R+L=J v.117

[MtnLion]

So explain how Robert knew that Ned had fathered a bastard on a woman named Wylla? Ned has seen him once in 15 years, yet Robert remembers that Ned fathered a bastard during the war off of a woman named Wylla.

See what I mean, you don't seem to have read much of the story. Did you forget about the Iron Islands' Revolt? Or, even, Cersei's wedding to Robert?

[markg171]

It is looking more and more like you have not. Reading does involve comprehension.

Tell me what I said there that was wrong and then come back and tell me I haven't read the books.

You guys have the same counterargument for anything that goes against your theory: dismiss it outright, and provide no evidence for doing so. When you do bother to provide evidence, it's always in the form of your opinion and interpretation of something, and then we have a difference of interpretation, never a difference of fact, yet you guys treat it as such.

[addicted to snow]

It is looking more and more like you have not. Reading does involve comprehension.

It is pretty clear that you have lost the argument when you have to start stooping so low as to suggest that others cannot read...

[markg171]

What evidence do we have that a wetnurse was present, and that she had another child with her? Ned knows that the Kingsguard died protecting and defending the king, to justify his thoughts about them. Lyanna had given birth. Lyanna extracts a promise from Ned that releases her from a lot of anxiety. I don't believe that it was a promise about the wetnurse's kid . . .

Anyway no evidence, dismissed with no evidence.

You have no evidence for anything you posted here, other than that Lyanna made Ned promise something and that made her happy.

Your argument is equally dismissed. I don't agree with what the guy was saying, but you can't just spout a bunch of your interpretations and call them facts and then use your "facts" to dismiss someone's theory.

[Consigliere]

Well that ignores the fact that another guy is sitting on the Iron Throne and acknowledged as king by all the kingdoms but Dorne. Also that Viserys was named Aerys' heir. Along with any questions about the legitimacy of Rhaegar's hypothetical second marriage.

It makes me wonder what the kingsguard did after Maekar's death. I doubt they dropped what they were doing and ran to Maegor to crown him and start defending him.

Except that the KG make it perfectly clear they do not recognise the guy on the throne as king when they refer to him as Usurper.

[SFDanny]

What evidence do we have that a wetnurse was present, and that she had another child with her? Ned knows that the Kingsguard died protecting and defending the king, to justify his thoughts about them. Lyanna had given birth. Lyanna extracts a promise from Ned that releases her from a lot of anxiety. I don't believe that it was a promise about the wetnurse's kid . . .

Anyway no evidence, dismissed with no evidence.

Nonsense. The evidence that the Targaryen heir is there is partly the same if that is Aegon or Jon. I've long argued, indeed I started the argument years ago in these threads, that the Trio's conduct was evidence of the presence of the heir at the Tower. Evidence to the reader. Not proof to the reader. Your jump to the conclusion that Ned knows is just that - a jump to a conclusion we, imho, can't reach just yet, but even if we assume you are right it means nothing about the presence of another child. Ned may well think the trio died defending Jon as the rightful heir to the throne, and still the truth could well be that Jon's half brother was there along with him, and Aegon as the rightful heir would explain the trio's action just as well. Lyanna likely gave birth. Hints point to it. I think it is so. If so, the dying Lyanna gets her brother to promise to hide and protect her son from Robert's wrath. Nothing contradicts Aegon's presence.

The evidence that might support Aegon presence is two fold. One the action of the Kingsguard Trio in staying at the tower and fighting to the death Ned's party instead of going to Dragonstone support this variation as well as only Jon being there and being the rightful heir. Second, we have a character in the A Dance with Dragons, Young Griff, who for the first time lays out a story detailing how he is Aegon. How he was switched as a child with another child who died during the sack. And how he was secreted away to be raised safely from the usurper. Some or none of Young Griff's story may be true, but it is evidence that can't be ignored with your all-knowing dismissal. George can do that. You can't.

[Avalatis]

Tell me what I said there that was wrong and then come back and tell me I haven't read the books.

