Heresy 152 [Spoilers]

[PrettyPig]

Once again that comes back to the 1993 synopsis and GRRM's declaration that the story is about the Starks and the Lannisters. The Targaryens only come into the story in the form of Danaerys the Dragonlord.

Exactly - the Targs are the side attraction; the Lannisters are running the main act in the big tent.

And crazy as it may sound, I believe one of the ringleaders with both arms elbow-deep in the treachery pie even back before the tourney was Cersei.

[Black Crow]

Exactly - the Targs are the side attraction; the Lannisters are running the main act in the big tent.

I'm also inclined to wonder whether, if a Stark/Lannister rivalry goes back way before the sack of Kings Landing [as it surely must to be so deeply entrenched when the story opens] whether that might account for what feels like Ned's guilt at Lyanna's death.

[Urrax2]

New subject.

Was there an undisclosed reason why the widow Dustin, whose husband died fighting with Ned at the tower, and who says she hates the Starks, wanted to be shown the crypts?

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

There is something there, and it's huge.

Maybe he was somehow a part of Lyanna's disappearance?

And not to mention how obsessed all the Hightowers are with prophecy. How long have the Mad Maid and Leyton been locked up in that tower anyway?

"We Light the Way"

ETA I think we may have uncovered another possible witness to the events at the ToJ and environs. Actually, if Walys was with Lyanna, he would know the entire story, and would be the only one who does.

How do you know Walgrave is his father? That would be super creepy!

Wow, how did I miss this entire sub-plot?? :stunned:

Here are a couple of posts where (long ago) I summarized my observations and thoughts on Archmaester Walgrave: Post 1 and Post 2 . It's something I've always sort of intended to work up into it's own theory / thread... I just haven't ever actually done it. There are a couple of things in Varamyr's ADWD Prologue that deserve mention as well, if they aren't already in one of those posts. One is Varamyr's desire that his wolves would eat his remains after he dies (I do think I mentioned that similarity with Walgrave); another is his memory of Haggon's advice against skinchanging birds... something about sitting around all moony, in a way that fits rather well with what we know of Walgrave.

Originally - this trail of thought began in the context of a Heresy discussion about the Citadel and its relationship to magic, and possible distinctions to be made between "natural" and "worked" magics. Not sure if those are the categories we ended up with in the end - there was some disagreement (imagine that!)... and these days, I might be inclined to emphasize a different dichotomy. But I remain intrigued by the fact that Walgrave and Marwyn both appear to be Archmaesters of magical disciplines... and both reside on the Isle of Ravens in Oldtown. And I expect both will play interesting roles in the story to be revealed in Martin's last two books.

[Black Crow]

And of course the second synopsis tells us:

Wolf and lion must hunt together, maester and greenseer work as one, all the blood feuds must be put aside, the bitter rivals and sworn enemies join hands.

...which rather suggests an active part is to be played.

[MaesterSam]

I mentioned over in General that if you do a close reread of Ned's chapters, you'll find that Ned's moments of major trepidation dovetail with Lannister involvement or treachery. He is actually quite capable of tempering Bob or even telling him flat out where to stick it until Bob's bluster suddenly gets supplemented or overthrown by something Cersei and/or Jaime have cooked up. Ned doesn't give a damn about Bob and all his big talk, but he gets really bent out of shape when Bob's wife and the in-laws try to have their say.

Funny also you should mention freedom and democracy... I was working out a very involved and most probably crap theory about Rhaegar and his "meaning to make changes" actually trying to move Westeros to a modernized version of the Valyrian Freehold - all landowners (ie noble houses & their vassals) getting a voice in government, possibly putting up representatives for election in the vein of Volantene triarchy, etc. It sounds ridiculous but when you start to flesh it out a bit you'll see that the two people that stand to lose the most in this type setup are Varys and Tywin - and I take it a bit further (into total fanfic, most likely) by showing that from the Tourney of HH onward, Varys and Twyin were playing the crown and the major houses off of each other to cause chaos and negate any possibility of moving away from a monarchy to a fledgling democracy.

