R+L=J v.156

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Lord Varys,

 

Can't "close to a year" also mean "slightly longer than a year"? Say, 13 or 14 months?

In any case, we know that Ned and Catelyn were married after the Battle of the Bells, and we know that when Robb was born 9 months later, Ned was not yet on his way home. That does imply a timespan of more than 2 or 3 months that you suggested earlier.

[Consigliere]

Can't "close to a year" also mean "slightly longer than a year"? Say, 13 or 14 months?

Possibly but I think that it is not a natural reading of the statement. To me 'close to a year' implies 'a little less than a year '.

[UnmaskedLurker]

LV--

It seems we might be missing the forest from the trees. I don't see what the issue of the timeline proves. I think that we all agree that the Ned seems to tell people that Jon was born around the time of the sack of KL (given or take a week, perhaps). Ned was somewhere 9 months prior to that date. Wherever Ned was at that time must be where people believe he met the mother. Whether that location is the riverlands or the Reach or wherever else Ned was fighting at that time (I am not good with timelines or those kind of details, so I really have little idea). What is it about corbon's theory (or anyone else's theory) that is inconsistent with that assumption? After all, Ned must have met the mother at that location -- right?

I also will address a couple of small side points. When I noted that Ned is a leader of the rebellion, what I was suggesting is that Ned would have his own troops to lead which would be separate from Robert's troops -- and Ned might spend time with his troops away from Robert. But that point is really a minor one, and there is no reason to assume, for example, that Robert did not spend time "womanizing" which would mean Ned was away from Robert during certain times. Ned can be believed to have been much more cautious than Tyrion and have a discrete and short affair that no one else knew about. After all, given that the affair is fictitious, people would have to assume the affair was quite discrete.

The other small point I wanted to address is the question of whether Ned traveled with Jon to Winterfell. I used to assume that Ned sent Jon and the wet nurse ahead when Ned went to KL. But the following quote from GoT has me wondering. Here is the relevant passage:

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.

Based on the statement that "Ned brought his bastard home with him," there is a suggestion that Ned arrived back at Winterfell with Jon. Of course, I agree that statement could be more generic in that it simply means that Ned and Jon both arrived at Winterfell after the war. But literally taken, it does state that Ned brought Jon with him. So, I am not sure.

[RumHam]

The other small point I wanted to address is the question of whether Ned traveled with Jon to Winterfell. I used to assume that Ned sent Jon and the wet nurse ahead when Ned went to KL. But the following quote from GoT has me wondering. Here is the relevant passage:

Based on the statement that "Ned brought his bastard home with him," there is a suggestion that Ned arrived back at Winterfell with Jon. Of course, I agree that statement could be more generic in that it simply means that Ned and Jon both arrived at Winterfell after the war. But literally taken, it does state that Ned brought Jon with him. So, I am not sure.

Since Jon and his wet nurse were already there when Catelyn arrived, she's probably not a good source for information on the circumstances of their arrival. Also that quote doesn't say "Ned, Jon and his wet nurse" were already there. Shouldn't Catelyn arrive at Winterfell before Ned? She had a shorter distance to travel and presumably less to do on the way (return Dawn, reconcile with Robert, collect his brother and father's bones etc.)

[UnmaskedLurker]

Since Jon and his wet nurse were already there when Catelyn arrived, she's probably not a good source for information on the circumstances of their arrival. Also that quote doesn't say "Ned, Jon and his wet nurse" were already there. Shouldn't Catelyn arrive at Winterfell before Ned? She had a shorter distance to travel and presumably less to do on the way (return Dawn, reconcile with Robert, collect his brother and father's bones etc.)

The readers are not in Cat's head for this passage -- it is a statement by the neutral narrator, so the readers are not relying on Cat for anything. The narrator states that "Ned brought his bastard home with him," not Cat.

As to timing, Cat also should have been able to get to Winterfell before Jon as she had a shorter trip and we know that Jon is still in Dorne after the war is over -- but she didn't. We don't know when Cat decided to head back to Winterfell.

I am simply asking whether the sentence I quoted about Ned bringing Jon him with him should be read literally to mean that when Ned came to Winterfell from the war, he had Jon with him. Or whether the sentence is a bit more metaphorical -- and Jon came first with Ned having sent him ahead, and Ned arrived a short time later.

[Avalatis]

Snip

Short question. Was Robert aware that Wylla went North with Ned? You seem to be set on her going to Winterfel. Wouldn't it be in Robert's character to egg Ned on the fact that he brought the mother North with him? While Robert might not remember her name, he would remember that Ned brought the bastard's mother with him North. He would find that hilarious.

[Avalatis]

The readers are not in Cat's head for this passage -- it is a statement by the neutral narrator, so the readers are not relying on Cat for anything. The narrator states that "Ned brought his bastard home with him," not Cat.

As to timing, Cat also should have been able to get to Winterfell before Jon as she had a shorter trip and we know that Jon is still in Dorne after the war is over -- but she didn't. We don't know when Cat decided to head back to Winterfell.

I am simply asking whether the sentence I quoted about Ned bringing Jon him with him should be read literally to mean that when Ned came to Winterfell from the war, he had Jon with him. Or whether the sentence is a bit more metaphorical -- and Jon came first with Ned having sent him ahead, and Ned arrived a short time later.

I took that quote as in Jon was brought into their household instead of Ned physically taking them there. The end of the quote implies that the wet nurse and Jon were there but Ned wasn't, but it's not definitive.

[Lord Varys]

Rhaenys,

I'm not getting what you mean with 2-3 months longer up there.

UL,

actually, no, we have no reason to believe that Ned ever told anyone that Jon Snow was born around the Sack of KL. Why would he? That may be loosely the birth date of Lyanna's son, but whether 'Jon Snow' shares the birth date of that guy is unclear. Eddard Stark can choose a new birthday for the child on a whim unless he trying to make him, say, two years older or younger but he could easily age him up or down a few months. Not to mention that Lyanna's son could still much older than that and be already days or weeks old by the time Ned arrives at the tower. We don't know anything about that.

Generally I'm inclined to believe that Catelyn and Ned went to Winterfell together after the war, but that doesn't have to be the case (say, if Ned caught a ship at KL and Cat took crossed the Neck). The quote of Catelyn remembering how Jon Snow and his wetnurse were already at Winterfell doesn't seem to suggest that Ned was already there at that time. Ned 'bringing his bastard to Winterfell and calling him son' doesn't appear to refer to Ned physically doing that part but is rather some sort of general statement that he took him into his house and raised him as his son.

If you don't assume that nine months passed between Ned's wedding and the end of the war then it is easily explainable how Catelyn arrived at Winterfell after Jon Snow because she would still not yet have given birth Robb when the war ended, and would thus have no inclination to go anywhere for quite some time. After the birth she apparently recovered for quite some time anyway, since nothing suggests she visited Ned and Robert at KL. We don't even know whether she attended Robert's wedding.

Jon Snow, on the other hand, would have been a movable infant at a much earlier time although I think 

[RumHam]

The readers are not in Cat's head for this passage -- it is a statement by the neutral narrator, so the readers are not relying on Cat for anything. The narrator states that "Ned brought his bastard home with him," not Cat.

As to timing, Cat also should have been able to get to Winterfell before Jon as she had a shorter trip and we know that Jon is still in Dorne after the war is over -- but she didn't. We don't know when Cat decided to head back to Winterfell.

I am simply asking whether the sentence I quoted about Ned bringing Jon him with him should be read literally to mean that when Ned came to Winterfell from the war, he had Jon with him. Or whether the sentence is a bit more metaphorical -- and Jon came first with Ned having sent him ahead, and Ned arrived a short time later.

I don't believe there is a neutral narrator in that sense. I don't recall the literary term but everything stated in a character's chapter is based on and limited to their knowledge. Otherwise the quote wouldn't be talking about Ned's bastard at all, as Jon is not that. There are countless other examples that show that this narrator does not have access to information that the current POV character is ignorant of. 

Yes, Catelyn had a shorter trip than Jon as well, but we know Jon beat her there. We don't know that Ned beat her there, and the fact that she doesn't mention him there could suggest that he did not. If he had I would expect Catelyn to say "Ned and his bastard were already there" rather than mentioning the wet nurse. The whole quote is about Ned and his relationship with Jon, the wet nurse is sort of an after thought.

So while it certainly could be read literally, I don't think it's meant to be. Even if it was, there are already a few things from those early Game chapters that have later been established as false. Like when Catelyn claims there are no weirwoods in the south, despite the fact that she grew up with one at Riverrun. So I wouldn't lean too heavily on that statement anyway. 

[UnmaskedLurker]

Rhaenys,

I'm not getting what you mean with 2-3 months longer up there.

UL,

actually, no, we have no reason to believe that Ned ever told anyone that Jon Snow was born around the Sack of KL. Why would he? That may be loosely the birth date of Lyanna's son, but whether 'Jon Snow' shares the birth date of that guy is unclear. Eddard Stark can choose a new birthday for the child on a whim unless he trying to make him, say, two years older or younger but he could easily age him up or down a few months. Not to mention that Lyanna's son could still much older than that and be already days or weeks old by the time Ned arrives at the tower. We don't know anything about that.

Generally I'm inclined to believe that Catelyn and Ned went to Winterfell together after the war, but that doesn't have to be the case (say, if Ned caught a ship at KL and Cat took crossed the Neck). The quote of Catelyn remembering how Jon Snow and his wetnurse were already at Winterfell doesn't seem to suggest that Ned was already there at that time. Ned 'bringing his bastard to Winterfell and calling him son' doesn't appear to refer to Ned physically doing that part but is rather some sort of general statement that he took him into his house and raised him as his son.