You guys have the same counterargument for anything that goes against your theory: dismiss it outright, and provide no evidence for doing so. When you do bother to provide evidence, it's always in the form of your opinion and interpretation of something, and then we have a difference of interpretation, never a difference of fact, yet you guys treat it as such.

This is an exercise of logic/rationalization.

1.) Martin has stated he clearly has a mystery that some people had figured out as of 1998 (When only 2 books were out I believe).

2.) He stated early this year that the mystery would be revealed in book 6.

So a mystery that some had been solved by some as of book 2. You are claiming there is no mystery here and that the answer is just what is stated: "Jon is the bastard of a Wet Nurse named Wylla". Which would make Ned keeping the mother's name a secret from Jon and Cat a huge Red Herring. While Robert thought it was Wylla, Cat thought it was Ashara Dayne, while others thought it was some fishmen's daughter.

You are not going to find something in the books that's going to state "Jon Snow is actually a Targaren!" until book 6. Which seems to be what you're asking people to provide you here in the forum. If it was spelled out like that then it would have never been a mystery.

So you have to ask yourself what you want as evidence for the theory. If you're unwilling to follow a series of "clues" that a theory makes sense of, then there is no point for you to even argue this.

[Avalatis]

The evidence that might support Aegon presence is two fold. One the action of the Kingsguard Trio in staying at the tower and fighting to the death Ned's party instead of going to Dragonstone support this variation as well as only Jon being there and being the rightful heir. Second, we have a character in the A Dance with Dragons, Young Griff, who for the first time lays a a story detailing how he is Aegon. How he was switched as a child with another child who died during the sack. And how he was secreted away to be raise safely from the usurper. Some or none of Young Griff's story may be true, but it is evidence that can't be ignored with your all-knowing dismissal. George can do that. You can't.

How does this explain the KG being at the tower? If Aegon had truly been moved through there at least *one* of the KG would have gone with him. Why stay? If it was to slow down pursuit (even though no one knew of Aegon) then they could have sent at least one KG with Aegon. In reality all 3 would have gone with him.

[markg171]

See what I mean, you don't seem to have read much of the story. Did you forget about the Iron Islands' Revolt? Or, even, Cersei's wedding to Robert?

Cersei married Robert right after the war. Nothing says Ned was there, though we know Ned returned to KL after the TOJ so we can assume he was there for it. I said though, that he hasn't seen Robert in 15 years, i.e since the war ended, except for one 1 time, and then I specifically mentioned how that was when they put down Greyjoy's Rebellion.

It's like you're not even bothering to read my posts before spouting whatever you can to say something negative about any argument I make

[MtnLion]

Nonsense. The evidence that the Targaryen heir is there is partly the same if that is Aegon or Jon. I've long argued, indeed I started the argument years ago in these threads, that the Trio's conduct was evidence of the presence of the heir at the Tower. Evidence to the reader. Not proof to the reader. Your jump to the conclusion that Ned knows is just that - a jump to a conclusion we, imho, can't reach just yet, but even if we assume you are right it means nothing about the presence of another child. Ned may well think the trio died defending Jon as the rightful heir to the throne, and still the truth could well be that Jon's half brother was there along with him, and Aegon as the rightful heir would explain the trio's action just as well. Lyanna likely gave birth. Hints point to it. I think it is so. If so, the dying Lyanna gets her brother to promise to hide and protect her son from Robert's wrath. Nothing contradicts Aegon's presence.

The evidence that might support Aegon presence is two fold. One the action of the Kingsguard Trio in staying at the tower and fighting to the death Ned's party instead of going to Dragonstone support this variation as well as only Jon being there and being the rightful heir. Second, we have a character in the A Dance with Dragons, Young Griff, who for the first time lays a a story detailing how he is Aegon. How he was switched as a child with another child who died during the sack. And how he was secreted away to be raise safely from the usurper. Some or none of Young Griff's story may be true, but it is evidence that can't be ignored with your all-knowing dismissal. George can do that. You can't.

