R+L=J v 150

[Attitude]

I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote.

 

Partly realistic (based on the first letter from GRRM), partly just sarcastic.

 

If Jon + Arya would get a love story (not likely, but that's what I meant by 'banging') but it ends up he is a Targ and has to marry his aunt (because Targs like incest) to become king and queen of westeros once more..

 

He would give up love (Arya) for Duty (serve the realm with dany, making the 'song of ice and fire' complete) 

 

But don't take this seriously..

[Bael's Bastard]

It is really very simple. If Rhaegar and Lyanna turn out not to be Jon's parents it will be a huge red herring, as there is a significant amount of evidence and indications throughout all the books that point to them being Jon's parents. If Arthur turns out not to be Jon's father nobody will bat an eye, because there has been no real evidence or indication that Arthur fathered Jon.

 

If you think there is a case to be made for Arthur or anyone else as father, put it to the test. Put together the best case you can, search for every piece of possible evidence throughout the books that you can, and present it to be discussed.  The constant comments of there being viable alternative options are never accompanied by anything of substance, and have no legs to stand on.

 

So, as so many have asked so many times when such empty claims are made in this thread, put up or shut up.

[MtnLion]

It is really very simple. If Rhaegar and Lyanna turn out not to be Jon's parents it will be a huge red herring, as there is a significant amount of evidence and indications throughout all the books that point to them being Jon's parents. If Arthur turns out not to be Jon's father nobody will bat an eye, because there has been no real evidence or indication that Arthur fathered Jon.

 

If you think there is a case to be made for Arthur or anyone else as father, put it to the test. Put together the best case you can, search for every piece of possible evidence throughout the books that you can, and present it to be discussed.  The constant comments of there being viable alternative options are never accompanied by anything of substance, and have no legs to stand on.

 

So, as so many have asked so many times when such empty claims are made in this thread, put up or shut up.

A red herring is something that is explicitly stated, like Wylla is Jon's mother, Ned is Jon's father, The fisherman's daughter is Jon's mother.  Rhaegar and Lyanna is never explicitly stated in the books.  Arthur is not an option.  Let me show you why, objectively, from the analysis "at the tower of joy" in my signature: 

 

We have Ned's interpretation of the Kingsguard's vow:  His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought, but did not permit the words to pass his lips.  "He swore a vow to protect his king's life with his own.  Then he opened that king's throat with a sword."  Reading these three statements, with Ned's understanding we have: The Kingsguard does not flee (from its duty to protect King Aerys) then or (from its duty to protect Jon) now, because (explained) we swore a vow to protect our king's life with our own; puts things in a very clear light.

 

Jon is royalty, heir to the throne, and it is even hinted in the passage that the Kingsguard have sworn fealty to him before Ned arrives. 

 

ETA:  Yes, we agree, but this needed to be brought up.  The analysis is objective. 

[Ygrain]

It is really very simple. If Rhaegar and Lyanna turn out not to be Jon's parents it will be a huge red herring, as there is a significant amount of evidence and indications throughout all the books that point to them being Jon's parents. If Arthur turns out not to be Jon's father nobody will bat an eye, because there has been no real evidence or indication that Arthur fathered Jon.

 

If you think there is a case to be made for Arthur or anyone else as father, put it to the test. Put together the best case you can, search for every piece of possible evidence throughout the books that you can, and present it to be discussed.  The constant comments of there being viable alternative options are never accompanied by anything of substance, and have no legs to stand on.

 

So, as so many have asked so many times when such empty claims are made in this thread, put up or shut up.

Except the red herring part,  :agree:

 

"Other alternatives" and "open-minded" and what not seem to be popular phrases these days, but unless someone finally presents the cause... words are wind.

[Bael's Bastard]

OK, poor use of red herring perhaps. I am just trying to make the point that the books are full of evidence and indications that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents, even if GRRM chose to go in another direction (which I don't believe he will do). While not explicitly stated in story, like Ned+Wylla or Ned+Ashara, there is enough pointing toward R+L=J to be notable if it didn't turn out to be true. No groundwork has been laid for theories of other fathers such as Arthur. I would go as far as to say the only real competition (which I don't think is really serious competition) for R+L=J are the likely-to-be-red-herrings of Ned+Wylla or Ned+Ashara.