If you don't assume that nine months passed between Ned's wedding and the end of the war then it is easily explainable how Catelyn arrived at Winterfell after Jon Snow because she would still not yet have given birth Robb when the war ended, and would thus have no inclination to go anywhere for quite some time. After the birth she apparently recovered for quite some time anyway, since nothing suggests she visited Ned and Robert at KL. We don't even know whether she attended Robert's wedding.

Jon Snow, on the other hand, would have been a movable infant at a much earlier time although I think 

I still am confused. So what? So by Ned telling everyone that Jon is younger than Robb (when he really is older), the date of birth is pushed back by a few weeks or more than the real date. I have suspected as much might be true (so I am not sure why I made the statement about the sack -- I must have been confused when I wrote that). But Ned still was somewhere 9 months prior to whenever people think Jon was born. And that location is where Ned would have had to meet the mother. So what is your point in terms of how the timeline issue impacts the story -- other than quibbling over minutia? 

I don't believe there is a neutral narrator in that sense. I don't recall the literary term but everything stated in a character's chapter is based on and limited to their knowledge. Otherwise the quote wouldn't be talking about Ned's bastard at all, as Jon is not that. There are countless other examples that show that this narrator does not have access to information that the current POV character is ignorant of. 

Yes, Catelyn had a shorter trip than Jon as well, but we know Jon beat her there. We don't know that Ned beat her there, and the fact that she doesn't mention him there could suggest that he did not. If he had I would expect Catelyn to say "Ned and his bastard were already there" rather than mentioning the wet nurse. The whole quote is about Ned and his relationship with Jon, the wet nurse is sort of an after thought.

So while it certainly could be read literally, I don't think it's meant to be. Even if it was, there are already a few things from those early Game chapters that have later been established as false. Like when Catelyn claims there are no weirwoods in the south, despite the fact that she grew up with one at Riverrun. So I wouldn't lean too heavily on that statement anyway. 

The narrator might not have any information greater than the POV, but the narrator is not an "unreliable narrator" in the same sense as when the readers get told what a character is thinking. Statements by the narrator are true in the context of what they are saying. I don't mean that because the narrator calls Jon as Ned's bastard that the narrator is saying something that is untrue. Of course Jon is a bastard from Cat's POV -- but he also is thought to be one by everyone (other than Ned, and maybe a few others, like Howland and Wylla). So referring to Jon as Ned's bastard is not a subjective statement in that context.

The point is that when the statement is something that is a subjective perception of a POV character -- the narration makes it clear that the readers are in the character's head. Other times, when the narration is not in the character's head, the information is a description of what happened -- and is basically an objective and non-biased exposition.

[RumHam]

The narrator might not have any information greater than the POV

This is really my entire point. Since Catelyn wasn't present for Jon's arrival, the narrator of her POV chapters is not a good source of information about this event.

ut the narrator is not an "unreliable narrator" in the same sense as when the readers get told what a character is thinking. Statements by the narrator are true in the context of what they are saying. I don't mean that because the narrator calls Jon as Ned's bastard that the narrator is saying something that is untrue. Of course Jon is a bastard from Cat's POV -- but he also is thought to be one by everyone (other than Ned, and maybe a few others, like Howland and Wylla). So referring to Jon as Ned's bastard is not a subjective statement in that context.

The point is that when the statement is something that is a subjective perception of a POV character -- the narration makes it clear that the readers are in the character's head. Other times, when the narration is not in the character's head, the information is a description of what happened -- and is basically an objective and non-biased exposition.

There are times when the narrator is objectively wrong because the POV character is misinformed. I'm not really sure how you're so sure that quote is "objective and non-biased exposition" and not Catelyn's thoughts. 

[UnmaskedLurker]

This is really my entire point. Since Catelyn wasn't present for Jon's arrival, the narrator of her POV chapters is not a good source of information about this event.

There are times when the narrator is objectively wrong because the POV character is misinformed. I'm not really sure how you're so sure that quote is "objective and non-biased exposition" and not Catelyn's thoughts. 

This example is not the best, as it is describing events from long ago. But when the narrator is describing events as they are happening, what I mean is that the descriptions are accurate and not clouded by the bias of the POV -- unlike when the readers are in the POV's head.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Rhaenys,

I'm not getting what you mean with 2-3 months longer up there. 

You speculated on the previous page that the time between the Battle of the Bells and the Trident was some 2 to 3 months.

 My post was a show how unlikely that is, as Cat and Ned marry after the Bells, and Ned was still away at war after Robb's birth, so more than nine months passed between the Bells and the moment Ned started his journey North again. And thus, a time period of only 2 to 3 months between the Bells and the Trident seems quite unlikely.

[corbon]

 

You are right that Ned is not hiding Jon Snow's existence but neither you nor I do know when exactly Eddard Stark decided to reveal to anyone that he had fathered a male bastard. You don't have any reason backed up textual evidence to assume that Eddard Stark did so when he returned from Starfall to KL and spent some grieving time with Robert. It is easily imaginable that he never actually talked about Jon Snow at this point, and he may even have successfully hid the fact that he had fathered a bastard at this point in time. After all, people had other things to do at this time, and he would have had no interest to introduce the whole thing if he could still prevent.

Given that Cersei suspects Ashara or a dornish peasant, Winterfell suspects Ashara, Robert suspects the wetnurse Wylla who is in Dorne and Ned must have had a wetnurse from Dorne to Winterfell, it is blindingly obvious that its common knowledge that Ned brought his bastard from Dorne. The timing doesn't really matter.
If Ned didn't have the discussion with Robert for several years, its still makes no difference, its still the same discussion. That just makes it even easier for him to have taken Wylla to Winterfell.

The conversation between Ned and Robert about Jon Snow/Wylla could have taken place years after the end of the Rebellion.

Not to mention a bastard nobody knows about anything anyway wouldn't be strange or suspicious. Coming up with this whole thing while/shortly after he also talked about Lyanna and her death would be. The Jon Snow story completely hinges on the fact that nobody ever tries to connect Lyanna to Jon, and that can only reasonably work if Ned himself does anything in his power to keep those things separate.

Yep. So what? That just makes it even less of an issue for Ned to have taken Wylla to Starfall.

With AGoT and ACoK in mind Varys would have called a Wylla and young Jon Snow a visit before Ned even reached the Red Keep.

I'm far from sure about that. We've just had a civil war, a regime change, and a sacked Red Keep. Varys has a million other things to sort out, including shoring up his own position, and does not have the settled resources and situation that he does 15 years later.

Do you really thing Ned would want to risk that? Shae and Gilly are/were virtual nobodies, too, but that doesn't mean the powerful do not recognize and play with them. Even Joffrey didn't overlook Mycah - and Sandor certainly did not.

Bad (very different) examples. Shae is sleeping with Tyrion, a subject area that is already a particular concern of Tywin's. And Gilly is a wilding woman in amongst the Nights Watch.
And Mycah was 'responsible' (and a witness to) for Joffrey being struck. I'll bet you he was never noticed by anyone other than Arya before.
Furthermore, none of them, despite being noticed, were deeply investigated or questioned. Except maybe Shae, because she was directly and actively caught up in events.

Ned specifically says that he dishonored Catelyn and himself by fathering Jon Snow after he had already wed Catelyn. Nobody seems to have told that story to the Borrells, but then, there is no reason to believe that Eddard Stark ever returned to the Sisters after he got safely back North.

This clearly prevents Ned's version of the story as he has told it to Robert from fitting with the fisherman's daughter or the Ashara story.

I don't understand the relevance of these comments.
Ned doesn't have a story. The only thing he has told Robert is the name of the wetnurse, and that he dishonoured Catelyn.

I don't adhere to your timeline theory there. It doesn't make any sense to assume that Ned left Riverrun to ride to war yet apparently fought no major battles months before the Trident. What do you think he did during that time? Why did he not remain at Riverrun? The rebels had no need to raise additional troops. Ned brought his Northmen with him, the Valemen had come with Jon Arryn, Hoster had all the Riverlords following him, and Robert had no chance to go back to the Stormlands to raise more troops. And if the Targaryens lacked the strength to attack the rebels, why the hell did the rebels not use the advantage and march against KL while it was pretty much defenseless? That can all be resolved by assuming that not all that much time passed between the Battle of the Bells and the Trident - say, at the most 2-3 months.

War isn't just major battles. You can't fight a major battle unless you have a major enemy army in the field against you, and even then they have to play ball.
But there are sieges, skirmishes, maneuvering, training, bad weather, working alliances, cleaning out loyalist holdouts, building up logistics chains, awaiting reinforcements, any number of things to cause the delay we see between BotBells and Trident.
And KL wasn't defenceless. The Targaryen's main field army had been beaten and scattered, but the Red Keep has never been taken by storm or siege and there would have still been troops there. Its one thing to fight the enemy on 'home' territory and another entirely to march on his strongest base.
The fact is, that even at the Trident its still the Targaryen army attacking in strategic terms.

And we also have to allow time for Hightower to find Rhaegar, Rhaegar to return, Selmy and Darry to regather the scattered loyalist forces and train and arm the new new loyalist army.

Your 2-3 months idea has many issues, far more than a pause between major battles, not least Robb's birth and Jon's relative age.
Catelyn says she and Ned were a year apart, and that she learnt of Ned's bastard during the first year of her marriage. BoBells being late in the war instead of early, means you have to find something for Ned to do for 8-9 months after the sack before he returns home...

