The Heresy essays: X+Y=J : Arthur + Lyanna=J

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

A fair point. . . and the tournament is a bit of a puzzle. How did Rhaegar win everything? And seem unstoppable? 

You're right--letting Arthur win wouldn't have been very honorable. Crowning the girl he admires might just be a way to be a good buddy. 

But the fact that Rhaegar seems to have been fabulously perfect at the tournament. . . makes me wonder if something else might have been up.

Well, isn't that usually how it goes for the winner? He wins everything..

And Rhaegar had been good at jousting. That undoubtly helped him. And it's not like something similar never happened anyone else.

“I fight as well as any man, Khaleesi, but I have never been a tourney knight. Yet with Lynesse’s favor knotted round my arm, I was a different man. I won joust after joust. Lord Jason Mallister fell before me, and Bronze Yohn Royce. Ser Ryman Frey, his brother Ser Hosteen, Lord Whent, Strongboar, even Ser Boros Blount of the Kingsguard, I unhorsed them all. In the last match, I broke nine lances against Jaime Lannister to no result, and King Robert gave me the champion’s laurel. I crowned Lynesse queen of love and beauty, and that very night went to her father and asked for her hand.

If Jorah can do it, why shouldn't Rhaegar be able to do it? Rhaegar was like to have had more experience in taking part compared to Jorah, after all.. And thus, more experienced in jousting.

[kimim]

And the above interpretation--that Ned lies to protect Jon from the potential physical threat of Robert and the Lannisters--without doubt works.

But we also know that Ned lies for other reasons: to protect feelings, peace of mind. He lies for compassion and mercy--not just for physical protection. 

He's lied about Brandon and Rickard's deaths to his entire family. Even Cat. The fact that he could keep such a horrific and sensational set of facts from her is a testament to his dedication. And, far as I can see, the ONLY reason to do so, to carry that secret himself, is to protect her feelings.

If, hypothetically, Jon is Arthur's child, that means:

1. Ned was actively involved in killing the man who fathered Lyanna's child.

2. If the echoes of Sansa end up being hints at what happened with Lyanna, then the knight with the soiled cloak (Hound) was the true knight who protected the Stark maiden. And Ned killed him. Ned killed the finest knight he ever saw who was protecting his sister.

3. Ned is now the de facto father of the child of the man he killed--because he didn't understand what was going on.

Assuming those facts for the sake of hypothetical argument, I have little problem imagining Ned wouldn't want ANYONE letting those facts circulate and get back to Jon's ears. And I have little trouble imagining that Ned would want to put off telling Jon the truth for as long as possible: "Hey, boyo. You know I love you, right? Well, see, I'm not your real dad. But it's okay, because I killed your real dad. Who was a really good guy. Who was taking care of your mom. But I didn't know that. And. . . wait! No! I still love you! Really! It's all okay because I still love you!"

Throw in Ned's guilt and his having made more mistakes than Cersei can imagine, and that he's seen Cat's willingness to gossip about Jon's origins. . . Ned's guilt over the past and his fear of the pain coming to Jon. That might be an alternative way to explain the secret. Based on what we've seen of Ned.

Motivation is not there:

1. Ned and Arthur ended up on the opposite sides of a civil war. That Ned ended up killing Arthur is not something unexpected in their world, in a war. I doubt very much that "explaining" the fact would pose insurmountable problems.

edit: You have Ned lying for the sake of himself here, not because he's trying to protect Jon or his family. Sorry, but if this is the kind of man Ned is, why on earth would he choose this kind of lie? If he's lying, why not go all the way and just deny having any involvement in Arthur's death?

2. Why would Ned lie to CAT about this? Why not tell Cat the truth, and make her happy? She already thinks Starks are a tad strange, so she'd have no problem with Ned's decision to hide things from Jon. It's not like her divulging the truth will cause the king to turn against the Starks or anything like that; if she lets the truth slip, all Ned has to do is tell Jon that it was war. Big whoop, sorry.

3. If Arthur is the father, why doesn't Ned leave Jon at Starfall, with his father's family? Why bring Jon to Winterfell? Think of everything that will work against Jon at WF: Ned's going to lie. Cat's going to treat him like a bastard. Jon's opportunities will be limited: He must turn Crow to make a life for himself. Life at Starfall would offer more opportunities.

edit: Another reason for leaving Jon at Starfall: Starfall is in Dorne, and Jon's a bastard. The Dornish seem to have slightly more tolerant attitudes toward bastards than the North does. Again, why not leave him with his father's people, in a society where bastards are more accepted than they are in the North?