[Prince of Ghost]

 

First two essays have just been posted.

 

Just PM wolfmaid7 for the details for the The Heresy Essays: X + Y = J Alternatives.

[MtnLion]

OK, poor use of red herring perhaps. I am just trying to make the point that the books are full of evidence and indications that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents, even if GRRM chose to go in another direction (which I don't believe he will do). While not explicitly stated in story, like Ned+Wylla or Ned+Ashara, there is enough pointing toward R+L=J to be notable if it didn't turn out to be true. No groundwork has been laid for theories of other fathers such as Arthur. I would go as far as to say the only real competition (which I don't think is really serious competition) for R+L=J are the likely-to-be-red-herrings of Ned+Wylla or Ned+Ashara.

The books are full of evidence, because in the end, that is what the whole story is about.  ;)

[UnmaskedLurker]

OK, poor use of red herring perhaps. I am just trying to make the point that the books are full of evidence and indications that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents, even if GRRM chose to go in another direction (which I don't believe he will do). While not explicitly stated in story, like Ned+Wylla or Ned+Ashara, there is enough pointing toward R+L=J to be notable if it didn't turn out to be true. No groundwork has been laid for theories of other fathers such as Arthur. I would go as far as to say the only real competition (which I don't think is really serious competition) for R+L=J are the likely-to-be-red-herrings of Ned+Wylla or Ned+Ashara.

While I agree with this analysis -- I think the useful issue to pursue in why the use of the term "red herring" seemed to be applicable at all (when it really is not). I suspect that the reason you (and others) might refer to RLJ as a red herring is because the evidence has been poured over for so long and is so persuasive that it seems almost like the books have explicitly stated RLJ somewhere. But we know they have not -- and that is why RLJ is so likely to be the answer to the mystery. There are too many clues in favor of RLJ just to be an accident. And if RLJ is intended as misdirection -- i.e., as a red herring -- then GRRM would serve it up as speculation by someone. But he does not -- EVER.

 

As GRRM states -- he does not "lie" to his readers. So if all of the clues point toward RLJ, then RLJ is the answer. It just does not work as misdirection because the clues are too indirect. But the clues are too clear in terms of pointing in only one direction for any other plausible solution (absent GRRM coming up with some brilliant explanation for how we all misunderstood the clues for so long).

[Prince of Ghost]

It is really very simple. If Rhaegar and Lyanna turn out not to be Jon's parents it will be a huge red herring, as there is a significant amount of evidence and indications throughout all the books that point to them being Jon's parents. If Arthur turns out not to be Jon's father nobody will bat an eye, because there has been no real evidence or indication that Arthur fathered Jon.

 

If you think there is a case to be made for Arthur or anyone else as father, put it to the test. Put together the best case you can, search for every piece of possible evidence throughout the books that you can, and present it to be discussed.  The constant comments of there being viable alternative options are never accompanied by anything of substance, and have no legs to stand on.

 

So, as so many have asked so many times when such empty claims are made in this thread, put up or shut up.

 

 

A red herring is something that is explicitly stated, like Wylla is Jon's mother, Ned is Jon's father, The fisherman's daughter is Jon's mother.  Rhaegar and Lyanna is never explicitly stated in the books.  Arthur is not an option.  Let me show you why, objectively, from the analysis "at the tower of joy" in my signature: 

 

We have Ned's interpretation of the Kingsguard's vow:  His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought, but did not permit the words to pass his lips.  "He swore a vow to protect his king's life with his own.  Then he opened that king's throat with a sword."  Reading these three statements, with Ned's understanding we have: The Kingsguard does not flee (from its duty to protect King Aerys) then or (from its duty to protect Jon) now, because (explained) we swore a vow to protect our king's life with our own; puts things in a very clear light.

 

Jon is royalty, heir to the throne, and it is even hinted in the passage that the Kingsguard have sworn fealty to him before Ned arrives. 

 

ETA:  Yes, we agree, but this needed to be brought up.  The analysis is objective. 