I am starting to see a picture here, make a bit more sense maybe of some of the things you are saying. It looks like you have decided that the BoBells was late in the war as your starting point, for no textual reason, just because you think it makes more sense (which I do not agree with at all), and so pushed back the birth of Robb, Ned's return home and all sorts of things, including Jon now needing to have his age faked by many more months than is reasonable for people to accept. Is this why you are talking about Ned staying in Dorne for months?
Basically you seem to have decided that we can't have 4-6 months of not much of significance happening during the war after BoBells, so instead you'll create 4-6 months of nothing happening after the war, before Ned goes home?

We have no canonical birth date for Jon Snow, and whatever George has said about that in SSM is pretty much irrelevant for the topic at hand because we can't be sure George talks about Jon Snow's official birth date as delivered by Eddard Stark or about the birth date of Lyanna's son. We have no reason to believe that Ned decided that his bastard son was born on the same day Lyanna's son was born, right?

No. But there is a fairly tight limit for assessing the ages of small babies. Anything under 6 months and a competent person can be sure within a month or two at most. And Ned was away from Catelyn only a year, so Robb is 3 months or so old when Ned (and Jon) are first together.

And whatever people believe who were successfully fooled about the identity of Jon Snow doesn't matter at all. They only have whatever knowledge Ned Stark gave them.

You didn't seem to understand what I'm was getting at there. If Ned Jon Snow had brought Jon Snow with him to KL or took him with him when he left Starfall then he would have to have spent nine months with the alleged mother of his bastard to be able to do that convincingly. He could not possibly have the child with him at a time while the mother would still have to be pregnant.

Umm, the bloke only has to be with the mother for a matter of minutes, nine months before the birth... 
He can reunite with the mother any time after that, possibly even after the child is born.

Since we have no reason to believe that Ned and Robert spend much time apart while in the Riverlands after the Battle of the Bells, I see no reason to believe that he ever even contemplated claiming that he chanced upon Jon's mother then.

Thats just silly. Ned and Robert are not joined at the hip. They probably don't even sleep in the same tent, or even encampment (or part of encampment). Robert does not know every opportunity Ned had to sleep with a random girl, nor would he expect to.

We know that Tywin learned about Shae while Tyrion fucked her in his camp, so the idea isn't far-fetched that Robert would have heard about any lover of Ned's, too, even if he had never personally met her.

You don't seem to understand the basic and wide difference between the fact that Robert might learn of some girl in Ned's bed, that doesn't mean he definitely knew of any or every girl in Ned's bed. And nor would he expect to.

Anyway, there would have been no confusion or uncertainty who Jon Snow's mother was in such a scenario. The woman would have been known to many people, some of them Ned's men, some Robert, some Hoster's (which could have provided Catelyn with a better story than whatever she learned from those guys at Winterfell), and some Jon Arryn's.

Rubbish. Who is going to remember some random peasant girl on some random night? Especially with a Lord who would keep that private. Everyone is going to assume 'it happened' on a night that they weren't around or weren't on guard etc etc, on someone elses watch. No one does remember her because she wasn't there, but no one can say with any confidence it couldn't have happened at some time, except Ned, who says it did. And no one shows any sign of disbelieving him because they don't have any reason to.

But this whole thing is only a problem if we assume that Ned actually took Jon Snow with him from Starfall when he left there or that the child was sent North around the same time as Ned left the Daynes. But we have no reason to assume something like that. Ned could have learned that he had a bastard son through writing like Littlefinger's cover story for Alayne Stone says. Jon's mother could have written him at KL that he has left her pregnant and Ned could then have made preparations that the child would be sent to Winterfell.

Yep. Low chance, but still possible. Doesn't really fit with anything we know well, but not impossible

But so what?
That still doesn't leave Ned having to spin any story to Robert. That still leaves a wetnurse needed from Dorne to WInterfell. That still leaves Ned having never said anything except that the name of the woman Robert is thinking of is Wylla (who also happens to have been Jon's wetnurse).

End of story. In truth he would have left instructions with the Daynes/Wylla when to send Jon Snow to Winterfell. He does not have to be present or do all that himself. That way his version of the story (Jon being younger than Robb when in fact Jon might be older than Robb) could be much better obscured.

The other problem with the timeline as Corbon sees it is that we AGoT stipulates that the whole Rebellion up to the Sack lasted close to a year. If one assumes that nine months passed between the Battle of the Bells and the Trident then one would not have to cramp the rest of the war into even less than three months - close to a year doesn't mean exactly a year, after all, which means we'd have to assume that the maximum time that could have passed between Jon Arryn calling his banners and the Battle of the Bells is about two months and three weeks.

8 months will do. Jon is born around the time of the sack up to a month after. Robb is theoretically older than Jon, but you give Jon a few weeks after and Robb a few weeks being younger than Jon rather than older (a few weeks is doable, multiple months is not) and you get a middling period of 8 months between BoBells and Trident, give or take a few weeks, stretchable to another month  more or less if you need to.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The very idea that Ned could return in about two months to Winterfell (some time passed between the calling of the banners and the Battle of Gulltown in which Ned participated), raise an army, and march down in time for the Battle of the Bells is insane if we keep in mind that George has established again and again that it takes a very long time for the Starks to gather an army due the vastness of the North. Not to mention that I don't even buy the chance of Robert raising a big enough army to ever hope to challenge the Reach in meaningful way or that it is an established fact that Owen Merryweather was slow to react to the threat posed by the rebels - a fact that only makes sense if the Iron Throne was exactly surprised by the speed in which the rebels raised vast host but had sufficient to raise armies of its own (which Merryweather failed to do rather relying on Arryn and Baratheon bannermen to bring the rebels to heel). And the Tyrell army has to come from somewhere, too. Did Mace magically foresee that Robert would attack him or why did he march an army to Ashford?

It does make sense.
When Jon Arryn raises his Banners, so do Ned and Robert, by raven (logically, they send word to start raising their banners, we aren't told yay or nay and nothing we hear is inconsistent with that. They don't very well turn up on their own doorsteps say 'evening all, time to go to war'!) They then head home, Ned north through the mountains and the The Sisters and Robert fighting in Gulltown (east) along the way. (Ned did not participate in Gulltown as far as we know, he went north, towards home, instead).
Robert goes back to Storms End (probably by sea from Gulltown) and very quickly fights the local battles of Summerhall in the Stormlands (remember these battles are small enough and local enough to fight 3 in one day, and then march back to Storms End for some paartay). He spends a short time wooing those Lords he's beaten back at Storms End and then marches off to fight the Tyrells. At this stage the armies are probably quite small and consist largely of household type troops from the various Lords, rather than the full regional levies. That's partly why Tarly can beat Robert with only the Tyrell vanguard. Robert then retreats north, and I'd say we are only a couple or 3 months into the war so far.
Ned meanwhile has traveled north through the Sisters and reached Winterfell. He gathers the assembled household troops of his lords and a few local first draft levies and marches south immediately, gathering more forces as he moves. Again, these are probably mainly the household troops of various Lords, not large levy armies that takes months to assemble. Jon Arryn is doing something similar after defeating local loyalists like the Graftons and the Stark, Arryn and Tully forces combine and move south to link up with Robert. They achieve that linkup at the Stoney Sept at the BotBells and its probably only 3 months or so into the war. Nobody has their full levies, they all have the smaller more elite armies of Household and similar troops. After beating Connington the allies march back north to Riverrun, seal the alliance with the twin weddings and, among other things, await their fuller levies to be brought up.
The whole thing easily fits in under 4 months.

The 'pause' between BotBells and the Trident is then very satisfactorily accounted for by, among other things, the time needed for full levies to be raised and arrive. But that is initiated by the Loyalists, Rhaegar marching his army out of KL, not the rebels, anyway.

Short question. Was Robert aware that Wylla went North with Ned? You seem to be set on her going to Winterfel. Wouldn't it be in Robert's character to egg Ned on the fact that he brought the mother North with him? While Robert might not remember her name, he would remember that Ned brought the bastard's mother with him North. He would find that hilarious.

I'm not set on anything much. I'm merely pointing out that there is no reason for Ned not to take her north. He needs a wetnurse for the trip. He has one. If she knows stuff, she's better under his eye than out. There is also no reason not to send her south, with a recommendation for her services even, should she want that when her job with Jon is done. Its as simple as that.

I don't think we have any indication whether Robert thinks Wylla went north or not.
I do agree Robert would probably find that hilarious, if he considered it. OTOH he might have enough tact towards Catelyn (and/or Ned, its a very prickly subject for Ned) to not actually say anything in that direction. Remember too, Ned shuts down anything near the subject immediately, and hard, successfully, when Robert ignored (or didn't notice) the first shut down too.

 

actually, no, we have no reason to believe that Ned ever told anyone that Jon Snow was born around the Sack of KL. Why would he? That may be loosely the birth date of Lyanna's son, but whether 'Jon Snow' shares the birth date of that guy is unclear. Eddard Stark can choose a new birthday for the child on a whim unless he trying to make him, say, two years older or younger but he could easily age him up or down a few months. Not to mention that Lyanna's son could still much older than that and be already days or weeks old by the time Ned arrives at the tower. We don't know anything about that.

Yes we do. Robb is 3 months old or so when Ned first sees him. It can't be that much time between Ned seeing Robb and Catelyn seeing Jon. Probably no time at all, but certainly no more than a month or two. There is a limit to how much you can lie about baby's ages and its a fairly small limit at such young ages.