[anonnyscouse]

Motivation is not there:

1. Ned and Arthur ended up on the opposite sides of a civil war. That Ned ended up killing Arthur is not something unexpected in their world, in a war. I doubt very much that "explaining" the fact would pose insurmountable problems.

edit: You have Ned lying for the sake of himself here, not because he's trying to protect Jon or his family. Sorry, but if this is the kind of man Ned is, why on earth would he choose this kind of lie? If he's lying, why not go all the way and just deny having any involvement in Arthur's death?

2. Why would Ned lie to CAT about this? Why not tell Cat the truth, and make her happy? She already thinks Starks are a tad strange, so she'd have no problem with Ned's decision to hide things from Jon. It's not like her divulging the truth will cause the king to turn against the Starks or anything like that; if she lets the truth slip, all Ned has to do is tell Jon that it was war. Big whoop, sorry.

3. If Arthur is the father, why doesn't Ned leave Jon at Starfall, with his father's family? Why bring Jon to Winterfell? Think of everything that will work against Jon at WF: Ned's going to lie. Cat's going to treat him like a bastard. Jon's opportunities will be limited: He must turn Crow to make a life for himself. Life at Starfall would offer more opportunities.

edit: Another reason for leaving Jon at Starfall: Starfall is in Dorne, and Jon's a bastard. The Dornish seem to have slightly more tolerant attitudes toward bastards than the North does. Again, why not leave him with his father's people, in a society where bastards are more accepted than they are in the North?

1. He couldn't deny any involvement and still return Dawn to the Daynes. If he had no involvement in Arthur's death how would he have Dawn?

2. The best way to protect a secret is to tell no-one. If he tells Catelyn then there's always a chance she could accidentally reveal the secret either during a fight within Jon's earshot, or when drunk.

3. If this hypothesis is true it's still possible the Daynes don't know Lyanna actually eloped with Arthur, if they had no contact with him they could just believe the official version of events (Rhaegar kidnapping Lyanna). Refer back to no. 2 as to why Ned wouldn't have told the truth.

 

edit: Another reason for no.3 is the promise: Lyanna might have made Ned promise to raise Jon as a northman.

[kimim]

1. He couldn't deny any involvement and still return Dawn to the Daynes. If he had no involvement in Arthur's death how would he have Dawn?

2. The best way to protect a secret is to tell no-one. If he tells Catelyn then there's always a chance she could accidentally reveal the secret either during a fight within Jon's earshot, or when drunk.

3. If this hypothesis is true it's still possible the Daynes don't know Lyanna actually eloped with Arthur, if they had no contact with him they could just believe the official version of events (Rhaegar kidnapping Lyanna). Refer back to no. 2 as to why Ned wouldn't have told the truth.

 

edit: Another reason for no.3 is the promise: Lyanna might have made Ned promise to raise Jon as a northman.

1. Only two people survived that battle: Ned and HR. There were five others on Ned's side. Someone else killed Arthur, and Ned, being the noble, honorable guy that he is, picked up Arthur's baby and Arthur's sword, and took them both home, to Starfall. Once you have Ned lying for his own sake rather than for the sake of his family, anything is possible.

2. This kind of secrecy would be true of something that has the potential to get the king to turn against the Starks, endangering everyone, including Jon. This lie is nothing like that.

--it strains Ned's relationship with Cat, whom he loves

--it makes Jon's life more difficult through Cat's resentment.

--it radically limits Jon's opportunities.

--it creates dynastic problems for the Starks, as Cat is right: Bastard children DO pose a threat to legitimate heirs.

--edit: It puts Ned in a position where he has to keep lying, something that's not in character for him.

Admitting that Arthur's the father makes life simpler for everyone, including Jon.

3. Why would the Daynes choose to believe a rumor over eyewitness evidence from the man who had the decency to return Dawn to them? Why wouldn't Ned let the Daynes know that Artur left something of himself in this world? Not all secrets are equal. l+r=j endangers the Starks. l+a=j merely has the potential to strain Ned's relationship with Jon, and not even that, as Ned, who is a major liar in this scenario, could tweak the lie to let himself off the hook.

4. Why would Lyanna make such a request? Presumably, she loved Arthur. Why would she deny Jon his father's family? It's not like Lysa or Tywin lead the Daynes.