Nonsense, yourself. If my aunt had had balls, she would have been my uncle. If there is a wetnurse there, GRRM conveniently did not include that detail. If she had a child with her GRRM also left that detail out. If that child resembled Aegon, why wouldn't Ned notice? Never mind, this is a game of what if, and there is no point of playing it. There is no reason to smuggle a child out of King's Landing to the tower when no one at King's Landing knows where the tower is. There is no reason to smuggle a child out of King's Landing and move him into more dangerous areas than safely out to sea.

GRRM has gone on record saying that he would not change the mysteries because someone had guessed them correctly. He has also said that he likes to reward the attentive reader with little surprises throughout his books. That to me means that the mysteries can be solved from the hints, by themselves, instead of manufacturing a "what if" scenario. As I said, the idea of Aegon being at the tower while supported by the Kingsguard's actions does not merit consideration, because it is unsupported in so many other ways.

[Avalatis]

Cersei married Robert right after the war. Nothing says Ned was there, though we know Ned returned to KL after the TOJ so we can assume he was there for it. I said though, that he hasn't seen Robert in 15 years, i.e since the war ended, except for one 1 time, and then I specifically mentioned how that was when they put down Greyjoy's Rebellion.

It's like you're not even bothering to read my posts before spouting whatever you can to say something negative about any argument I make

Are you assuming that Ned and Robert only met once during the Iron Islands Revolt? They never discussed strategy? They never discussed Theon becoming Ned's Ward? You seem to be throwing out questions and assuming there are no answers to them.

[sj4iy]

Nonsense. The evidence that the Targaryen heir is there is partly the same if that is Aegon or Jon. I've long argued, indeed I started the argument years ago in these threads, that the Trio's conduct was evidence of the presence of the heir at the Tower. Evidence to the reader. Not proof to the reader. Your jump to the conclusion that Ned knows is just that - a jump to a conclusion we, imho, can't reach just yet, but even if we assume you are right it means nothing about the presence of another child. Ned may well think the trio died defending Jon as the rightful heir to the throne, and still the truth could well be that Jon's half brother was there along with him, and Aegon as the rightful heir would explain the trio's action just as well. Lyanna likely gave birth. Hints point to it. I think it is so. If so, the dying Lyanna gets her brother to promise to hide and protect her son from Robert's wrath. Nothing contradicts Aegon's presence.

The evidence that might support Aegon presence is two fold. One the action of the Kingsguard Trio in staying at the tower and fighting to the death Ned's party instead of going to Dragonstone support this variation as well as only Jon being there and being the rightful heir. Second, we have a character in the A Dance with Dragons, Young Griff, who for the first time lays a a story detailing how he is Aegon. How he was switched as a child with another child who died during the sack. And how he was secreted away to be raise safely from the usurper. Some or none of Young Griff's story may be true, but it is evidence that can't be ignored with your all-knowing dismissal. George can do that. You can't.

There's no evidence at all that points to Aegon having been at the ToJ. This is simply another "I want to buy your rock" argument...ie: saying something happened that has no evidence but can't be 'disproven' because of a gap in the information. The KG were already AT the ToJ before Aegon "supposedly" left KL, so it wasn't as if they were there to protect him. By this logic, I could say that the Cookie Monster was at the ToJ.

[markg171]

This is an exercise of logic/rationalization.

1.) Martin has stated he clearly has a mystery that some people had figured out as of 1998 (When only 2 books were out I believe).

2.) He stated early this year that the mystery would be revealed in book 6.

So a mystery that some had been solved by some as of book 2. You are claiming there is no mystery here and that the answer is just what is stated: "Jon is the bastard of a Wet Nurse named Wylla". Which would make Ned keeping the mother's name a secret from Jon and Cat a huge Red Herring. While Robert thought it was Wylla, Cat thought it was Ashara Dayne, while others thought it was some fishmen's daughter.