Generally I'm inclined to believe that Catelyn and Ned went to Winterfell together after the war, but that doesn't have to be the case (say, if Ned caught a ship at KL and Cat took crossed the Neck). The quote of Catelyn remembering how Jon Snow and his wetnurse were already at Winterfell doesn't seem to suggest that Ned was already there at that time. Ned 'bringing his bastard to Winterfell and calling him son' doesn't appear to refer to Ned physically doing that part but is rather some sort of general statement that he took him into his house and raised him as his son.

While thats possible, there is also no indication that Ned joined Catelyn before he went to Winterfell. If anything, the way Catelyn thinks of Jon and the wetnurse already being there suggests that Ned was not with her when she arrived, although it does not suggest that he was there already either.

If you don't assume that nine months passed between Ned's wedding and the end of the war then it is easily explainable how Catelyn arrived at Winterfell after Jon Snow because she would still not yet have given birth Robb when the war ended, and would thus have no inclination to go anywhere for quite some time. After the birth she apparently recovered for quite some time anyway, since nothing suggests she visited Ned and Robert at KL. We don't even know whether she attended Robert's wedding.

Jon Snow, on the other hand, would have been a movable infant at a much earlier time although I think 

But if you assume 3 months between wedding and Sack, then you have to account for 9 months of what Ned is doing away from Catelyn after the Sack. Apparently at least 6 months worth of sitting on his arse twiddling his thumbs so the Wylla story will fit better, rather than taking Lyanna's bones (and himself) home to Winterfell.
But you end up with too big a discrepancy between Jon's age and his 'supposed' age required to keep him younger than Robb.

If you assume around 8 months between wedding and Sack, then Robb is born 1 month after the sack, which fits much better with him being 'supposedly' older than Jon. Then you give Catelyn another month or two after the birth before traveling and another month of traveling and she gets to Winterfell 3-4 months after the Sack, roughly around the same time as Ned (together, slightly after, slightly before with Jon and wetnurse sent ahead by Ned, it all works).

[corbon]

Catching up on the stuff I ran out of time for...

Why should Wylla be sent to Starfall of all places, and why should she not be content to remain in Winterfell or somewhere in the North? You are just making up things like 'Southerners wouldn't be happy in the North' to fit your story. You don't know Wylla, so you can't claim stuff like that, nor is it likely that Wylla would have agreed to go north in the first place if she did not want to live there. If she went with Ned then this in itself suggests that she had no family ties gluing her to some place in the South, and consequently could have remained in the North.

Ugh. Wylla is in Starfall.
Why go back there in particular? I don't know for sure, but go there she did, if she left. There are multiple good reasons why she might return there. She might be from that area. She might have been connected through Arthur (if she was at ToJ). Ned might have given her a recommendation to go there, in part because its still a place that would secretly support Jon's life over Robert's favour. It might, though I doubt that, be just coincidence.

And yeah. Take a medieval peasant woman from Spain and set her loose in Finland. She might be happy there. Its not very likely though.

She might 'agree' to go north because she's a wetnurse, thats her job, she has a job, and its a good one, and she'll do what is necessary for her livelihood. At least while she has a livelihood. Which she doesn't when Jon is weaned.

Even if Ned thought he could trust Wylla keeping her mouth shut, allowing her travel around and interact with people she would have no chance of meeting if she had stayed at Starfall in the first place is just an unnecessary risk. What if Robert had visited Winterfell while Wylla was still there?

Considerably less problem than if Robert visited Starfall.
Either there is intense interest in her because somebody is supsicious, or there is not. If there is, she is better off in Winterfell than anywhere else. If there is not, she's just as safe at Starfall as she is at Winterfell (so he can let her return) but there is no reason to not take her to Winterfell either.

What if Catelyn or anyone else at Winterfell had heard the rumors that a woman named Wylla was Jon Snow's mother (say, from Robert)? What if somebody offered Wylla more coin than Ned did for any stories she might be able to tell? And so on. All of that would have complicated things unnecessarily. The mere fact remains that wetnurses aren't exactly hard to come by in this world. If Wylla was at the tower, then it would be perfectly reasonable for Ned to allow her to take of Jon Snow until the time came to send the boy to Winterfell - which could be done by any other wetnurse hired at Starfall. A woman who was perfectly happy to go to Winterfell and was offered more than ample coin for that. Such a woman could still be living in the North for all we know. Doing the same thing with Wylla would just be strange.

No, its not strange. Everything you point out happens just as easily at Starfall as at Winterfell. Except if any of those things happen at Winterfell Ned can have some control over events, in Starfall he won't even know about then.

You really are arguing this completely backwards. She's been Jon Snow's wetnurse period. Whether she went to Winterfell or not. If someone is digging deep, she's a potential point for them to probe, period. Its not 'ooh, all these things could happen so I better leave her at Starfall', because they could happen wherever she is. Its 'if these things should happen, or start to happen, how do we control it'. And that is much better done with her in Winterfell than in Starfall.
Leaving her in Starfall if she knows anything is dense when Ned doesn't know if there will be any heat and doesn't know much about her or her qualities. Letting her return there several years later when there is no heat yet and he knows her qualities is a whole different scenario.

So, he has a wetnurse already, Wylla. He needs Jon to go north. With a wetnurse. There is no reason from his perspective to change wetnurses and several not to.

Besides, we don't have any reason as to why Wylla should want to go to Starfall as a wetnurse.

She has a job, a good one. She's unlikely to get better for now. She may have even bonded with the baby in a way.

The idea that the Daynes couldn't get some other wetnurse from their smallfolk makes no sense,

No one is suggesting that they couldn't. Just that there isn't any need for them to do so.

and it is effectively out of the question that Jon's wetnurse stayed at Winterfell until around the time Edric Dayne was born since that only occurred in 287 AC, and subsequently Jon Snow - who was born in 283 AC - would have rather vivid memories of that woman.

No one is suggesting that she stayed in Winterfell for 4 years. Once Jon is weaned she has no purpose and no job there. Then she can return to Dorne, and Starfall.

The Lyanna question isn't exactly tied to the question of her bones, it is tied to her being still alive and perhaps even well by the time of the Sack and its immediate aftermath. Ned Stark obviously goes down south to fetch his sister back among other things, and subsequently people would ask what had happened to her.

Rubbish. He rather obviously goes south to fight the last battles of the war, to take the surrenders of the Tyrells, and no doubt others.
Somewhere along the way he picked up three things. Dawn, Lyanna's bones, and a bastard. None of those three things are clearly or obviously connected, nor are they clearly and obviously his purpose.

The idea that Ned would actually have been able to shut down conversations about Lyanna's death and the death of the three Kingsguard he killed is just silly.

What conversations?

Lyanna died of a fever in his arms. Thats all anyone, including Robert, needs to know. Its more than anyone except Robert needs to know. Its no one elses business.
The 3 KG? Who said anything about them?
Dawn? Yes, Arthur Dayne is dead. We killed him, I lost 5 of my friends doing it. Its sad, I'm grieving, did I mention Lyanna died as well?

Those were all very prominent people, and especially Robert would want to hear how his best friend's gang had killed three of the best fighters in the Realm - and may have even needed proof that this was the case to appoint new KG.

There are multiple ways out of this, even assuming that the 3 KG are known about.

And its ridiculous to argue that Robert might need proof they were dead to appoint his own new KG. Seriously?

We also know that the grief for Lyanna reunited Robert and Ned - unless we assume that this involvement a lot of talking about her, including her last hours and what had killed her, I don't see how they could have reconciled. People realize almost at once if you try to keep stuff from them with that 'I'd rather not talk about that' strategy, especially if you don't want to talk about stuff those people want to know - like what Lyanna's last words were, how she died, and stuff. It is one thing to not talk about your bastard child, and another to actively hide information from your best friend and king about the woman he madly loved.

Its not that hard. "She had a fever, she was almost dead, she died in my arms"..
Or even simpler, "we found her dead."
There isn't a lot more to say. You can choose to fill it with small lies, things like 'she asked after you' or whatever, but I don't believe thats Ned's style. Nor is it necessary for Robert. He's not  a dweller, not a thinker, not a talker in that sense. He'd want to get pissed and remember the good stuff.

Nor does their reconciling need any depth or detail. Robert is a natural forgiver, forgiving even his enemies. Ned now has a secret that means he needs to stay on Robert's good side. Literally all it takes for hem to reconcile is Ned to want it and tell Robert so.

[SFDanny]

Literally, Ned never says Wylla is Jon's mother that we see, and no one claims he did. Not even Robert.

Robert asks Ned the name of 'that common girl of yours'. Its Robert that infers (and later outright states) that the girl was 'his' and 'your bastard's mother', but that is enough for Ned to understand who Robert is thinking of. Robert even says as much, "you know the one I mean". All Ned replies is with the name and that he'd rather not talk of her (first try to shut down the conversation because Ned knows (Robert said as much, 'never the boy you were ' and 'and yet there was that one time' are the lead ins) what Robert is thinking and where the conversation is heading.
Robert grins and pushes further, and Ned shuts him down hard, and successfully.

Let me start with this, my friend. Ned does not actually utter the words "Wylla is Jon's mother." That much is true. We agree on that. What we don't agree on is that Ned doesn't tell Robert Wylla is Jon's mother. When Robert asks, "what was her name, that common girl of yours?" and after trying to come up with the name he follows that up with, "You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?" and then Ned responds to that question with the answer "Her name was Wylla" that answer is a lie. One cannot take the answer out of the context of the question. Robert surely doesn't. Ned knows he doesn't. He knows the plain meaning of Robert's question, and he answers that question with, "Her name was Wylla."