5. If Arthur is the father of Lyanna's child, what is she doing, giving birth at the toj?????

[The Ned's Little Girl]

2. Why would Ned lie to CAT about this? Why not tell Cat the truth, and make her happy? She already thinks Starks are a tad strange, so she'd have no problem with Ned's decision to hide things from Jon. It's not like her divulging the truth will cause the king to turn against the Starks or anything like that; if she lets the truth slip, all Ned has to do is tell Jon that it was war. Big whoop, sorry.

2. The best way to protect a secret is to tell no-one. If he tells Catelyn then there's always a chance she could accidentally reveal the secret either during a fight within Jon's earshot, or when drunk.

I think kimim might have meant "Why would Ned lie to CAT about [Arthur Dayne being Jon's father]?" I think there is no reason at all to lie about Jon's identity if he is Arthur Dayne's son (or even anybody's son except for Rhaegar Targaryen actually). So, even if Catelyn was told and accidentally or on purpose blurted it out one day, would that have any effect on Jon's survival or safety? I say no.

The strongest argument against anybody besides Rhaegar and Lyanna being Jon's parents is there is no reason for Ned to keep quiet about it which can't be demolished quite easily.

[Sly Wren]

Well, isn't that usually how it goes for the winner? He wins everything..

And Rhaegar had been good at jousting. That undoubtly helped him. And it's not like something similar never happened anyone else.

“I fight as well as any man, Khaleesi, but I have never been a tourney knight. Yet with Lynesse’s favor knotted round my arm, I was a different man. I won joust after joust. Lord Jason Mallister fell before me, and Bronze Yohn Royce. Ser Ryman Frey, his brother Ser Hosteen, Lord Whent, Strongboar, even Ser Boros Blount of the Kingsguard, I unhorsed them all. In the last match, I broke nine lances against Jaime Lannister to no result, and King Robert gave me the champion’s laurel. I crowned Lynesse queen of love and beauty, and that very night went to her father and asked for her hand.

If Jorah can do it, why shouldn't Rhaegar be able to do it? Rhaegar was like to have had more experience in taking part compared to Jorah, after all.. And thus, more experienced in jousting.

All fair. As I said to J.Stargaryen above, this is more of a bug in my brain than anything else--in part because of Barristan's thought about being a better knight.

And because the World Book gushes a bit re: Rhaegar's performance at Harrenhal. Which makes my cynical brain work over time.

But without more data, it's just a bug--and I withdraw it from consideration until I can offer more substantive support.

[Sly Wren]

Motivation is not there:

1. Ned and Arthur ended up on the opposite sides of a civil war. That Ned ended up killing Arthur is not something unexpected in their world, in a war. I doubt very much that "explaining" the fact would pose insurmountable problems.

edit: You have Ned lying for the sake of himself here, not because he's trying to protect Jon or his family. Sorry, but if this is the kind of man Ned is, why on earth would he choose this kind of lie? If he's lying, why not go all the way and just deny having any involvement in Arthur's death?

Apologies for not being clearer. I do think Ned's guilt might lead him to quietly bear his own "sins" and mistakes.

But, if (hypothetically) Arthur is Jon's father--I cannot imagine telling my adopted child that I killed either one of her parents. It would blow her world apart. 

We see how Theon's learning what his family is really like, compared to the Starks, does to him. Jon seems to be made of stronger stuff. And he has his wolf to remind him of his Stark ties. But knowing that telling the truth will blow someone's life apart. Knowing it will send a child's world reeling. Especially a child you love and adore and have raised as your own--yeah, I would think Ned's protecting Jon by not telling him about Arthur. By holding off as long as he can. Ned is willing to do almost anything to protect the feelings of children--even refusing to take Cerise's children into custody after Robert's injury.

Especially if the echoes with Sansa bear out and Arthur was Lyanna's protector. Telling a kid all of that. . . yeah. As parent, I'd wait to blow my kid's world up for as long as I possibly could.

2. Why would Ned lie to CAT about this? Why not tell Cat the truth, and make her happy? She already thinks Starks are a tad strange, so she'd have no problem with Ned's decision to hide things from Jon. It's not like her divulging the truth will cause the king to turn against the Starks or anything like that; if she lets the truth slip, all Ned has to do is tell Jon that it was war. Big whoop, sorry.

Agreed--this is an issue. And, for the reasons given above, it's also an issue for any of the reasons Ned might keep Jon's parentage secret.