Garbage though that may be, the idea of Lannister being the prime puppet orchestrator of events and serving as the biggest threat to the Targs, the Starks, and the realm is still first and foremost in my mind.

Yes to the bolded parts! I have been suggesting for a while now that Tywin played a role in starting RR. Aerys had been sh*tting on him for years and years, and when he stole his heir that was the last straw. What does Tywin do when someone pisses him off? He extinguishes their entire families- just ask the Tarbecks and the Reynes. The assumption that he would have taken all these insults lying down does not fit the character. In fact, we know that he was ready to risk the king's death at Duskendale, and apparently said publicly that if the Darklyns kill Aerys, the realm would have a better king in Rhaegar.

Who benefitted the most from RR? Well, maybe Robert, but the Lannisters certainly improved their lot considerably. Cersei is queen, Lannister children will inherit the crown. Tywin is once again feared and respected. And all the Targaryens are dead. (Almost.) He has had his revenge.

This may also explain why Alfie Allen describes Jon's parentage as a Luke Skywalker situation not because Rhaegar is akin to Vader but because Luke and Leiah were twins who were split up for their own protection.

Now I would like to tell BC that Targaryen lineage is completely uninvolved but I have a sneaking suspicion that it may come into play, (like a dragonfly amongst the Reeds). I think Jon may be the first born son of the first born son of Aegon V, but that is another theory for another day.

Are you suggesting Rhaegar is Duncan & Jenny's son? ;) I remember considering this possibility when reading the Summerhall passage in the WB- especially combined with the Targ family tree showing D and J having no kids. And the fact that Rhaegar was born fairly soon after Aerys and Rhaella were married- a beautiful, healthy son on the first try. Followed by 10 years of failed pregnancies. A little suspicious when that perfect prince is also born under circumstances that would have left very few, if any, witnesses to the actual birth.

[wolfmaid7]

Also "it was said" Rhaegar named it doesn't mean he did.

So the correct response to "Why would Rhaegar name it the Tower of Joy"? is "We don't know if he did name it or not".

You are indeed correct.But i am inclined to believe he did name it,just that it had absolutely nothing to do with Lyanna.

The crowning does not imply a hook up- but the baby does. ;) You are right though, we don't know if it was consensual. I assume so only b/c I see Lyanna as similar to Arya, and when it comes to love making I would place Arya in the same category as a wildling woman: yes you can steal and rape her, but you better watch out or she'll slit your throat while you're sleeping.

We also don't know for sure that Jon is Rhaegar's baby. As some of us are questioning the more established assumptions, I think we have to consider that over the year and a half that she was missing, Lyanna may have had access to other men. (More and more I suspect Howland Reed was involved. They met at Harrenhal, and Lyanna would have been fascinated by his stories and the IoF. Coincidentally, she also disappeared from near the Isle. Hmmm.)

The only "evidence" we have that she ever even saw Rhaegar comes from whoever told the story initially ("the witness"), and the fact that they were both missing for a while. However, Rhaegar reappears before the battle of the Ruby Ford - he gathers up the remnants of the royal forces, waits for the Dornish host to arrive, then rides to the Trident, etc. So he showed back up about 2 months before the presumed TOJ incident, while Lyanna remained hidden. If we assume she was not at the TOJ, and not guarded by the KG, there is only circumstantial evidence (and presumably a witness account) linking her disappearance to Rhaegar.

Again, can anyone confirm or deny that Lyanna was definitely found in Dorne? I know several POVs have confirmed that Ned returned from Dorne with a baby, and that the TOJ is in the south, with Ned's dream seeing Dorne's red mountains behind it. But are we really sure Lyanna was found there, whether in the TOJ or Starfall? If Ned were riding to Dorne to free his captured sister, would he not assume she would be guarded, and would he not bring more than 6 men? There was a whole army at his disposal, why only 6 companions?