 

 

Except the red herring part,  :agree:

 

"Other alternatives" and "open-minded" and what not seem to be popular phrases these days, but unless someone finally presents the cause... words are wind.

 

 

OK, poor use of red herring perhaps. I am just trying to make the point that the books are full of evidence and indications that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents, even if GRRM chose to go in another direction (which I don't believe he will do). While not explicitly stated in story, like Ned+Wylla or Ned+Ashara, there is enough pointing toward R+L=J to be notable if it didn't turn out to be true. No groundwork has been laid for theories of other fathers such as Arthur. I would go as far as to say the only real competition (which I don't think is really serious competition) for R+L=J are the likely-to-be-red-herrings of Ned+Wylla or Ned+Ashara.

 

 

The books are full of evidence, because in the end, that is what the whole story is about.  ;)

 

 

While I agree with this analysis -- I think the useful issue to pursue in why the use of the term "red herring" seemed to be applicable at all (when it really is not). I suspect that the reason you (and others) might refer to RLJ as a red herring is because the evidence has been poured over for so long and is so persuasive that it seems almost like the books have explicitly stated RLJ somewhere. But we know they have not -- and that is why RLJ is so likely to be the answer to the mystery. There are too many clues in favor of RLJ just to be an accident. And if RLJ is intended as misdirection -- i.e., as a red herring -- then GRRM would serve it up as speculation by someone. But he does not -- EVER.

 

As GRRM states -- he does not "lie" to his readers. So if all of the clues point toward RLJ, then RLJ is the answer. It just does not work as misdirection because the clues are too indirect. But the clues are too clear in terms of pointing in only one direction for any other plausible solution (absent GRRM coming up with some brilliant explanation for how we all misunderstood the clues for so long).

As I stated earlier, just PM wolfmaid7 for the details on The Heresy Essays: X + Y = J Alternatives. Two of them are already posted.

[sabrecmc]

If GRRM does switch his Arya/Jon idea for Sansa/Jon, which at least seems plausible, particularly given what the show is doing, then I can see an ending with Jon on the throne but giving up Sansa, who stays married to Tyrion or something because of political reasons.  Duty vs. Love and duty wins out for both of them.  That seems bittersweet to me.  Two of the genuinely decent characters love each other but can't be together.  Sounds a bit like GRRM's B&tB background, tbh.  I'd personally rather the 7 kingdoms crumble and no one sit the IT, but I can see GRRM going this direction.

[The Khal Who Rode West]

It is really very simple. If Rhaegar and Lyanna turn out not to be Jon's parents it will be a huge red herring, as there is a significant amount of evidence and indications throughout all the books that point to them being Jon's parents. If Arthur turns out not to be Jon's father nobody will bat an eye, because there has been no real evidence or indication that Arthur fathered Jon.
 
If you think there is a case to be made for Arthur or anyone else as father, put it to the test. Put together the best case you can, search for every piece of possible evidence throughout the books that you can, and present it to be discussed.  The constant comments of there being viable alternative options are never accompanied by anything of substance, and have no legs to stand on.
 
So, as so many have asked so many times when such empty claims are made in this thread, put up or shut up.

Have you yourself ever tried to find evidence as Arthur as Jon's father, or are you just saying that there's no evidence? Because you keep asking for someone else to find the evidence and present it. Which doesn't seem like you know any evidence or you'd probably just present it yourself and say why it doesn't work.

Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, had a sad smile on his lips.

"And now it begins," said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.
"No," Ned said with sadness in his voice. "Now it ends." As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming.

Ned and Arthur are the only two who are sad to see each other at the TOJ. And the "they" could mean both sides coming together, but it also works that Lyanna is screaming as Ned and Arthur come to blows as that is also a they.

"The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed." Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more. Bran wished he had asked him what he meant.

Once more Ned is getting sad about Arthur.

"We all swore oaths," said Ser Arthur Dayne, so sadly.

Once more Arthur is sad, and this time about one of his oaths and we know he was sworn to celibacy as a Kingsguard.