You are not going to find something in the books that's going to state "Jon Snow is actually a Targaren!" until book 6. Which seems to be what you're asking people to provide you here in the forum. If it was spelled out like that then it would have never been a mystery.

So you have to ask yourself what you want as evidence for the theory. If you're unwilling to follow a series of "clues" that a theory makes sense of, then there is no point for you to even argue this.

I'm perfectly willing to follow a series of clues. I just wish people would actually be willing to follow a series of clues that runs counter to that, instead of dismissing them outright.

You can't ask someone to follow the clues that lead to R+L=J, without asking the proponents of R+L=J to follow the clues that suggest otherwise.

[markg171]

Are you assuming that Ned and Robert only met once during the Iron Islands Revolt? They never discussed strategy? They never discussed Theon becoming Ned's Ward? You seem to be throwing out questions and assuming there are no answers to them.

No, I'm simply saying that the revolt is the only time they've seen each other since the Rebellion ended. If Ned didn't tell Robert about his bastard during the rebellion, then he'd have to have told him about Jon here for Robert to remember when he visits Winterfell during AGOT that Ned fathered a bastard on a woman named Wylla.

[Avalatis]

I'm perfectly willing to follow a series of clues. I just wish people would actually be willing to follow a series of clues that runs counter to that, instead of dismissing them outright.

You can't ask someone to follow the clues that lead to R+L=J, without asking the proponents of R+L=J to follow the clues that suggest otherwise.

What mystery exists from the first book that will be a big reveal in book 6? A mystery that could have been figured out by book 2? The mystery postulated by this thread is Jon's mother.

So if you don't think there is any mystery and that Robert who never got anything wrong knew that Wylla was the mother of Jon, what would the mystery be? And yes a mystery is usually something the readers are aware of. What is this mystery that will be solved in book 6?

If you finally come around to agreeing that yes that mystery is Jon's mother. Then this discussion can move forward. If you can't agree with that, then it is futile for you to even be in this thread.

[MtnLion]

Ygrain, on 04 Dec 2014 - 2:31 PM, said:

You're kidding me right?

If someone tipped off Ned, then someone else knew where the TOJ was. So now you've got even more people knowing about this "secret location". It's not a secret if so many people know about it.

And your second point is even sillier. Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna. The only people who would give a shit, are Rickard, Brandon, Robert, and Ned. Rickard and Brandon both went to KL for blood: Brandon with a group of a couple friends, Rickard with a group of 200. Every single one of the dies except Ethan Glover. How was there no fighting? Did they all just mysteriously die?

Then Robert and Ned were in the Eyrie. How the hell do you expect them to start fighting, when all of Robert's troops are in the south, and all of Ned's troops are in the north? The full scale rebellion starts when Jon Arryn starts it because he's the one in the seat of his power and readily able to call his banners. Ned and Robert join him as soon as they are able to.

Are you sure you've read the books?

It is pretty clear that you have lost the argument when you have to start stooping so low as to suggest that others cannot read...

Do tell.

[J. Stargaryen]

There's no evidence at all that points to Aegon having been at the ToJ. This is simply another "I want to buy your rock" argument...ie: saying something happened that has no evidence but can't be 'disproven' because of a gap in the information. The KG were already AT the ToJ before Aegon "supposedly" left KL, so it wasn't as if they were there to protect him. By this logic, I could say that the Cookie Monster was at the ToJ.

I've pointed this out to SFDanny on multiple occasions, to no avail. You can't prove it didn't happen is a logically worthless argument. Scientifically it's called an untestable hypothesis, and legally it's why the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

[Avalatis]

No, I'm simply saying that the revolt is the only time they've seen each other since the Rebellion ended. If Ned didn't tell Robert about his bastard during the rebellion, then he'd have to have told him about Jon here for Robert to remember when he visits Winterfell during AGOT that Ned fathered a bastard on a woman named Wylla.