Well the king did demand his and Ned's heads even though they hadn't done anything. Brandon maybe was asking for it (wolf's blood and all...) but Rickard was summoned to KL and then killed. Yes you can technically say any action against your king is treason, but then this applies to every rebellion in all of history. As far as rebellions go, I'd say this one was more justified than most.

Honestly, I think Robert's main delusion is the belief that Lyanna returned his feelings. He looooves Ned, and Lyanna was his little sister, who by all accounts was fun and also quite pretty. I don't see any reason to think he didn't love her - although love of course is a vague term.

Yeah but a baby doesn't imply hook up with Rhaegar which is what i am saying.I am one of those questioning that assumption and considering alternatives such as Aerys who IMO seem more a likely canidate other than R.I think it's a possibility that the IOF could have been seen as a place of refuge but i think it more simple that she figured she was preggers and bolted on her way to wherever she was going ( i could see seeking help from Reed) she met Rhaegar (on his own buisness to do what he couldn't do with the lords at the Tourney) on the way and a girl so young made a query and she told him what happened with Aerys.This at the moment was pertinent. This was an unplanned event that needed fast action.Maybe he thought there was political and prophetic implications and just acted.

You know i've found myself less curious about what Rhaegar and Robert must have felt about Lyanna.I find what was told about Lyanna enough to conclude she probably wasn't interested in anything but playing at being a Knight.

Who said that Rhaegar called it the tower of joy has always been the question. It clearly doesn't crop in in the dodgy dream sequence, so who said it? Who told Eddard?

That being said I remain wary of over-analysing a lot of this stuff. GRRM has very firmly told us that it was a dream and not to be taken literally, it doesn't even have the status of an unreliable narrator and I think all that we can be sure of is that Ned and his gang met the King boys in a rencounter up by the tower and had a pretty desperate fight which left all but two of them dead and that the survivors had the tower torn down afterwards to raise memorial cairns over the fallen - which suggests that whatever the reason for fighting it wasn't personal.

There's a very detailed dialogue to go with this, which may be accurate, or bearing in mind GRRM's warning may only have happened in Lord Eddard's head.

Then we have Lyanna, dying in her bed of blood, which is certainly connected with the fight but on balance taking into account both the circumstances and the dream itself, as well as GRRM's warning, should not be assumed to be occurring at the same time and place, hence the widely held belief in these here parts that she died at Starfall.

On a superficial reading of the dream its very easy to treat it as a straightforward narrative, but if we do so then there is no mystery as to Jon Snow's parents. Lyanna we are told right at the beginning, was kidnapped and raped and died down south. In the dream Ned fights and kills the Kings Guard, Rhaegar's own men, outside a tower which he afterwards recalls hearing Rhaegar had named the tower of joy. And then we have Lyanna, in that same dream, dying in a bed of blood - a phrase repeated used elsewhere as a metaphor for childbed.

Really, it is so bleeding obvious that there is absolutely no need for the intricate "textual analysis" so beloved of the faithful in another place. It really is as subtle as the proverbial train-crash and the only reason that non-book reading viewers have never cottoned on is because the scene was never included in the show.

So if it is that obvious, why is it still a mystery and why did GRRM issue that warning that the scene was not to be taken literally. In all seriousness although we've speculated as to who else may have been Jon's father, Rhaegar Targaryen still looks the most likely, but as we've seen in the two synopses GRRM appears to have intended the purpose of the identity business to have been to facilitate Jon and Arya getting it on as cousins rather than siblings and that so far as that outcome is concerned its far more important that Jon is the son of Lyanna rather than the son of a Targaryen upstart*, I think therefore that GRRM's warning is not a question of back-pedalling on Jon's identity but rather an attempt to rein in the fevered speculation arising not from R+L=J per se but rather the Kings Guard + Tower + Lyanna in childbed = King Jon Targaryen and a return of the king resolution to the story which is markedly absent from the synopses.