"I never had the honor to know Prince Lewyn," Ser Arys said, "but all agree that he was a great knight."
"A great knight with a paramour. She is an old woman now, but she was a rare beauty in her youth, men say."
Prince Lewyn? That tale Ser Arys had not heard. It shocked him. Terrence Toyne's treason and the deceits of Lucamore the Lusty were recorded in the White Book, but there was no hint of a woman on Prince Lewyn's page.

We have a great knight from Arthur's generation of Kingsguard who broke his vow of celibacy in secrecy to the world at large. Not hard to think that another Kingsguard might have as well. And Arys Oakheart is currently breaking his vow of celibacy and feeling bad about it which might parallel how Arthur felt.

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.

Ned went to the trouble of bringing Arthur's sword back to his family, but never brought anything back to the other Kingsguard families, or his own bannermen's families except Lord Dustin's horse. Dawn's a cool sword, but Whent had a personalized helmet, and likely the other members all had personal items that their families might have wanted.

Dawn remains at Starfall, until another Sword of the Morning shall arise

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Category/C91/P75/

George says that Dawn is indeed at Starfall (Ned did return it) and that another Sword of the Morning will arise to claim it. Darkstar and Edric have both seemingly been passed over as Sword of the Morning and we know of no other male Daynes, so seems like there's the possibility that there is a hidden Dayne in the story who could be the next Sword of the Morning. And the Sword of the Morning post has been empty for all of Jon's life.

"My lady?" Ned looked embarrassed. "I'm Edric Dayne, the . . . the Lord of Starfall."

The current Lord of Starfall is seemingly named/nicknamed after Eddard Stark. Which makes more sense if Ned took on Arthur's child as his own and they know this then if they know that he took on Rhaegar's child as his own.

Jon Darry and Barristan Selmy rode to Stoney Sept to rally what they could of griffins' men, and Prince Rhaegar returned from the south

Jaime's quote, if he's speaking literally, eliminates Rhaegar as Jon's father if he returned as Darry and Barristan were riding out to gather the remnants of the royalist army from the Battle of Stoney Sept and Lyanna gave birth after the Siege of Storm's End as that means that Lyanna gave birth a year after Rhaegar left her. Arthur suffers no such problem of potentially not having been there in the timeframe required to have fathered Lyanna's child like Rhaegar might.

RLJ still makes more sense, but it's ridiculous that you keep saying that there's nothing indicating that Arthur might be Jon's father.

[Sly Wren]

I disagree with the bolded. While perhaps there cannot be 100% certainty until the truth is revealed in the books, lack of 100% certainty is not the same as the impossibility of an objective standard. An objective standard is a standard that indicates that the solution to a mystery that most closely adheres to all the available clues and ancillary information is most likely to be the solution to the mystery. I consider that standard to be an objective standard. Of course, there is always some subjectivity in applying an objective standard because we are human beings who have to use judgment in applying even an objective standard -- and judgment always involves some amount of subjectivity. But the standard itself remains objective.

Agree with the bolded. Problem comes with determining things like "most likely" and "close adherence"--those seem fraught with at least some peril of subjectivity. So, establishing such a standard seems very hard.

 

But It seems like all we're really disagreeing about is the level of certainty about RLJ, not whether or not it is likely per se. Which isn't much of a disagreement at all. So, all good.

[Sly Wren]

So, as so many have asked so many times when such empty claims are made in this thread, put up or shut up.

Not hiding anything. Stated my short list of reasons why I think Rhaegar=daddy is most likely in my response to you earlier (post #260). Discussed various implications of the Daynes, Arthur, and Dawn on the previous RLJ thread with everyone else. Have also posted my rough list of evidence on RLJ and ALJ here: 

[spoiler]http://thelasthearth.freeforums.net/board/26/jon-snows-parentage  My lists are in the "Arthur + Lyanna" thread and the "Rhaegar + Lyanna" thread.[/spoiler]

Just lists, not arguments. Happy to post them here if people don't want to muck about with the link. So, not hiding anything.

 

Edited to fix mucked up spoiler.