I had a previous post that covers this. There are *dozens* of ways Robert could have heard about Ned dishonoring himself with a bastard. A King has spy masters. And there is nothing to state that Ned and Robert didn't stay in contact on occasion. And even if they refused to correspond with each other I doubt Ned wouldn't have stayed in contact with Jon Arryn (who would have updated King Robert about his friend from youth).

And yes Robert still cared about Ned. And if he truly though Ned was the most honorable man he had ever known, he would have remembered the name Vary's could have given him. The most likely explanation is Jon Arryn passed on the news and Vary's dug a bit and found the apparent mother Wylla. And they also probably spent weeks of time during the Iron Island Rebellion to talk about stuff.

There are too many ways to count to explain how Robert came up with that name. And it didn't even have to come from Ned's lips directly to him.

[MtnLion]

Cersei married Robert right after the war. Nothing says Ned was there, though we know Ned returned to KL after the TOJ so we can assume he was there for it. I said though, that he hasn't seen Robert in 15 years, i.e since the war ended, except for one 1 time, and then I specifically mentioned how that was when they put down Greyjoy's Rebellion.

It's like you're not even bothering to read my posts before spouting whatever you can to say something negative about any argument I make

Robert would not marry Cersei before he received word of Lyanna's death. Ned and Robert patched up their relationship in shared grief over Lyanna's death. At some point before Cersei's wedding Robert and Ned had a get together, likely in a local pub at King's Landing. Robert and Ned cried in their beer. Then Robert agrees to marry Cersei, and Ned and Catelyn attend the wedding.

Then the Greyjoy rebellion lasted for a considerable amount of time. Ned and Robert would have been together a great deal of time. They certainly would have both agreed to the terms of Theon's being a hostage against a further revolt.

Robert and Ned were not strangers. One thing is clear, Robert had never been to Winterfell before his visit to Lyanna's tomb, and request for Ned to become Hand.

[sj4iy]

The series of 'clues' that point to Wylla:

1. Ned tells Robert that she is Jon's mother.

2. Edric tells Arya that she is Jon's mother.

3. She was Jon's wetnurse.

Problems:

1. It doesn't explain why Ned never told Jon or anyone else but Robert who his mother was.

2. There is nothing placing Ned and Wylla together at the time of Jon's conception.

The clues for Ashara Dayne being Jon's mother:

1. Ashara and Ned danced together once.

2. Ned put a stop to rumors that Ashara was Jon's mother.

3. Ned went to Starfall to give back Dawn.

4. Jon's wetnurse, Wylla, has served at Starfall.

Problems:

1. STILL doesn't explain why Ned never tells anyone, including Jon, who his mother is.

2. Selmy says that Ashara had a stillborn daughter...not a son.

3. There is no evidence putting Ned and Ashara together at the time of Jon's conception.

4. There is no discernible reason for Ned to take Ashara's child from her, driving her to suicide.

The clues for the fisherman's daughter being Jon's mother:

1. There are rumors that Ned left a fisherman's daughter pregnant at the dawn of the rebellion.

Problems:

1. This would have been before Jon's conception.

2. The showrunners guessed Jon's mother correctly long before ADWD came out, thus nullifying the possibility that this could be the correct answer.

3. Once again it doesn't explain why Ned doesn't tell Jon who his mother is.

The clues for Rhaegar and Lyanna being Jon's parents:

1. Rhaegar and Lyanna were together at the time of Jon's conception.

2. Lyanna died at the ToJ in a 'bed of blood', strongly suggesting that she had given birth.

3. Jon has Lyanna's looks.

4. Ned promised Lyanna something before she died. He comes home with a bastard child and raises him with his own trueborn children.

5. Ned never tells anyone who Jon's mother is because it would be life-threatening to Jon and his family if Robert were to find out.

6. Ned tries to convince Robert that the Targaryens are no longer a threat to him.

Problems:

1. Jon has no obvious Targaryen looks...however, this is not unusual as many Targaryens do not have typical Valyrian features.

So, there I've laid out the pros and cons of all of the viable possibilities for Jon's parentage. If anyone is going to say that Jon isn't the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, they need disprove the above.