* given that the Starks have been Kings and Lords in Westeros for upwards of 8-10,000 years depending on which authority you prefer, a "dynasty" resident in Westeros for a bare 300 years are upstarts by anybody's definition.

I agree :bowdown:

[TheNorthernWarrior]

Yes to the bolded parts! I have been suggesting for a while now that Tywin played a role in starting RR. Aerys had been sh*tting on him for years and years, and when he stole his heir that was the last straw. What does Tywin do when someone pisses him off? He extinguishes their entire families- just ask the Tarbecks and the Reynes. The assumption that he would have taken all these insults lying down does not fit the character. In fact, we know that he was ready to risk the king's death at Duskendale, and apparently said publicly that if the Darklyns kill Aerys, the realm would have a better king in Rhaegar.

Who benefitted the most from RR? Well, maybe Robert, but the Lannisters certainly improved their lot considerably. Cersei is queen, Lannister children will inherit the crown. Tywin is once again feared and respected. And all the Targaryens are dead. (Almost.) He has had his revenge.

Are you suggesting Rhaegar is Duncan & Jenny's son? ;) I remember considering this possibility when reading the Summerhall passage in the WB- especially combined with the Targ family tree showing D and J having no kids. And the fact that Rhaegar was born fairly soon after Aerys and Rhaella were married- a beautiful, healthy son on the first try. Followed by 10 years of failed pregnancies. A little suspicious when that perfect prince is also born under circumstances that would have left very few, if any, witnesses to the actual birth.

Yes it looked like Tywin was positioning himself to win regardless of who won the Battle on the Trident. If Rhaegar had won I am guessing Elia ends up dead somehow regardless and the Mad King is blamed. Lyanna is the wild card as how can he know she'll die... unless he knows Rhaegar + Lyanna is not a thing.

[WeaselPie]

Do you remember where you read this? I just reread the lady Dustin passage and that part is not in there.

It does, however, mention that lady D. thinks the Tully marriage was Walys' idea. Not sure if that matters.

How do you know Walgrave is his father? That would be super creepy!

Wow, how did I miss this entire sub-plot?? :stunned:

I need to find where I read more about it. The wiki lists him as dead in 283 with no other information. What we do know is that Catelyn brought Maester Luwin to Winterfell.

There is nothing in the text about Maester Walys's death or disappearance, which is strange.

He was a Hightower bastard, and the son of an Archmaester as well. Why would GRRM give him such a particular background, only to kill him off, forgotten, offscreen?

Why involve a Hightower at the ToJ and a Hightower in Winterfell during mysterious events, if it didn't matter?

Why bring him up by name in Barbrey Dustin's conversation with Theon if he didn't matter?

Hmm, I wonder if there is anyone mysterious hanging around Winterfell while Theon is there. One who might know the family's entire history, be familiar with the crypts, etc. Wowza, that would be cool.

[wolfmaid7]

Why? Or at least, why in more depth? They have some basic answers, there is a good fit, why push deeper when the conclusions are right in front of them?

Were they?

Said by who?

What mysterious circumstances?

She was abducted and disappeared for over a year. She died at some stage during that time. What is so mysterious? A fairly large portion of the population has probably just died over the last year as a result of a vicious civil war.

She's not anyone personally special to anyone except Ned, Benjen and Robert. And Robert is not a deep person. He gets a simple answer from Ned (a fever, happens to be true) and he's perfectly capable of, even inclined towards, fleshing at all the rest of the story to satisfy his own needs and believing it fully.

Your besty is the person you most trust in all the world. He says the child is his (it even looks like him) and is being all noble and honourable about it and that answer is exactly what you want to think anyway - it makes you feel better about your own behavour to know that he can slip up too, and you don't want to even imagine that there was anything more than rape between Lyanna and Rhaegar.