[MtnLion]

Jon Darry and Barristan Selmy rode to Stoney Sept to rally what they could of griffins' men, and Prince Rhaegar returned from the south

Jaime's quote, if he's speaking literally, eliminates Rhaegar as Jon's father if he returned as Darry and Barristan were riding out to gather the remnants of the royalist army from the Battle of Stoney Sept and Lyanna gave birth after the Siege of Storm's End as that means that Lyanna gave birth a year after Rhaegar left her. Arthur suffers no such problem of potentially not having been there in the timeframe required to have fathered Lyanna's child like Rhaegar might.

RLJ still makes more sense, but it's ridiculous that you keep saying that there's nothing indicating that Arthur might be Jon's father.

So that you know that I took the time to read your post, I will cite the last point and explain how this is a distortion.  It is after the Battle of the Bells that Ned and company return to Riverrun and Ned marries Catelyn.  He stays with her long enough to see her with child.  Robb is that child and we are fairly certain that he is about a fortnight older than Jon.  That all seems to make a point for you.  But, and this is pretty big, It is after the Battle of the Bells that Darry and Selmy ride for the Stoney Sept to recover the remains of the army.  It is after the Battle of the Bells that Aerys sends Hightower to find Rhaegar, and no one knows where Rhaegar is, so he will need to do some detective work, not ride to the tower immediately.  Even if Hightower rides for the tower, directly, there is still enough slop in the timeline to have Rhaegar father Jon before returning.  So, your quote seems okay, but in reality fails to offer any credible objection to R+L=J. 

[The Khal Who Rode West]

So that you know that I took the time to read your post, I will cite the last point and explain how this is a distortion.  It is after the Battle of the Bells that Ned and company return to Riverrun and Ned marries Catelyn.  He stays with her long enough to see her with child.  Robb is that child and we are fairly certain that he is about a fortnight older than Jon.  That all seems to make a point for you.  But, and this is pretty big, It is after the Battle of the Bells that Darry and Selmy ride for the Stoney Sept to recover the remains of the army.  It is after the Battle of the Bells that Aerys sends Hightower to find Rhaegar, and no one knows where Rhaegar is, so he will need to do some detective work, not ride to the tower immediately.  Even if Hightower rides for the tower, directly, there is still enough slop in the timeline to have Rhaegar father Jon before returning.  So, your quote seems okay, but in reality fails to offer any credible objection to R+L=J. 

Sure. But the timeline is indeed easier for Arthur to have fathered Jon than it is for Rhaegar. I don't exactly think that should be up for debate as Rhaegar did leave her at some point but Arthur never did. Rhaegar therefore has a timeline that he has to abide by. Arthur doesn't. There's certainly room in there for Rhaegar to have fathered Jon in this timeline, but there's far more room for Arthur to have done so as he isn't constrained by having left Lyanna's side at a certain point. Which is a point in favour of ALJ which is what Bael asked to provide.

[MtnLion]

Sure. But the timeline is indeed easier for Arthur to have fathered Jon than it is for Rhaegar. I don't exactly think that should be up for debate as Rhaegar did leave her at some point but Arthur never did. Rhaegar therefore has a timeline that he has to abide by. Arthur doesn't. There's certainly room in there for Rhaegar to have fathered Jon in this timeline, but there's far more room for Arthur to have done so as he isn't constrained by having left Lyanna's side at a certain point. Which is a point in favour of ALJ which is what Bael asked to provide.

When then you add in how Ned viewed Arthur, "The finest of the shining example to the world", and you lose any possibility for Arthur to have fathered Jon.  

 

Objectively, just read the analysis "at the tower of joy" from my signature, and it is pretty clear that the three Kingsguard, including Arthur, defend the new king from Ned.  If it is Arthur's child then you have to have a reason for Hightower and Whent to stay, instead of departing immediately for Dragonstone.  There is no reason. 

 

To have the reason that they stay because they swore a vow, as Hightower asserts to Ned, makes sense to Ned only in the context of the Kingsguard vow.  There is no other vow that Ned knows of.  Ned knows the Kingsguard vow, since he was present when Jaime swore his, "to protect his king's life with his own". 

[The Twinslayer]

 

Hm, I don't really think your argument applies here. Quentyn wasn't burned up by the furnace wind. He just experienced it shorty before being burned up by dragonfire. Just because the furnace wind preceded the fire breath does not mean that what Quentyn describes as a "furnace wind" was the flame. 