Going back to the echoes of what happened to Lyanna as shown us with Cat (taking Tyrion and it all blowing up), with Sansa and with Arya--there may be some information in there that Ned thinks would hurt her. Remember, he managed to keep Brandon and Rickard's manner of death from her. Presumably to spare feelings. We don not know the whole story of how this all went down--if there's something in there that might hurt her. . . could see that as being a factor. Maybe.

3. If Arthur is the father, why doesn't Ned leave Jon at Starfall, with his father's family? Why bring Jon to Winterfell? Think of everything that will work against Jon at WF: Ned's going to lie. Cat's going to treat him like a bastard. Jon's opportunities will be limited: He must turn Crow to make a life for himself. Life at Starfall would offer more opportunities.

edit: Another reason for leaving Jon at Starfall: Starfall is in Dorne, and Jon's a bastard. The Dornish seem to have slightly more tolerant attitudes toward bastards than the North does. Again, why not leave him with his father's people, in a society where bastards are more accepted than they are in the North?

I'm with annonyscouse on this one--Lyanna's promise. It's not quite a trump card (don't think those exist in the story--not yet anyway), but I really think Ned would do almost anything if Lyanna asked him to. Reasonable or not.

An argument which actually also applies to the OP's argument re: protecting Jon from physical harm. If Lyanna thought it was a problem, reasonable or not, can see Ned's agreeing even to something mad. For her sake.

[anonnyscouse]

I think kimim might have meant "Why would Ned lie to CAT about [Arthur Dayne being Jon's father]?" I think there is no reason at all to lie about Jon's identity if he is Arthur Dayne's son (or even anybody's son except for Rhaegar Targaryen actually). So, even if Catelyn was told and accidentally or on purpose blurted it out one day, would that have any effect on Jon's survival or safety? I say no.

The strongest argument against anybody besides Rhaegar and Lyanna being Jon's parents is there is no reason for Ned to keep quiet about it which can't be demolished quite easily.

How does Ned tell Jon that he killed his real father? "Sorry but it was war." just wouldn't cut it. There's no way Ned could let Jon learn the truth without a very real risk of Jon hating him from then on.

1. Only two people survived that battle: Ned and HR. There were five others on Ned's side. Someone else killed Arthur, and Ned, being the noble, honorable guy that he is, picked up Arthur's baby and Arthur's sword, and took them both home, to Starfall. Once you have Ned lying for his own sake rather than for the sake of his family, anything is possible.

2. This kind of secrecy would be true of something that has the potential to get the king to turn against his family, endangering everyone, including Jon. This lie is nothing like that.

--it strains Ned's relationship with Cat, whom he loves

--it makes Jon's life more difficult through Cat's resentment.

--it radically limits Jon's opportunities.

--it creates dynastic problems for the Starks, as Cat is right: Bastard children DO pose a threat to legitimate heirs.

Admitting that Arthur's the father makes life simpler for everyone, including Jon.

3. Why would the Daynes choose to believe a rumor over eyewitness evidence from the man who had the decency to return Dawn to them? Why wouldn't Ned let the Daynes know that Artur left something of himself in this world? Not all secrets are equal. l+r=j endangers the Starks. l+a=j merely has the potential to strain Ned's relationship with Jon, and not even that, as Ned, who is a major liar in this scenario, could tweak the lie to let himself off the hook.

4. Why would Lyanna make such a request? Presumably, she loved Arthur. Why would she deny Jon his father's family? It's not like Lysa or Tywin lead the Daynes.

5. If Arthur is the father of Lyanna's child, what is she doing, giving birth at the toj?????

1. Ned instigated the fight that killed Arthur by searching for him. Even if it was one of Ned's companions who killed Arthur they were still under Ned's command. There is no way for Ned to have Dawn unless he directly or indirectly killed Arthur. Either way he is certainly involved in his death.

2. While in this scenario Jon would not be the son of Rhaegar, he would still have been the son of the man who eloped with Robert's fiancee, would Robert forgive Ned for protecting him? There's also the issue of the rebellion. If this scenario is true then Brandon was a traitor, accusing the prince of a crime he never committed and demanding to fight him, surely with the intention of killing him, enraging the king so much he executed both Brandon and his father, and called for the execution of the other 2 people he believed were responsible for the lie. This was the act that started the rebellion but if it was based on a lie does that leave Robert as rightful king?