Again the only way it is not a lie is if, one, Wylla truly is Jon's mother, or two, Ned has another bastard than Jon Snow whose mother's name is Wylla. One cannot pretend to answer a question put directly to you, but answer it as if you are answering another question entirely, without lying. The hidden mental gymnastics of doing so is a lie. Nor is there any evidence that Ned and Robert ever talked about Wylla as Jon's wetnurse, or in any other capacity. None. Now, perhaps they did, but we have to make up the conversation out of whole cloth with nothing remotely resembling evidence that says any such conversation took place. And even if it did, to substitute the plain meaning of Robert's stated question with an unrelated question from fifteen years ago is still a lie. It is using some form of mental obfuscation to justify a lie, but it is still a lie.

Once again, let's put Robert's and Ned's conversation into the context it is in in the book. Robert and Ned are not just old friends talking about old times. Both in the scene we have on the barrows in the early morning hours, and very, very likely in the conversation when Ned tells Robert Wylla's name, Robert is Ned's king. Ned is not some pettifogger pleading a case before a back country judge and jury. He is a sworn vassal to his king, who just falsely answered his king about the identity of Jon Snow's mother. Perhaps if this was a simple case of Ned lying about his past to cover up his shame, Robert would overlook his lie, but if, as I think both you and I think probable, this is done to hide Jon being Rhaegar and Lyanna's son, it is a lie that is also treason. It is a lie that Ned knows, if discovered, will irrevocable end his friendship with his king, and put himself and his family in danger.

We also must look at this answer in the context of who gives it. Would Ned try to justify his response by telling himself he really isn't lying to Robert? Robert just didn't know what Ned had in his own mind, so without telling Robert he was doing so, Ned jumped back to another conversation fifteen years earlier? We know Ned better than that. We read his thoughts and know he knows he has lived his lies and the cost of doing so. Ned can't tell the truth about Jon or he risks the lives of Jon and others he loves, but in his own head we see Ned owns his lies. He doesn't try to tell himself he's not really lying. He knows he is.

Now, we both agree, I think, that Ned tries to lie as little as possible. He does shut down the conversation with Robert using his supposed shame over his dishonorable acts to do so. He doesn't want to continue telling the lie if he can stop doing so, but he tells us he lies. That is the meaning of his conversation with Arya over "honorable lies" and it is what we see him do in this scene. I'd submit the character we know as Ned would never do what you propose he is doing.

 

And I think people have been misreading for a long time that Ned is 'trying' to use a cover at all. He never uses any cover, he just shuts down any conversation about Jon's origins. Ever time. Completely. Successfully even against Robert.

So, once more, how can Ned tell Robert Wylla's name if he isn't sure her response will be to back up his answer of "Her name was Wylla" to Robert's question, "you know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?" If he isn't certain of Wylla's response he risks everything in giving Robert her name, both in the conversation on the barrows, and in the original conversation where he first gives Robert Wylla's name. He can't give Robert Wylla's name unless he is certain. Which means Wylla and Ned, at least these two but also probably including the leadership of House Dayne and Howland Reed, have agreed before Ned tells Robert Wylla's name what their stories will be. That is the very definition of what is a cover story.

 

 

What role? There is no role. She's nursing Jon. Thats a 24 hour job. He's got time from ToJ to Starfall, and from Starfall to KL (assuming he didn't send her direct to Winterfell) to get a basic assessment and basic discussions. And if she was at ToJ then she probably knows more and better than him about the need for secrecy anyway!

Here I was actually talking about the role the Daynes play as Wylla's protectors. Protectors not only in a physical sense of Wylla possibly being taken by unfriendly people, but in the sense of keeping her isolated from those who might want to question her. Not only those who want to question her to verify Ned's story, but those who want to, out of curiosity, know more about what happened to Ned while he was away from his men, and where this child comes from. Troops and servants will talk, and they will pass on stories, as we see concerning the gossip about Ned and Ashara. If Wylla goes with Ned north then there will be people, even friendly people, who will want to know if it is really true that this boy is Ashara's child. What does Wylla say to them? Does her story change from place to place? Or does she just refuse to talk to anyone other than Ned on the long journey north and back?

If Ned wants to control access to Wylla, he isn't in a position to monitor her 24/7 on the long journey. Again he must be very certain of Wylla's story if he is going to expose her to so many people who could destroy the story Ned wants people to believe. It is far better to have her stay behind in Starfall in the Dayne's household were people believe she is Jon's mother, and the Daynes can keep those who would question her at a distance. This, of course, assumes the Daynes know the real story and are willing to hide the truth to protect Lyanna and Rhaegar's child. An assumption  without I really don't think any of this works.

Now, if we assume as you do, that Wylla travels to Winterfell as a wetnurse, then why would any of Ned's enemies want to question her? Because she is the one person on the journey who has information, outside Ned and Howland, about Jon in Starfall. If Varys or the Lannisters want to find out about Jon's mother then they are going to want to talk to Wylla. Varys and the Lannisters are going to want to know if Ned comes to Starfall with Jon, or was Jon already there with his mother. If Jon comes to Starfall with Ned, then who else was with him when he arrived? Where was the Lady Ashara when all this occurred? Was she pregnant when she arrived in Starfall, and if so what happened to that child? Keeping all these questions, and more, from being asked of Wylla is much better accomplished if she is kept in the Dayne's own household and the rumors of Wylla being Jon's mother don't travel north with Ned and the child. I know we disagree on this, but to me it is clear the safer and more probable course for Ned is to leave Wylla in Starfall in the company of the Daynes. Of course, what is safer and probable doesn't mean it is what happened. It is just my guess about what makes sense.

There is no evidence she claims Jon as her child in Starfall. Ned Dayne thinks that, but he doesn't even suggest that she claimed it in any way. If fact, he doesn't even state that she claimed they were milk brothers (I thought he said she claimed that, but I was wrong), though thats an easy claim for her to truthfully and safely make. But either or both statements could very easily be castle gossip that she has never confirmed (and in the case of being the mother, like Robert with Ned, could have even denied outright and just made people believe it more - though I don't suggest she did deny it, merely that she didn't claim it).

There is evidence, although we don't have young Ned saying, " Wylla told me she is Jon's mother." Ned Dayne tells his story as if it was a widely known fact Wylla was Jon's mom. There is nothing to indicate Wylla would not talk to the young Lord about Jon. If she refused to talk to him about it, then we would expect that Ned would not be so free and easy with his claim to Arya. Instead he tells her facts about Wylla and Jon, including that Jon and he are milk brothers as if surely all of this is something Arya would know. That is evidence. It may not be as explicitly laid out as we would like, but nonetheless it is evidence. When we combine Ned's causal way of imparting what he thinks are widely known facts with Ned Starks naming Wylla as Jon's mother in response to Robert's question, and the clear importance for Lord Eddard of Wylla backing up his claim, what we get is a very strong case that Wylla does, in fact, claim Jon Snow as her son.

Sorry, corbon, about not responding earlier to some of your posts, but with my schedule and the old post being lost I got behind in my answers. I hope some of this is at least a contribution to the debate. Thanks again for the discussion.

[UnmaskedLurker]

corbon and SFDanny--

I am finding this debate more interesting than it really deserves -- as the issues in dispute really would not have a major impact on the story going forward (or really any impact at all). But because I like to solve logical puzzles, I find it interesting. I want to summarize what I think are some of the relevant facts and conclusions that have been set forth regarding this discussion to try to narrow the issues a bit.

I think everyone agrees that Robert believes that Ned told Robert that Jon's mother is Wylla.

I think everyone agrees that Ned knows that Robert believes that Ned told Robert that Jon's mother is Wylla.

SFDanny believes that Ned told (or effectively told) Robert that Jon's mother is Wylla and Ned knows he told Robert a lie. corbon believes that Ned avoided telling Robert a lie and only allowed Robert to come to the conclusions without technically telling a lie -- and most important, if Robert confronted Ned with this supposed "lie" that Ned could convincingly tell Robert something along the lines that Ned tried to tell Robert that Wylla was the wetnurse, but Robert insisted on believing Wylla is the mother and given that Ned does not want to talk about the issue, he did not try harder to correct Robert's misunderstanding.

I think the plausibility of Ned getting away with such an "excuse" is critical to corbon's theory being correct. And I am not sure that the conversation in GoT is really all that relevant because by then, Ned knew the "truth" never came out so the risk at this point of Robert finding out Wylla is not the mother is de minimis. The question is whether Ned could have gotten away with such an approach after their initial conversation -- presumably (but possibly later than) when Ned reconciled with Robert shortly after the War when returning from Starfall to Winterfell. Given that we are not told the precise details of that exchange, I find it hard to come to a firm conclusion. If the conversation went along the lines of what corbon suggested -- that Ned simply answered Robert's question about the name of the wetnurse, then it might have worked, as Ned could remind Robert that Ned only said the name of the wetnurse and Robert insisted on concluding that the wetnurse was the mother. Without knowing the nature of that exchange, I cannot come to a firm conclusion on which argument is better. But I think that the plausibility of Ned being able to use such an excuse is critical to the difference of opinion here.

BUT -- there is one other separate point that has been made by corbon a couple of times that I want to challenge -- the location of Wylla nine months prior to Jon's birth (or really, nine months prior to the "official" date of birth of Jon). We know that Wylla is both wetnurse to Jon and Edric Dayne. This fact suggests that she is a professional wetnurse. As a professional wetnurse, I think she would need to keep her milk going between jobs so that the milk does not dry up and make her unable to do her job if called upon for a new infant. So I think it is not unlikely that Wylla was in the habit of keeping her milk going for reasonably long periods of time between engagements.

