 instances (that's what you've provided as evidence) to say that a bloody bed must mean that Lyanna just gave birth.

Nope, more than 2.

1. MMD to Dany ...childbirth

2. Aeron's descriptions of...childbirth

3. Cersei's own descriptions of....childbirth

4. Cat and Brienne talking about...childbirth

5. Lyanna dying in her bed of blood. Gee. I wonder what it refers to.

George uses "bed of blood" for a specific reason. It never gets called a bloody bed for Robert.

[Black Crow]

Ya and Robert getting gored by a boar made his bed bloody too.

True, but the term "bed of blood" is the synonym for childbed in GRRM's story, cf. Mirri Mar Duuz. There are a lot of alternative suggestions made concerning Jon's mother but Lyanna is the only one that stands up and the real question is not who, but how this will play out in the end.

[BearQueen87]

The new thread is always started with only the information saying why he is. Every piece of information that says otherwise is never included. So it leads you to believe that none of the hundreds of threads that have come before, ever had anything to say counterwise.

You might not be actively suppressing information (or you might, who knows) but it serves that the pro arguments are always presented, but not the counter arguments. That hardly seems fair.

There are plenty of alternative theories that float around the boards. This is the theory that Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark are the parents of Jon Snow. Why would counter arguments be found in the OP when the OP is the evidence of what we are presenting to be a theory?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Ya and Robert getting gored by a boar made his bed bloody too.

But it's not referred to as a "bloody bed" or a "bed of blood." We're trying to tell you that this specific (VERY FUCKING SPECIFIC) wording is the key and you're just not getting it.

What's funny, if you actually read the bit about Robert and the boar, there's blood mentioned, but nothing about the bed being bloody or Robert being in his bed of blood. The room smells like blood. Renly's cloak has blood on it. The bandages are bloodied. But a bloody bed or bed of blood specifically? That wording isn't used. It's almost as if the author had a very specific thing in mind for the phrase bloody bed/bed of blood and was careful not to use it carelessly.

ETA: Ninja'd by three other people. When four people all point out the exact same flaw in your argument, the problem is you.

[J. Stargaryen]

The new thread is always started with only the information saying why he is. Every piece of information that says otherwise is never included. So it leads you to believe that none of the hundreds of threads that have come before, ever had anything to say counterwise.

You might not be actively suppressing information (or you might, who knows) but it serves that the pro arguments are always presented, but not the counter arguments. That hardly seems fair.

Have you read the linked essays? At least the one from the Citadel explains why other potential candidates for Jon's parents don't work. - Link

[BearQueen87]

It's almost as if the author had a very specific thing in mind for the phrase bloody bed/bed of blood and was careful not to use it carelessly.

Are you suggesting that George knows what he is doing?

Blasphemy.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

You might not be actively suppressing information (or you might, who knows) but it serves that the pro arguments are always presented, but not the counter arguments. That hardly seems fair.

So go on, give us some counterarguments. What theory do you propose that is better than this one? I'm sure we'd all be happy to discuss it with you. But just know that garbage reasoning like "because the book says so" will rightfully get you derided.

[J. Stargaryen]

You might not be actively suppressing information (or you might, who knows)

They're onto us, you guys!