 

The only other mention of the phrase is Tyrion describing the heat from the wildfire trap at the Blackwater:

 

 

So I think it's clear from the context of the three times it's used that it means a blast of hot air, like one would encounter opening a furnace. 

 

http://asearchoficeandfire.com/?q=furnace+wind

Okay, I don't agree about Quentyn, but set that aside for a moment.  I think the Tyrion quote supports my point that different characters use GRRM's special phrases in different ways.  

 

Tyrion feels wind coming off a flame that is warm enough to lift his cloak and warm his face, but not hot enough even to singe his hair.  To Tyrion, that is a furnace wind.

 

For Dany it is a lot hotter -- it is hot enough to char the raw meat from the spearman's belly that is stuck in Drogon's teeth, and even though she is standing far enough away that it doesn't burn her flesh, it is still hot enough to set her hair on fire.  

 

Another attacker stabbed at his eyes until the dragon caught him in his jaws and tore his belly out.  The Meereenese were screaming, cursing, howling.  Dany could hear someone pounding after her.  "Drogon," she screamed.  [i]"Drogon."[/i].

...

Drogon roared.  The sound filled the pit.  A furnace wind engulfed her.  The dragon's long scaled neck stretched toward her.  When his mouth opened, she could see bits of broken bone and charred flesh between his black teeth.  His eyes were molten.

 

So the contrast between the way Tyrion uses the phrase (warm-to-hot breeze that lifts his cloak and warms his face) and Dany uses it (hot enough to set her hair on fire, but not quite hot enough to burn her flesh), is pretty striking.  

[The Khal Who Rode West]

When then you add in how Ned viewed Arthur, "The finest of the shining example to the world", and you lose any possibility for Arthur to have fathered Jon.  
 
Objectively, just read the analysis "at the tower of joy" from my signature, and it is pretty clear that the three Kingsguard, including Arthur, defend the new king from Ned.  If it is Arthur's child then you have to have a reason for Hightower and Whent to stay, instead of departing immediately for Dragonstone.  There is no reason. 
 
To have the reason that they stay because they swore a vow, as Hightower asserts to Ned, makes sense to Ned only in the context of the Kingsguard vow.  There is no other vow that Ned knows of.  Ned knows the Kingsguard vow, since he was present when Jaime swore his, "to protect his king's life with his own". 

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning about Ned's assessment of Arthur eliminating him as Jon's father. First off Ned calls Arthur a great knight, not a great Kingsguard. Bran is asking if the Kingsguard are the greatest knights in the realm. The conversation is about knighthood. Ned is saying that the Kingsguard used to be the greatest knights in the realm, and Arthur was the greatest knight that Ned knew. Not that Arthur was the greatest bodyguard in the world (and clearly he was not seeing as Aerys, Rhaegar, Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys all died, and he didn't protect Jon as he died). But more importantly, Ned singles out Arthur over Oswell and Hightower who were both at the tower. Ned can't be calling Arthur the greatest knight he ever saw because he died defending his king as Oswell and Hightower did the exact same thing if Jon was their king. There's no reason to say that because Arthur is the greatest knight Ned knew that he must have been defending the king as then Ned should think that Gerold Hightower and Oswell Whent were also the greatest knights he ever knew as they would have been doing the same. Ned's assessment of Arthur must have nothing to do with upholding his vow to defend the king. So I'm afraid I can't follow your logic there. It doesn't add up as the conversation's not what you say it's about, and Ned holds Arthur in esteem but not Hightower or Whent who both fought beside Arthur in the same battle.

Your other points make sense and RLJ seems to make the most sense when you look at everything combined. But not of Ned's assessment of Arthur. Ned's assessment of Arthur isn't explained by RLJ. It seems to be directly contradicted by RLJ actually. Not that it's really explained by ALJ either though.

[Sly Wren]

When then you add in how Ned viewed Arthur, "The finest of the shining example to the world", and you lose any possibility for Arthur to have fathered Jon.  