Now we get to Rhaegar and Lyanna (and for this purpose assume they are at ToJ the whole time, but this theory really works if they are anywhere in which Arthur Dayne can get word to Ashara). Lyanna gets pregnant. They decide to stop and stay hidden -- they will need someone to do the cooking and cleaning and eventually be a back-up wetnurse for Lyanna, as they will be in a remote enough location that getting a wetnurse quickly is not possible. So as soon as they know that Lyanna is pregnant, they send for Ashara to get their trusted wetnurse, Wylla, to come to ToJ. Wylla will cook and clean for the next 8 months and be ready to feed the baby if necessary when born.

Then Ned eventually them, and Wylla has been at ToJ for over 8 months, as Jon is a week or two old at that point. They stay at ToJ another week or so to build the cairns, tear down the tower, etc. and then set off for Starfall. No one else has seen Wylla at that point for 9 months. Ned knows that Wylla has been at ToJ the entire time and thus no one can know where Wylla was 9 months prior to when they leave ToJ. So no one can know that Ned and Wylla were not in the same place at that time and thus no one can know that Wylla cannot be the mother if Ned is the father.

They tell everyone that Jon is a newborn -- about a month younger than he actually is (making him younger than Robb when really Jon is older). The baby is wrapped up so a casual glance cannot tell that the infant is a month old and not new-born. At Starfall, only people who know the truth get a close view of Jon. By the time they arrive at Winterfell, the difference between his actual age (e.g., 2 months) and his stated age (e.g., 1 month) can simply be attributed to Jon being a big baby. I agree that much bigger of a difference between real and stated age probably would not work -- but a month might be something that could work. If these facts are the facts that Ned had to deal with -- and if Ned is convinced (and probably became convinced by Ashara and by having watched Wylla for a couple of weeks) that Wylla will not contradict the story that she is Jon's mother, then Ned has a perfect story to tell Robert. The cover story would be iron clad (as long as Wylla never denies being the mother) because no one could prove that Wylla was not near Ned at the time that Jon supposedly was conceived.

Now I understand that corbon thinks it unlikely that Wylla would have been brought to ToJ so early in the pregnancy to keep herself lactating so long without a baby actually to feed. I don't agree and think it quite plausible given the need to keep as few people as possible as part of the conspiracy (so do double duty as cook, maid and wetnurse) -- and the knowledge that eventually they will want the back-up of a wetnurse, so the person to bring needs that ability. So corbon's objection that Ned cannot risk telling an outright "lie" to Robert because someone who knows where Wylla was 9 months before Jon's birth may not be a risk at all. The only risk is that Wylla might deny being the mother. And I really don't think this set of facts is so unlikely as corbon has suggested. And if these are the facts -- and Ned knows he will pass Wylla off as the mother to Robert, then keeping Wylla in Starfall might make more sense as Ned cannot control what information might get from Robert to Cat -- and Ned would not want Cat thinking that Ned brought the mother to Winterfell.

[Avalatis]

Snip

If she as a "professional" wet nurse at Starfall why would the lie be believed so easily by those at Starfall? If she had a reputation for breast feeding other peoples babies, I would expect more than one story to be floating around about the origins of Jon (even if Ned claimed the baby, Wylla backed him up, and the Daynes were in on the plot).

[corbon]

Let me start with this, my friend. Ned does not actually utter the words "Wylla is Jon's mother." That much is true. We agree on that. What we don't agree on is that Ned doesn't tell Robert Wylla is Jon's mother. When Robert asks, "what was her name, that common girl of yours?" and after trying to come up with the name he follows that up with, "You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?" and then Ned responds to that question with the answer "Her name was Wylla" that answer is a lie. One cannot take the answer out of the context of the question. Robert surely doesn't. Ned knows he doesn't. He knows the plain meaning of Robert's question, and he answers that question with, "Her name was Wylla."

Nope.
Robert asks a question and makes three statements. Of the three statements  one was half right (she was a common girl of his), one was right (you know the one I mean) and one was wrong (your bastard's mother).

In order to answer the question without lying it is not necessary to correct any wrong statements. Deceptive yes, but not lying.

Again the only way it is not a lie is if, one, Wylla truly is Jon's mother, or two, Ned has another bastard than Jon Snow whose mother's name is Wylla. One cannot pretend to answer a question put directly to you, but answer it as if you are answering another question entirely, without lying. The hidden mental gymnastics of doing so is a lie. 

We simply disagree. Ned told the exact truth in answer to the question. Robert's errors are his own responsibility, not Ned's. If Ned wanted to avoid deceiving Robert then he could volunteer additional information (which he may have done in the past and had it ignored even) but he does not want Robert to have any more information.

Nor is there any evidence that Ned and Robert ever talked about Wylla as Jon's wetnurse, or in any other capacity.
None.

Yes there is. Ned has told Robert Wylla's name before, so they have talked about her in some capacity before. We don't know what capacity though, we have no indication of that. Robert doesn't give us any indication that his other ideas about Wylla came from Ned originally.

Now, perhaps they did, but we have to make up the conversation out of whole cloth with nothing remotely resembling evidence that says any such conversation took place. And even if it did, to substitute the plain meaning of Robert's stated question with an unrelated question from fifteen years ago is still a lie. It is using some form of mental obfuscation to justify a lie, but it is still a lie.

We have to make up the conversation where Ned told Robert Wylla was the mother out of whole cloth too (and we do have evidence that some conversation took place). Thats my point. I'm not saying he definitely didn't, but that there is no more reason to assume he did that he didn't, and in fact less if you look at the logic of the situation, as well as if you look at the results in a wider context, as well as if you look at Ned's witnessed behaviour.

It is unreasonable of you to expect Ned, a man with secrets of life and death at stake, to volunteer dangerous information in order to remove a useful deception from a truth.

Its a simple truth that the name of the woman Robert is thinking of is Wylla. Period. It is by definition not a lie to answer with that name since it is the exact and complete truth. Period. All your protestations notwithstanding. Truth. Period.

Once again, let's put Robert's and Ned's conversation into the context it is in in the book. Robert and Ned are not just old friends talking about old times. Both in the scene we have on the barrows in the early morning hours, and very, very likely in the conversation when Ned tells Robert Wylla's name, Robert is Ned's king. Ned is not some pettifogger pleading a case before a back country judge and jury. He is a sworn vassal to his king, who just falsely answered his king about the identity of Jon Snow's mother.

No. The king asked him a question on a personal subject. He gave the full and exact answer to the question and asked the King to leave off, which the king eventually did.

Perhaps if this was a simple case of Ned lying about his past to cover up his shame, Robert would overlook his lie, but if, as I think both you and I think probable, this is done to hide Jon being Rhaegar and Lyanna's son, it is a lie that is also treason. It is a lie that Ned knows, if discovered, will irrevocable end his friendship with his king, and put himself and his family in danger.

The treason is hiding Jon. Naming the woman Robert is thinking of is not treason.

We also must look at this answer in the context of who gives it. Would Ned try to justify his response by telling himself he really isn't lying to Robert? Robert just didn't know what Ned had in his own mind, so without telling Robert he was doing so, Ned jumped back to another conversation fifteen years earlier? We know Ned better than that. We read his thoughts and know he knows he has lived his lies and the cost of doing so. Ned can't tell the truth about Jon or he risks the lives of Jon and others he loves, but in his own head we see Ned owns his lies. He doesn't try to tell himself he's not really lying. He knows he is.

His lies are that the boy is his own son, etc. Not that Wylla is the woman Robert is thinking of.

I am not claiming Ned never told lies. I'm not even claiming he doesn't think of this omission as a lie in spirit, if not in fact. the relevance of lying here is that if Robert found out Wylla could not be the mother (but doesn't yet figure out R+L=J), then if Ned actively lied and told Robert Wylla was the mother, Ned has an enormous problem. But If Ned didn't actively tell that lie, just let Robert believe it (or even denied it and gave up when Robert assumed that denying it was just confirming the cover story - "hur hur, yep just a wetnurse nudge nudge wink wink"), then he doesn't have a problem. Robert comes to him wanting to know more and Ned just says something like "Robert you big dumbass, she's just the wetnurse. I never said she was the mother you big daft lumox. Now piss off, for the love you say you bear me, I dishonoured Catelyn, its shameful and I don't wanna talk about it" and possibly even "I told you she was just the wetnurse".

Now, we both agree, I think, that Ned tries to lie as little as possible. He does shut down the conversation with Robert using his supposed shame over his dishonorable acts to do so. He doesn't want to continue telling the lie if he can stop doing so, but he tells us he lies. That is the meaning of his conversation with Arya over "honorable lies" and it is what we see him do in this scene. I'd submit the character we know as Ned would never do what you propose he is doing.

Yep, he tells lies, when necessary. Often by admission. Just not this one, overtly. There is no indication from anywhere that Ned ever claimed Wylla was the mother. Not even from Robert. And the idea that he did runs counter to all the evidence. Its not what Winterfell thinks so if its a lie its an inconsistent one (stupid and dangerous), its not a smart lie to tell (he can't possibly control potential disproof), and it doesn't fit his observed MO.

So, once more, how can Ned tell Robert Wylla's name if he isn't sure her response will be to back up his answer of "Her name was Wylla" to Robert's question, "you know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?" If he isn't certain of Wylla's response he risks everything in giving Robert her name, both in the conversation on the barrows, and in the original conversation where he first gives Robert Wylla's name. He can't give Robert Wylla's name unless he is certain. Which means Wylla and Ned, at least these two but also probably including the leadership of House Dayne and Howland Reed, have agreed before Ned tells Robert Wylla's name what their stories will be. That is the very definition of what is a cover story.