3. Why would Ned tell the Daynes that Arthur soiled his cloak and set up a chain of events that led to the rebellion? If Ned arrives with Dawn and a baby the Daynes (if they didn't know about the eloping) would have no trouble believing that Jon is Ned's bastard and even if they did have doubts their other idea would be R+L and they would be happy to go along with Ned's story to protect Jon even if they didn't believe it.

4. Lyanna was from the North, why wouldn't she want her son to be a Northman? She would also probably have been worried about what Robert would do if he knew the truth. She trusted Ned to protect him more than she trusted a family she had never met.

5. Where did Lewyn hide his paramour? It's possible it is exactly the same place.

[kimim]

Apologies for not being clearer. I do think Ned's guilt might lead him to quietly bear his own "sins" and mistakes.

But, if (hypothetically) Arthur is Jon's father--I cannot imagine telling my adopted child that I killed either one of her parents. It would blow her world apart. 

We see how Theon's learning what his family is really like, compared to the Starks, does to him. Jon seems to be made of stronger stuff. And he has his wolf to remind him of his Stark ties. But knowing that telling the truth will blow someone's life apart. Knowing it will send a child's world reeling. Especially a child you love and adore and have raised as your own--yeah, I would think Ned's protecting Jon by not telling him about Arthur. By holding off as long as he can. Ned is willing to do almost anything to protect the feelings of children--even refusing to take Cerise's children into custody after Robert's injury.

Especially if the echoes with Sansa bear out and Arthur was Lyanna's protector. Telling a kid all of that. . . yeah. As parent, I'd wait to blow my kid's world up for as long as I possibly could.

Agreed--this is an issue. And, for the reasons given above, it's also an issue for any of the reasons Ned might keep Jon's parentage secret.

Going back to the echoes of what happened to Lyanna as shown us with Cat (taking Tyrion and it all blowing up), with Sansa and with Arya--there may be some information in there that Ned thinks would hurt her. Remember, he managed to keep Brandon and Rickard's manner of death from her. Presumably to spare feelings. We don not know the whole story of how this all went down--if there's something in there that might hurt her. . . could see that as being a factor. Maybe.

I'm with annonyscouse on this one--Lyanna's promise. It's not quite a trump card (don't think those exist in the story--not yet anyway), but I really think Ned would do almost anything if Lyanna asked him to. Reasonable or not.

An argument which actually also applies to the OP's argument re: protecting Jon from physical harm. If Lyanna thought it was a problem, reasonable or not, can see Ned's agreeing even to something mad. For her sake.

1. This doesn't solve my objections. If Ned is lying to let himself off the hook for killing Arthur, then It's a selfish lie. I can ask if such a lie is in character for Ned, but if we say that it is in character, then why on earth would he not go further, and let himself off the hook, without having to adopt a child, bring him home, risk his own kids, risk his marriage, etc.? If he's going to lie this way, then he could easily say he had nothing but respect for Arthur, asked his men to spare him, but in the melee, Arthur died. Not Ned's fault. War's hell.

2. Re the "issue": People tell lies for different reasons. Ned lies about r+l=j to save his family. Ned lies about a+l=j to keep Jon loving him. One's life and death; other is not. Also see #1

3. We don't know what Lyanna's promise was. However, you need to provide some reason for her demanding this promise from Ned, and it has to be a very good one. If you can prove that the Daynes were dangerous to Jon, that they were ruled by a Tywin or Lysa, then ok, I get it. Otherwise, the promise makes no sense. Why would Lyanna deny the Daynes any knowledge of Arthur's son? Why would she want her son brought up in the North, where bastards are treated like crap? Why would she put her son through a dangerous trip of thousands of miles to Winterfell?

4. btw, if the key concern is that the Daynes never find out Arthur had a child (again, why?) why is Wylla his wetnurse???

 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

Never mind.

 

[anonnyscouse]

I asked earlier but presumably you didn't see it. Did Ned, in fact, keep the manner of Rickard's and Brandon's deaths from Cat? Can you point me to the text that supports that supposition? (I don't remember anything about that.)

Pretty sure Cat finds out the full story from Jaime when he's held prisoner by her, she didn't know before that.

[wolfmaid7]

The point of view is through NedRobert'ss how we understood the story.

To keep a secret (Jon's true identity) even from the ones you love?? 

To keep Arthur's honor as a white knight?? that would equate to the heavy words that Ned told Arya?? that the lie was not without honor (Arya chasing Nymeria away, throwing rocks at her, lying that she doesn't want her), since the queen would kill the direwolf, to which Ned agreed.