Don't forget, Robert doesn't want to think about any of this deeply. At a really deep level he knows the truth too (he says that Rhaegar has her after all), so he really doesn't want to think about it.

Robert is more capable, and more inclined, than anyone else to swallow such tales. In fact he probably made them up himself out of minimalist answers from a reticent Ned, just like the Wylla story where its Robert making all the statements and wild assumptions and Ned subtly misleads him by answering the actual question asked, rather than the one that seems forefront to the casual reader.

Nobody else cares, except perhaps Benjen, who mysteriously joins the NW.

I agree that the crowning doesn't imply a hookup. I don't think there was one at Harrenhal FWIW.

But between the crowning and Brandon's ride to KL demanding Rhaegar come out and die... there's something linking Brandon's fury to Rhaegar at that point, and thats before Robert has had any involvement.

Why is it necessary to fight against something that both sides claim (in varied ways) and all the circumstantial evidence leads to? Yes, question the details, and yes, its ok to question whether its the truth or not, but in the end all the facts we have lead to the same conclusion. There comes a point where in the absence of new evidence, that conclusion just has to be accepted - for now.

I think his feels are all related to the disaster that his marriage to Cersei has become, and his own life partly as a result (at least thats his excuse) and how his fantasy Lyanna is really the happy alternative that never happened was prevented from happening. I don't think it has much to do with his actual relationship with the real Lyanna at all.

To reiterate i don't speak of the mere folk wondering about these things i speak of those who would be considered Ned's inner circle.And it is possible for someone to just ask an internal question that leads to futher investigation.We've had it already what made Stannis question the paternity of Robert's children to bring it up to JA? Simple observation of of something that seem out of place. We have had Characters tiptoe around Jon's maternity they just ever went beyond that and say well while i'm on that thought what was the rumor again.Alas this may be a case f it doesn't serve the the plot to have certain peple ponder this so it's niether here nor there.

About the bolded i have no doubt for reasons unknown Lyanna went off with Rhaegar,that is what's being explored because there is enough there to question if it abduction( don't believe) or she ran of with him which implies romantic reasons (also don't believe) those are either or fallicies that prohibit other alternatives . Another she didn't run off of was abducted by him....She needed help and believed he was in a position to help.

[Joe Pine]

New subject.

Was there an undisclosed reason why the widow Dustin, whose husband died fighting with Ned at the tower, and who says she hates the Starks, wanted to be shown the crypts?

Lyanna's tomb? Her husband buried at a cairn in the middle of nowhere, her lord's sister brought home. Maybe she wanted to see the tomb as it's why she's a widow.

[Joe Pine]

Exactly - the Targs are the side attraction; the Lannisters are running the main act in the big tent.

And crazy as it may sound, I believe one of the ringleaders with both arms elbow-deep in the treachery pie even back before the tourney was Cersei.

I think I'd buy that theory, It seems that with Aerys, the Targaryen's had run their course, no matter how different Rhaegar may have seemed. Viserys seemed mad as a brush and Dany at times makes you wonder.

[Black Crow]

Well, then I guess I'm a pretty unobservant reader, because I didn't come away from aGoT thinking that Lyanna was Jon's mother; in fact, Jon's parentage wasn't even on my radar as a mystery that needed solving, despite the disproportionate scrutiny that fans give it.

That, with all due respect to your unobservant reading is, ultimately the point of this alternative look at R+L=J. There is, undeniably, a minor mystery out there over the identity of Jon's mother, but once he gets used to being a bastard [with Tyrion's help] it stops being an issue other than a running joke with stories like the fisherman's daughter. It's just a minor side issue which GRRM explains almost in passing as relating to he and Arya.

The problem is that if you step over the way you'll find that to the faithful it is the central mystery which defines the books, that a resolution of the story revolves around it and that essentially they're looking at a return of the king scenario, which most emphatically does not feature in the synopses and is exactly the kind of cliched trope which GRRM has set his face against.