Because it really is her name. He hasn't said she is the mother (that we know of). If Robert asks him directly he can still say she is not. If Robert asks her directly, she can still truthfully say she is not, she's just a wetnurse. She hasn't made that overt claim that we know of either you notice. Ned Dayne doesn't say she claims it, that's just what he believes, which is likely just castle gossip around Starfall (or from Allyria).

If he has said she is the mother, then yes, he needs to get agreements from lots of people. And he has to know every person who knew where she was at the time of conception and trust that Robert's agents will never ask them. Her neighbour. Her sister. Her sister-in-law. Everyone who was where ever she was around Jon's conception time (assuming she wasn't in the Riverlands herself, which would be just too ridiculously fortunate) and everyone who even indirectly knew she was there. Her employers then. Her employers before then. Her employers after then. The people she chatted to in the market. etc etc.
Its really not feasible for Ned to be able to ensure this is a safe lie. So why say it? Why not just not say anything and shut down every conversation. Let people make up their own stories that fit, like Ashara, or Wylla, or the Fisherman's daughter.
Wait... isn't that exactly what we see?
 

Here I was actually talking about the role the Daynes play as Wylla's protectors. Protectors not only in a physical sense of Wylla possibly being taken by unfriendly people, but in the sense of keeping her isolated from those who might want to question her. Not only those who want to question her to verify Ned's story, but those who want to, out of curiosity, know more about what happened to Ned while he was away from his men, and where this child comes from. Troops and servants will talk, and they will pass on stories, as we see concerning the gossip about Ned and Ashara. If Wylla goes with Ned north then there will be people, even friendly people, who will want to know if it is really true that this boy is Ashara's child. What does Wylla say to them? Does her story change from place to place? Or does she just refuse to talk to anyone other than Ned on the long journey north and back?

Why are the Daynes protectors? If Robert or Varys'  agents want to question Wylla, the Daynes can't and won't stop them. Ned might be able to, or to limit them at least, but the Daynes can't afford to even try.
Wylla's best protection is 99% honesty and 1% omission. She's a wetnurse, nothing more. Nothing to see here. Ned hired her to feed a baby. She did that. Thats all she knows.

If Ned wants to control access to Wylla, he isn't in a position to monitor her 24/7 on the long journey. Again he must be very certain of Wylla's story if he is going to expose her to so many people who could destroy the story Ned wants people to believe. It is far better to have her stay behind in Starfall in the Dayne's household were people believe she is Jon's mother, and the Daynes can keep those who would question her at a distance. This, of course, assumes the Daynes know the real story and are willing to hide the truth to protect Lyanna and Rhaegar's child. An assumption  without I really don't think any of this works.

Same bad argument. There is no story.
There are two (3 maybe) types of people potentially wanting to access to Wylla.
First, there is casual, non-specific interest. Thats easy to deflect or even satisfy for her by simple 99% truth 1% omission. And that will happen where ever she is, even in Starfall. There is no need to control this.
Second, there is specific interest in Jon at a light level. Again, thats easy to deflect or satisfy for her. And can happen anywhere, even at Starfall. This doesn't need control as such, but it does need observation and the ability to control should it not go well. It is better for Ned if she is under his influence in this situation in case, but he probably does not need to do anything. The Daynes (if in the know) could cover this if needed too, but its better that Ned do it rather than them.
Third there is intense directed interest in Jon that won;t be easily deflected or satisfied with her 99% truth 1% omission. Thats the really dangerous one, and if it happens will happen wherever she is. The Daynes cannot deal with this. Ned can, either fully or partially, and even if he fails he at least knows what happens. For this one she must be under Ned's control.

Now Ned doesn't know if type 3 will happen or not. But if it happens its likely to be within the first year or so. By the time Jon is weaned (say a couple of years), the danger of this one has mostly passed. People who were that interested have already done their work. Now he can afford to let her go back to Starfall.

Now, if we assume as you do, that Wylla travels to Winterfell as a wetnurse, then why would any of Ned's enemies want to question her? Because she is the one person on the journey who has information, outside Ned and Howland, about Jon in Starfall. If Varys or the Lannisters want to find out about Jon's mother then they are going to want to talk to Wylla.

If they want to know they are going to want to talk to everyone they can, and since we know already Wylla was Jon's wetnurse, and that must have been very early on if she didn't go to Winterfell, she's the one they will want to talk to more than anyone. She's the only accessible lead.
And if they do, Starfall can't protect her. Ned can, to a much greater extent.

Varys and the Lannisters are going to want to know if Ned comes to Starfall with Jon, or was Jon already there with his mother. If Jon comes to Starfall with Ned, then who else was with him when he arrived? Where was the Lady Ashara when all this occurred? Was she pregnant when she arrived in Starfall, and if so what happened to that child? Keeping all these questions, and more, from being asked of Wylla is much better accomplished if she is kept in the Dayne's own household and the rumors of Wylla being Jon's mother don't travel north with Ned and the child. I know we disagree on this, but to me it is clear the safer and more probable course for Ned is to leave Wylla in Starfall in the company of the Daynes. Of course, what is safer and probable doesn't mean it is what happened. It is just my guess about what makes sense.

Wylla is a 'person of interest', if anyone is that interested in Jon's origins, regardless of motherhood rumours. She was the wetnurse, probably his first one. She probably even rode in to Starfall with Ned, already nursing Jon. She's the earliest known connection to baby Jon outside Ned himself.

How can the Daynes 'protect' Wylla from Royal Agents (even Lannister Agents will get the royal seal of approval if they need to)? A relatively weak House, recently on the wrong side of a lost civil war. A House with few allies, and no great names of its own (any more).

You seem focused on the motherhood rumour and the travel. But neither of those are particularly relevant. She's a person of interest anyway as Jon's probably first wetnurse, the motherhood rumour doesn't really add anything to that. And the travel is likely going to be completed before anyone starts sending focused agents out trying to find out details. Agents (the hypothetical ones!) are going to want to question her whether she is in Starfall or in Winterfell (or traveling), and they'll have a much easier time of it in Starfall then either traveling with Ned or in WInterfell.
 

There is evidence, although we don't have young Ned saying, " Wylla told me she is Jon's mother." Ned Dayne tells his story as if it was a widely known fact Wylla was Jon's mom. There is nothing to indicate Wylla would not talk to the young Lord about Jon. If she refused to talk to him about it, then we would expect that Ned would not be so free and easy with his claim to Arya. Instead he tells her facts about Wylla and Jon, including that Jon and he are milk brothers as if surely all of this is something Arya would know. That is evidence. It may not be as explicitly laid out as we would like, but nonetheless it is evidence.

Yes, its evidence. But you are mistaken. Its not evidence of any claims Wylla makes. Its evidence of what Ned (Dayne) thinks. How he got that information is mostly up in the air, although his stated source for a different, related, detail is Allyria. There is zero indication his source is Wylla. Zero.

When we combine Ned's causal way of imparting what he thinks are widely known facts with Ned Starks naming Wylla as Jon's mother in response to Robert's question, and the clear importance for Lord Eddard of Wylla backing up his claim, what we get is a very strong case that Wylla does, in fact, claim Jon Snow as her son.

And my point is that that case is built entirely on air. Neither Robert nor Ned Dayne say that Ned or Wylla respectively made those claims. No claims at all are attributed to Wylla, and Ned Stark shuts down any conversation about the subject immediately, merely confirming (twice) that the name of the woman Robert is thinking of is Wylla.
In both cases, it is entirely reasonable, much more reasonable, that the idea of Wylla being the mother came not from Ned or Wylla, but independently, due to Ned not naming any mother and Wylla simply being there nursing Jon.

Sorry, corbon, about not responding earlier to some of your posts, but with my schedule and the old post being lost I got behind in my answers. I hope some of this is at least a contribution to the debate. Thanks again for the discussion.

No problem. Always a pleasure.

corbon and SFDanny--

I am finding this debate more interesting than it really deserves -- as the issues in dispute really would not have a major impact on the story going forward (or really any impact at all). But because I like to solve logical puzzles, I find it interesting.

Yeah me too. It lead me to a very rare agreement with Wolfmaid.

Its a very good example of how what is not said is often in the forefront of a conversation rather than the background, and how easy and common it is for people to say one thing, yet others hear a completely different thing.
I was astonished, for example, to find that even the milkbrother claim is not actually attributed to Wylla. Its absolutely true, and there is no reason to hide it in any way, and its the sort of thing that might come up with a former wetnurse reminiscing with a child, so I assumed she'd actually said it. But Ned Dayne never mentions that she said anything, not even this. For all we know she could be mute! (Actually... that would work really well for everyone! )

I want to summarize what I think are some of the relevant facts and conclusions that have been set forth regarding this discussion to try to narrow the issues a bit.

I think everyone agrees that Robert believes that Ned told Robert that Jon's mother is Wylla.

Nope. I think its possible Robert believes that, but not even that much is clear. Robert isn't probing Ned for this bastard's mother, he's already 'knows' that, he just can't remember the name. Robert indicates that Ned told him the woman's name once before, but he does not indicate that Ned told him she was the mother. Robert gives no indication at all why he believes that. It (Wylla/'the wetnurse' is the mother) could have come from Ned (but that would be stupid), but it could equally (more than equally because reasonable and not-stupid) have come from Robert's own leapt-to conclusion or by reports of his agents making their own or observing others' leapt to conclusions..