“I told her to run, to go be free, that I didn’t want her anymore. There were other wolves for her to play with, we heard them howling, and Jory said the woods were full of game, so she’d have deer to hunt. Only she kept following, and finally we had to throw rocks. I hit her twice. She whined and looked at me and I felt so ’shamed, but it was right, wasn’t it? The queen would have killed her.”
“It was right,” her father said. “And even the lie was … not without honor.”

And compare that to Ned keeping Jon's identity a secret so that the 3KG's honor (who's connected since they were there together at the tower) would be upheld??

I don't think so.

 

If the foundational premise is Robert's murderous revenge then it is so.Any prospect that was supposedly part of a "kidnapping" has that as an explanation. 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Pretty sure Cat finds out the full story from Jaime when he's held prisoner by her, she didn't know before that.

Right. Although he didn't actually lie. Looks rather as if Ned didn't volunteer details, and she in turn didn't ask.

“I told you, there are no men like me. Answer me this, Lady Stark—did your Ned ever tell you the manner of his father’s death? Or his brother’s?”

“They strangled Brandon while his father watched, and then killed Lord Rickard as well.” An ugly tale, and sixteen years old. Why was he asking about it now?

“Killed, yes, but how?”

“The cord or the axe, I suppose.”

[anonnyscouse]

 

5. Where did Lewyn hide his paramour? It's possible it is exactly the same place.

 

 

4. btw, if the key concern is that the Daynes never find out Arthur had a child (again, why?) why is Wylla his wetnurse???

 

I've just realised we have no idea what happened to Wylla's child. She must have had one to have been able to be a wetnurse. It's possible Wylla was Lewyn's paramour and that's why she was already at the ToJ.

[Sly Wren]

2. Re the "issue": People tell lies for different reasons. Ned lies about r+l=j to save his family. Ned lies about a+l=j to keep Jon loving him. One's life and death; other is not. Also see #1

Am skipping around a bit so my answer will hopefully make sense:

--On point #2: those are assumptions. If the OP is right and Lyanna and or Ned are afraid for Jon's physical safety, then Ned is lying for Jon's physical protection as well. But I can't see how protecting Jon's sense of well-being is lying "just to keep Jon loving him".

Also, Ned himself feels shame over something re: Jon:

QUOTE: The thought of Jon filled Ned with a sense of shame, and a sorrow too deep for words. If only he could see the boy again, sit and talk with him … pain shot through his broken leg, beneath the filthy grey plaster of his cast. He winced, his fingers opening and closing helplessly. "Is this your own scheme," he gasped out at Varys, "or are you in league with Littlefinger?" Game, Eddard XV

Something's amok with Ned's treatment of Jon. Something that fills him with shame--not regret, not just sadness--shame. The idea that Ned might have mixed motives. Might not have acted perfectly in how he handled the situation. That his taking Jon to Winterfell might not be a perfectly planned out fully justifiable act--that's allowable by the text. By all that Martin has shown us of how he writes all of his characters--including Ned. 

1. This doesn't solve my objections. If Ned is lying to let himself off the hook for killing Arthur, then It's a selfish lie. I can ask if such a lie is in character for Ned, but if we say that it is in character, then why on earth would he not go further, and let himself off the hook, without having to adopt a child, bring him home, risk his own kids, risk his marriage, etc.? If he's going to lie this way, then he could easily say he had nothing but respect for Arthur, asked his men to spare him, but in the melee, Arthur died. Not Ned's fault. War's hell.

Again--apologies if I wasn't clear, but I'm not trying to argue Ned's just lying to let himself off the hook. Lying to protect Jon's psyche, his sense of well-being. Given the shame he feels in the black cells, I'm assuming Ned intended to tell Jon at some point about his father. If (hypothetically) that father is Arthur, the shame could easily apply to his delaying too long--out of fear for Jon, out of rationalizations, etc. 

3. We don't know what Lyanna's promise was. However, you need to provide some reason for her demanding this promise from Ned, and it has to be a very good one. If you can prove that the Daynes were dangerous to Jon, that they were ruled by a Tywin or Lysa, then ok, I get it. Otherwise, the promise makes no sense. Why would Lyanna deny the Daynes any knowledge of Arthur's son? Why would she want her son brought up in the North, where bastards are treated like crap? Why would she put her son through a dangerous trip of thousands of miles to Winterfell?