But this is a problem whether Rhaegar or Arthur is Jon's father. Why would Ned respect, let alone praise, a man who helped kidnap his sister? Or take her from her family? Regardless of orders? Especially since she subsequently died. Seems like the answer to what Ned thinks or doesn't think re: Arthur's and Rhaegar's roles re: Lyanna's disappearance is currently residing in the huge gap Martin has given us. Don't even know the circumstances of Lyanna's disappearance. So, Ned's take on Arthur is a problem per se, as is Ned's take (or lack thereof) on Rhaegar.

 

Objectively, just read the analysis "at the tower of joy" from my signature, and it is pretty clear that the three Kingsguard, including Arthur, defend the new king from Ned.  If it is Arthur's child then you have to have a reason for Hightower and Whent to stay, instead of departing immediately for Dragonstone.  There is no reason. 

 

To have the reason that they stay because they swore a vow, as Hightower asserts to Ned, makes sense to Ned only in the context of the Kingsguard vow.  There is no other vow that Ned knows of.  Ned knows the Kingsguard vow, since he was present when Jaime swore his, "to protect his king's life with his own". 

We don't know whether Jon was in that tower or not. Text doesn't give us that. Don't know if anything or anyone was in the tower. Don't know the KG were "staying" there. Just that they are there when Ned and Co. ride up. Don't know they think anything about Jon--no mention of any king but Aerys. No mention of Jon, Lyanna, or Rhaegar. So, why they are there and what their orders were or were not--text doesn't give us that.

 

Edited for spelling

[UnmaskedLurker]

But this is a problem whether Rhaegar or Arthur is Jon's father. Why would Ned respect, let alone praise, a man who helped kidnap his sister? Or take her from her family? Regardless of orders? Especially since she subsequently died. Seems like the answer to what Ned thinks or doesn't think re: Arthur's and Rhaegar's roles re: Lyanna's disappearance is currently residing in the huge gap Martin has given us. Don't even know the circumstances of Lyanna's disappearance. So, Ned's take on Arthur is a problem per se, as is Ned's take (or lack thereof) on Rhaegar.

 

We don't know whether Jon was in that tower or not. Text doesn't give us that. Don't know if anything or anyone was in the tower. Don't know the KG were "staying" there. Just that they are there when Ned and Co. ride up. Don't know they think anything about Jon--no mention of any king but Aerys. No mention of Jon, Lyanna, or Rhaegar. So, why they are there and what their orders were or were not--text doesn't give us that.

 

Edited for spelling

We seem to be going back over the same ground, but OK. First, it is not a problem no matter which is the father. Arthur is a KG, sworn to celibacy. He would not be a great knight if he ignored his vows. His vows included obeying Rhaegar. Now if Rhaegar really kept Lyanna against her will, then agree that Ned likely would not think highly of Arthur. Thus, it is only logical that Rhaegar did NOT keep Lyanna against her will -- and Ned knows this fact. That is how logical reasoning works. The only way to make sense of the information -- for there not to be an gaping hole in the logic -- is to conclude that Lyanna was not held against her will. Accordingly, it is safe to conclude that she was not held against her will.

 

As to whether Jon was in the tower, again, the only logical conclusion is that either Jon was in the tower or maybe, possibly, Jon was at Starfall but the KG were staying with Lyanna at ToJ until she could travel and were not at Starfall so as not to draw attention to Jon's real identity as the next heir to the Targ throne. The readers are supposed to make logical conclusions to make the clues fit. The clues ONLY fit if Jon either is in the tower or Jon is at Starfall, waiting for the KG to get him with Lyanna if she lives or without her if she dies. No other scenario (and I have seen arguments for other possible scenarios) makes any sense at all (at least to me). But in any case, the overarching duty of the KG (whether Jon is at ToJ or Starfall) is to defend Jon, as the heir. They either are defending Jon directly if he is in the tower or indirectly by keeping attention from him until they can come and get him and take him to safety. Those explanations are consistent with the clues and answer all questions regarding the actions of Ned and the KG. Other alternatives simply don't hold up. So we may not "know" certain things -- but we are allowed to make logical conclusions that exclude all but one or two possibilities.