Notwithstanding, to the faithful anyone who doesn't agree is either blind, ignorant or a troll. After the stunned silence which saw most of the current R+L=J thread taken up with Valentines greetings and discussions of the real world weather they now appear to be settling back into the old regime of "textual analysis" whilst ignoring the first synopsis and completely dismissing the second. Neither fit their particular world view and therefore don't exist.

[Voice]

Once again that comes back to the 1993 synopsis and GRRM's declaration that the story is about the Starks and the Lannisters. The Targaryens only come into the story in the form of Danaerys the Dragonlord.

I largely agree with the de-emphasis on Targdom, but we know the tale grew since 1993. I don't think anyone believes this is the story of Stark v Lannister any longer. And it is telling that even in the letter, the reveal of Jon's parentage is mentioned as a matter of import:

Their passion will continue to torment Jon and Arya throughout the trilogy, until the secret of Jon's true parentage is finally revealed in the last book.

If we parse this out, the verbiage after the comma strongly suggests this is an important element of the story.

Before the comma, we know the context has changed quite a bit, as Jon is no longer in a love triangle with Arya. Yet, GRRM kept Jon's parentage as a mystery to be revealed at the end of the series. This makes no sense to do if it is only tangential information.

[Urrax2]

...Before the comma, we know the context has changed quite a bit, as Jon is no longer in a love triangle with Arya. Yet, GRRM kept Jon's parentage as a mystery to be revealed at the end of the series. This makes no sense to do if it is only tangential information.

Well, maybe rather than "no longer" it's "not yet."

[Voice]

Well, maybe rather than "no longer" it's "not yet."

Completely possible, though rather than tormenting Jon "throughout the trilogy" Ygritte already served GRRM's romantic purposes for Jon during ASOS.

[wolfmaid7]

I largely agree with the de-emphasis on Targdom, but we know the tale grew since 1993. I don't think anyone believes this is the story of Stark v Lannister any longer. And it is telling that even in the letter, the reveal of Jon's parentage is mentioned as a matter of import:

Their passion will continue to torment Jon and Arya throughout the trilogy, until the secret of Jon's true parentage is finally revealed in the last book.

If we parse this out, the verbiage after the comma strongly suggests this is an important element of the story.

Before the comma, we know the context has changed quite a bit, as Jon is no longer in a love triangle with Arya. Yet, GRRM kept Jon's parentage as a mystery to be revealed at the end of the series. This makes no sense to do if it is only tangential information.

Your right he kept this mystery till the "end" of the series which would have accomplished nothing except get Jon and Arya together. Which is how I took it. It seemed to have no bearing on the overall story as it pertains to any other resolution.

Again the story has grown in the telling but as I said if we compare the story today with the synopsis we can easily see what's still a factor and what's not.

As it stand in a scenario where Jon's parents are revealed we have to consider who will it matter too.Will people care and how does him being a Targ/Stark going to stop the crap that both fire and ice are bringing?

Is he going to go all 5th element and stuff and stand between factions to forge a convergence that.....sigh i'm getting a headache. You see where u'm going with this?

[Black Crow]

Well, maybe rather than "no longer" it's "not yet."

Quite. We need to bear in mind that although the series has stretched and otherwise expanded to fill the infamous five year gap we can't really have Jon and Arya being tormented by their feelings for each other until they and in particular she is growed up sufficiently to have those feelings. When she and Jon last saw each other she was still a skinny little tomboy. In Braavos she's growing up and we have hints that she's going to end up returning by way of Eastwatch so its far too premature at this moment to say that GRRM has abandoned this particular storyline from the synopsis, far less devised a different reason for keeping Jon's mother a secret.

[MaesterSam]

I'm also inclined to wonder whether, if a Stark/Lannister rivalry goes back way before the sack of Kings Landing [as it surely must to be so deeply entrenched when the story opens] whether that might account for what feels like Ned's guilt at Lyanna's death.