On the first bolded--it would depend on what Ned thought was a good reason. We do know that Lyanna looked relieved when Ned gave her the promise. Does that mean that she knew it was hard to bear? 

But given that Lyanna is a teenaged girl dying (probably) from complications of childbirth after a devastating war and all that's happened to her family, and dying from a fever--given all of that, the idea that she's going to exact a completely rational promise from Ned--can't see how that's a requirement of the text. And, given that current older-and-wiser Ned has made decisions that seem to defy practicality and instead focus on emotion--the idea that Ned might agree to an irrational promise out of mercy and sadness and everything else, no matter what it cost him--can't see how that's not allowable by the text, either. Not without more data.

On the second bolded--errm--I don't think I ever implied Lyanna was trying to keep Jon secret from the Daynes. In fact, if Jon is Arthur's kid, I'm guessing they knew it. So, I agree- can't see why Lyanna or Ned would hide Jon from the Daynes.

As for why would she want her son to go North--wants him raised as a Northman? Wants him raised where she grew up around the things she loved? That promise is so vague, it could be anything. But, again, the idea that it could be an emotional decision on her and Ned's part--that really fits well with the world Martin has built.

4. btw, if the key concern is that the Daynes never find out Arthur had a child (again, why?) why is Wylla his wetnurse???

Again--apologies if I was unclear--but this was never part of my argument. I can't see any real reason the Daynes (Arthur's sister and brother) wouldn't know about Jon.

[Sly Wren]

Pretty sure Cat finds out the full story from Jaime when he's held prisoner by her, she didn't know before that.

Right. Although he didn't actually lie. Looks rather as if Ned didn't volunteer details, and she in turn didn't ask.

“I told you, there are no men like me. Answer me this, Lady Stark—did your Ned ever tell you the manner of his father’s death? Or his brother’s?”

“They strangled Brandon while his father watched, and then killed Lord Rickard as well.” An ugly tale, and sixteen years old. Why was he asking about it now?

“Killed, yes, but how?”

“The cord or the axe, I suppose.”

Yup! And given Cat's reaction to the edited version, can see why Ned left out the details. And (probably) worked hard to shield his whole family from the details. 

[J. Stargaryen]

 

Explain to me why AD+L=J isn't worth hiding? From a KGs prospective it is especially if you want your name in that white book unsoiled.

Explain to me why it is.

Well, Ned's not a KG, so it's not his problem. I think the idea that Ned, who had not sullied his own honor, would do so by lying about fathering a bastard in order to protect the honor of a KG knight who had broken his vows, is extremely far fetched at best.

[Voice]

Explain to me why it is.

Well, Ned's not a KG, so it's not his problem. I think the idea that Ned, who had not sullied his own honor, would do so by lying about fathering a bastard in order to protect the honor of a KG knight who had broken his vows, is extremely far fetched at best.

Simple. You've missed an important wrinkle. By claiming Jon as his own, Ned is able to protect his dead sister's honor. Regardless of who Jon's father was.

[J. Stargaryen]

Simple. You've missed an important wrinkle. By claiming Jon as his own, Ned is able to protect his dead sister's honor. Regardless of who Jon's father was.

No I haven't. Again, it's not Ned's problem. This idea that Ned is supposed to compromise his own honor just to protect someone who compromised their own is silly. There has to be a better reason for him to lie. And, as I said above, considering that people knew that it was Rhaegar who kidnapped Lyanna, Ned would be inviting trouble by claiming Jon as his own, if he was in fact Lyanna and Arthur's.

[wolfmaid7]

Explain to me why it is.

Well, Ned's not a KG, so it's not his problem. I think the idea that Ned, who had not sullied his own honor, would do so by lying about fathering a bastard in order to protect the honor of a KG knight who had broken his vows, is extremely far fetched at best.

As VOTFM pointed out and its a good point,part of it is about protecting Lyanna's honor no matter who Jon's father is.Lyanna might have cared had she lived.She's dead now and has no care,but Ned would have cared about her name being sullied.

The point i raised upthread to Icefire125 is if you all contend that Robert's wrath is the key factor in hiding Jon.If Arthur is Jon's father then that still applies,being as he was supposedly one of the culprits in the supposed kidnapping.Robert would still name that rape unless told otherwise.Any prospect that includes Rhaegar,Arthur or Whent (if he's a thing) has that as an explanation because they were all " part and parcel" in the crime. You see what i'm saying?