I think everyone agrees that Ned knows that Robert believes that Ned told Robert that Jon's mother is Wylla.

Nope. Same as above. Ned knows that Robert believes Wylla is the mother. If Ned told him then Ned will know Robert believes he told him. If Ned did not tell him that, then Ned might believe that Robert believes Ned told him she was the mother (its getting complicated to parse this!), but he equally (more likely IMO) might know that Robert got that info or idea from elsewhere. Or suspect. It depends how vague the first conversation was. Like I said, Ned could even have outright denied it to Robert's face and merely reinforced what Robert already believed, for all we know.

Ned knows Robert thinks Wylla is the mother. That is all.

SFDanny believes that Ned told (or effectively told) Robert that Jon's mother is Wylla and Ned knows he told Robert a lie. corbon believes that Ned avoided telling Robert a lie and only allowed Robert to come to the conclusions without technically telling a lie -- and most important, if Robert confronted Ned with this supposed "lie" that Ned could convincingly tell Robert something along the lines that Ned tried to tell Robert that Wylla was the wetnurse, but Robert insisted on believing Wylla is the mother and given that Ned does not want to talk about the issue, he did not try harder to correct Robert's misunderstanding.

Yes. More or less. Ned can even consider it to be a lie in his own mind to let Robert believe that. He could also have actively tried to disabuse Robert of that particular notion and failed completely. Most likely, IMO, is that he just ignored it. Its convenient and if he didn't claim it, safe.
I think the key point here is that its not lying thats a significant problem for Ned, its the risk of being caught in a lie. In Robert finds out R+L=J, then it doesn't matter whether Ned ever lied or not. So that makes no difference. But if Robert merely finds out that Ned lied to him directly (Ned's active lie is disproven), then Ned has big problems. Everyone will want to know why he lied. Whether Robert is angry or puzzled, investigations will increase and Ned will now be a figure of suspicion. OTOH if Robert merely has theory A disproven, but its not something Ned told him outright, then Robert can move to theory B, or whatever. But its not a significant problem for Ned. Having said nothing, he's in no different position than before the theory was disproven.

I think the plausibility of Ned getting away with such an "excuse" is critical to corbon's theory being correct. And I am not sure that the conversation in GoT is really all that relevant because by then, Ned knew the "truth" never came out so the risk at this point of Robert finding out Wylla is not the mother is de minimis.

Agreed. The only real significance of it is that it gives us a window into Ned's handling of the situation and it plants some big false ideas in our heads, some of which are reinforced later.

The question is whether Ned could have gotten away with such an approach after their initial conversation -- presumably (but possibly later than) when Ned reconciled with Robert shortly after the War when returning from Starfall to Winterfell. Given that we are not told the precise details of that exchange, I find it hard to come to a firm conclusion. If the conversation went along the lines of what corbon suggested -- that Ned simply answered Robert's question about the name of the wetnurse, then it might have worked, as Ned could remind Robert that Ned only said the name of the wetnurse and Robert insisted on concluding that the wetnurse was the mother. Without knowing the nature of that exchange, I cannot come to a firm conclusion on which argument is better. But I think that the plausibility of Ned being able to use such an excuse is critical to the difference of opinion here.

Robert is a famously forgiving person. He's had a huge fight with his best friend. His best friend comes back wanting reconciliation and they grieve together over Robert's lost love, Ned's sister. Plus Robert is newly married, newly crowned, and with a kingdom in ruins to resurrect. He has a million things to think about.
Its far more trivial for Ned to shut down conversation about his bastard then that at probably any other time ever.
To claim that Ned couldn't shut down that conversation successfully is counter to the text, as well as logic, and is pure invention. To claim that he could, is merely following the clues in the text.

BUT -- there is one other separate point that has been made by corbon a couple of times that I want to challenge -- the location of Wylla nine months prior to Jon's birth (or really, nine months prior to the "official" date of birth of Jon). We know that Wylla is both wetnurse to Jon and Edric Dayne. This fact suggests that she is a professional wetnurse. As a professional wetnurse, I think she would need to keep her milk going between jobs so that the milk does not dry up and make her unable to do her job if called upon for a new infant. So I think it is not unlikely that Wylla was in the habit of keeping her milk going for reasonably long periods of time between engagements.

You are verging further and further into speculative territory here, but fine...

Now we get to Rhaegar and Lyanna (and for this purpose assume they are at ToJ the whole time, but this theory really works if they are anywhere in which Arthur Dayne can get word to Ashara). Lyanna gets pregnant. They decide to stop and stay hidden -- they will need someone to do the cooking and cleaning and eventually be a back-up wetnurse for Lyanna, as they will be in a remote enough location that getting a wetnurse quickly is not possible. So as soon as they know that Lyanna is pregnant, they send for Ashara to get their trusted wetnurse, Wylla, to come to ToJ. Wylla will cook and clean for the next 8 months and be ready to feed the baby if necessary when born.

Too late, and too speculative.  Conception time is what counts, and you don't instantly know when you are pregnant without modern testing kits. It may take several months to be sure, a minimum of several weeks, plus travel time to send a message out, and for Wylla to be found/organised and to arrive.
And too speculative. You don't hire a wetnurse 8 months out. Its just not a sensible process chain you build. Not to mention that what you have built has Wylla at Starfall still probably 7 or 8 months before Jon is born. So Starfall wouldn't believe she is the mother unless everyone in the castle is in on it (and everyone in the market, and her sister, and her nosey cousin who is jealous of her position, and the visiting traders, and that minstrel that passed throuugh and...) and thats not remotely feasible.

Plus, apparently they did all their own cooking and cleaning for 3-5 months and then only when Lyanna gets pregnant do they decide that they really could use some staff already...

Then Ned eventually them, and Wylla has been at ToJ for over 8 months, as Jon is a week or two old at that point. They stay at ToJ another week or so to build the cairns, tear down the tower, etc. and then set off for Starfall. No one else has seen Wylla at that point for 9 months. Ned knows that Wylla has been at ToJ the entire time and thus no one can know where Wylla was 9 months prior to when they leave ToJ. So no one can know that Ned and Wylla were not in the same place at that time and thus no one can know that Wylla cannot be the mother if Ned is the father.

No story that has Wylla planning to be a wetnurse for Lyanna's child 8 months before its birth is reasonable.
And nor is them getting her there within a month of conception.
Your are just stretching further and further to try and reach an unnecessary conclusion. Not your usual standards.

[UnmaskedLurker]

If she as a "professional" wet nurse at Starfall why would the lie be believed so easily by those at Starfall? If she had a reputation for breast feeding other peoples babies, I would expect more than one story to be floating around about the origins of Jon (even if Ned claimed the baby, Wylla backed him up, and the Daynes were in on the plot).

Why would there be questions? A wetnurse had to have been pregnant at some point and could get pregnant again. She disappears from Starfall for 9 months (really at ToJ but most at Starfall don't know where she went) and comes back with Ned and a baby, claiming the baby is hers and Ned's baby. Why would anyone question the truth of the statement that the baby is her baby? No one would have any reason to think the baby could be any else's baby.

[snip]

Alright -- I am going to keep thinking about this one. Most of that last post was more or less "stream on consciousness" as I was thinking through the issues as I was writing them because it helps me to think through issues if I write them out. So let me try one more time (again -- admittedly a bit of stream of consciousness once more). Perhaps it is possible that Rhaegar and Lyanna agreed to hold up at ToJ for as long as it took to have a baby -- for one or both of the following possible reasons -- Rhaegar needs the third head of the dragon and Rhaegar thinks bringing Lyanna back to KL with a baby will make acceptance of the marriage by Aerys more likely. So they want to keep the number of people involved to a minimum -- know that eventually they will need a wetnurse and that they will need other help. So Wylla is brought to the tower as soon as they show up. She is there for more than 9 months -- mainly to cook and clean -- but also to be the wetnurse if needed eventually. She is used to keep her milk from drying up, so being there that long without a baby to nurse is not a big deal. Under this variation, Rhaegar and Lyanna accomplish the following goals (i) they keep the number of people they have to trust to a minimum; (ii) they have someone the entire time they are away who can help with the chores; and (iii) if they are successful at having the baby they are trying to have, they have a back-up wetnurse handy (which would be hard to get on short notice if it turned out to be needed later) -- and if they are unsuccessful at having a baby then they are no worse off for having Wylla there rather than someone else, especially if Wylla is someone that Ashara particularly trusts. 

Oh, but there is one issue that I think we definitely disagree on -- although it is probably one that might never really be clarified in the series. I don't agree with your analysis about Robert not necessarily believing that Ned told Robert that Wylla is the mother. I do not find Robert's words consistent with any alternative interpretation. In other words, I do not believe it is possible that Robert believes he has assumed Wylla to be the mother based on something Ned told him but understands that Ned never really said she is the mother. In my view, Robert's words to Ned are ONLY consistent with a person who genuinely believes that Ned told Robert that Wylla is Jon's mother. I follow the logic of your argument -- I just don't find it persuasive. Robert would not have the ability for the level of subtle thinking required to come to the conclusion you suggest is possible. When he says to Ned something along the lines of -- you know who I am talking about, your bastard's mother -- those words in my view can only mean that Robert believes that Ned told Robert the name of Jon's mother years before -- not the name of Jon's wetnurse that Robert merely assumes is the mother. Robert simply would never think like that -- and, to be honest, I doubt that very many people in real life would think like that. So on that issue, I think we simply will remain in disagreement. 

But I am quite interested in your thoughts about my Wylla at ToJ scenario, as I really am still thinking through that issue and trying to determine what I find plausible with respect to that one.