While I agree there is very much a sense of Ned feeling guilty about something, I always interpreted this guilt as relating to the promise, and certain lies Ned apparently has been telling. After he reveals to Robert how the Lannisters betrayed the Targaryens and he found Jaime on the throne, Robert basically says the Targs had it coming and he wouldn't lose any sleep over it. To which Ned reflects that he did lose sleep over it. He had lived his lies for 14 years, yet they still haunted him at night. There is clearly guilt here, but Lyanna is not involved.

Later, he reflects on how he always keeps his promises, and the price he has paid for it. There is definitely something that happened that Ned isn't proud of, but I personally don't see him feeling guilty for her death.

Also: Ned tells Arya that the wolf blood led Lyanna to an early grave. He believes her actions led to her fate.

Yes it looked like Tywin was positioning himself to win regardless of who won the Battle on the Trident. If Rhaegar had won I am guessing Elia ends up dead somehow regardless and the Mad King is blamed. Lyanna is the wild card as how can he know she'll die... unless he knows Rhaegar + Lyanna is not a thing.

Hmm yes. If the plan was to get rid of Aerys and have Cersei marry Rhaegar, the crowning of Lyanna would have been cause for concern. Maybe that's why Lyanna had to be removed from the picture?

[MaesterSam]

Many men fathered bastards. Catelyn had grown up with that knowledge. It came as no surprise to her, in the first year of her marriage, to learn that Ned had fathered a child on some girl chance met on campaign. He had a man’s needs, after all, and they had spent that year apart, Ned off at war in the south while she remained safe in her father’s castle at Riverrun. Her thoughts were more of Robb, the infant at her breast, than of the husband she scarcely knew. He was welcome to whatever solace he might find between battles. And if his seed quickened, she expected he would see to the child’s needs.

He did more than that. The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him “son” for all the north to see. When the wars were over at last, and Catelyn rode to Winterfell, Jon and his wet nurse had already taken up residence.

That cut deep. Ned would not speak of the mother, not so much as a word, but a castle has no secrets, and Catelyn heard her maids repeating tales they heard from the lips of her husband’s soldiers. They whispered of Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys’s Kingsguard, and of how their young lord had slain him in single combat.

And they told how afterward Ned had carried Ser Arthur’s sword back to the beautiful young sister who awaited him in a castle called Starfall on the shores of the Summer Sea. The Lady Ashara Dayne, tall and fair, with haunting violet eyes. It had taken her a fortnight to marshal her courage, but finally, in bed one night, Catelyn had asked her husband the truth of it, asked him to his face. That was the only time in all their years that Ned had ever frightened her. “Never ask me about Jon,” he said, cold as ice. “He is my blood, and that is all you need to know. And now I will learn where you heard that name, my lady.” She had pledged to obey; she told him; and from that day on, the whispering had stopped, and Ashara Dayne’s name was never heard in Winterfell again.

Whoever Jon’s mother had been, Ned must have loved her fiercely, for nothing Catelyn said would persuade him to send the boy away. It was the one thing she could never forgive him. She had come to love her husband with all her heart, but she had never found it in her to love Jon. She might have overlooked a dozen bastards for Ned’s sake, so long as they were out of sight. Jon was never out of sight, and as he grew, he looked more like Ned than any of the trueborn sons she bore him. Somehow that made it worse.

Just thought I'd add this passage so we have it to refer to. I highlighted some potentially relevant parts.

1) Tales they heard from Ned's soldiers??? Which soldiers would that be? Howland Reed? I thought nobody else survived?

2) Funny, no mention of Howland helping out. Ned slew Dayne in single combat. Really?

3) Ok so Ashara was still alive (and present) when Ned arrived at Starfall.

4) Wow he really doesn't want people talking about Jon's mom.

5) Cat apparently made a valiant effort to have Jon sent away, and Ned refused. Because he loved his mother so much.