The Heresy essays: X+Y=J- Howland + Lyanna=Jon

[wolfmaid7]

No, not faulty reasoning. No speculation. Straight from the author's mouth. Jon is said by Martin to be "eight or nine" months older than Daenerys, who is born "nine moons" after the flight from King's Landing. Daenerys is conceived in a brutal rape of Rhaella on the night Aerys burns his Hand for opposing the pyromancer plot. Jon is therefore conceived eight to nine months before that event. But I'm sure you know all this. A theory that doesn't take these basic facts into account, may be well written, allude to interesting motifs from other sources, propose new and interesting takes on things, but it can't be taken seriously without dealing with what seems to flat out rule it out as a possibility.

I have to head out again right now but i will come back to this later.Its important that this is raised here so that we can address it before excluding anyone as Jon's father based on timeline.This is where i think the perception of the reader jumps ahead of what George is saying without actually saying it and it all unravels the moment anyone asserts that its a secret.

[anonnyscouse]

Jon can be born before or during the rebellion and still be 8 or 9 months older than Dany, if Dany isn't who we think she is, there's enough hints in the books (lemon trees, "remember who you are" when she never forgets she is a Targ) to at least leave that as a possibility, we can't say with 100% certainty that Dany is the daughter of Rhaella and Aerys.

The problem with having Jon too young is with Robb. Jon has to at least look young enough to be believed as being younger than Robb, for me that would be no more than 6 months older and that's if Jon is small for his age and Robb is big for his age.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

What I've included is quite relevant and the whole point of Meera's telling of the story. Why would Meera and Jojen tell Bran a story about Lyanna? Their whole purpose is to collect Bran and bring him to Bloodraven, make him aware that his wolf dreams are warging, that Bran himself is a warg with a special purpose, and part of that purpose is the power of greenseers and the old gods. And you think this is a story about Lyanna dressed up as a mystery knight in order to teach Bran about honor???

Because it's a story about Bran's own family? And Jojen is incredulous that Bran doesn't know the story already? So much so that he repeatedly expresses surprise and even interrupts Meera's telling of the story to do so?

If telling the story is to teach Bran about the power of greenseers and the old gods (and really, the son of Ned Stark needs to be taught this as if it hasn't been part of his upbringing for his whole life?) then why the surprise from Jojen that Bran isn't familiar with it?

 

[SFDanny]

I have to head out again right now but i will come back to this later.Its important that this is raised here so that we can address it before excluding anyone as Jon's father based on timeline.This is where i think the perception of the reader jumps ahead of what George is saying without actually saying it and it all unravels the moment anyone asserts that its a secret.

I look forward to your response. I think this is a basic problem with not only this scenario, but with some of the others as well. As I said in the Arthur + Lyanna = Jon thread proximity is a good factor for ruling people out, but not so good in ruling them in. Unlike Arthur, when we have Howland separated from Lyanna without any indication of just how they could have possibly got together to conceive Jon, any reasonable reader will look on that as a major problem.  The same happens with the various crackpot ideas such as Rickard, Brandon, Ned, or Benjen being Jon's father with Lyanna his mother. There we get the added problem of Rickard and Brandon being dead when Jon is conceived. If the theory can't pass this simple test it is time to look elsewhere.

I don't think we can say quite the same thing for the scenarios of Wylla, or Ashara, or the fisherman's daughter. Here we have not only real textual evidence showing at least some characters think these three candidates are, in fact, Jon's mom, but it is also easier to come up with realistic ideas for how it is possible for Ned, as opposed to Lyanna's situation, could meet with any of these three. During the time in question Lyanna is hiding away from just about everybody. Ned is not. We know the rebellion goes on for just about a year before the sack, but Lyanna is taken away much longer ago than that. Her isolation from various "candidates" such as Howland is for an extended period, or at least if one believes that not to be the case is should be shown how it is not.

Getting Wylla into contact with Ned is not hard to imagine, if we don't assume she is in Starfall for the entirety of the rebellion. Likewise, Martin's comment about Ashara not being "nailed to the floor" in Dorne gives us reason to think it is not impossible for the two to have met. Getting someone to Lyanna's hiding place and back is much, much more difficult to explain. Lyanna leaving hiding and returning is even more so. But the bottom line is it is the responsibility of those who think it possible to explain how it is. Ignoring these problems don't make a theory more credible.

[Melifeather]

Because it's a story about Bran's own family? And Jojen is incredulous that Bran doesn't know the story already? So much so that he repeatedly expresses surprise and even interrupts Meera's telling of the story to do so?

If telling the story is to teach Bran about the power of greenseers and the old gods (and really, the son of Ned Stark needs to be taught this as if it hasn't been part of his upbringing for his whole life?) then why the surprise from Jojen that Bran isn't familiar with it?

 

Yes it's a story involving Bran's family, but that is not the purpose of the telling. Bran is being educated and enlightened by Meera and Jojen and he doesn't need to be taught "honor", but he does need to be educated on wargs, greendreams, greenseers, and old gods in preparation for when he meets Bloodraven. Bran was brought up believing greenseers, old gods, and wargs are only in the distant past and he doesn't know anybody that is one in the current story, nor does he even know these things are real. He's only been told stories by Nan, who even Ned dismisses as "stories"...in other words, basically fairy stories that aren't real, so yes, he needs to learn that these stories were real and that they really did happen and can happen again.

[Taenqyrhae]

Jon isn't short...?

He is quite short.  When he is given Longclaw, he cannot wear it on his hip and has to wear it slung over his back like a two-handed greatsword.  Bastard swords are made to be worn on the hip, and are no longer than the katana, which was traditionally worn in a sash on the hip by samurai - who averaged between 5'1" and 5'3" in height.

A short man of 5'3" should have no trouble with a bastard sword dragging on the ground if worn in a proper scabbard, but Jon does.

There's only two references to Jon's size, both hidden in the first book - Tyrion guesses his age as 10 or 11 when he first meets him, and his inability to wear Longclaw on his hip is commented on when he is given the sword.  If Jon is so short, why is it not commented on more?

First, shortness would not be that uncommon - he may be on the small side for nobles, but plenty of peasants who lacked proper nutrition growing up would be small.  He's not a dwarf, so his small stature is not really worthy of comment.  We don't know how tall a lot of characters are.  I'm sure there are plenty of short wildlings, too.

Secondly, for a good portion of the book Jon is in a position of power and seen as formidable.  Tough guys who are short are often easily provoked by making jokes about their size, so people who know Jon probably keep their mouths shut about his height.

Finally, if more attention was given to Jon's height, it would draw more attention to his Crannogmen heritage, which is being kept secret in part because of misdirection from the R+L=J theory.  If "unusually short" was a consistent part of Jon's description, that would lead anyone who is questioning his parentage right to the Neck - who else is described as short?  Tyrion and Crannogmen, that's it.

So GRRM made a couple of allusions early on that don't flat out say "Jon is unusually short" but can be called back on so nobody could say "Wait, you never told us Jon was short until now!"  Yes he did, he was mistaken for a 10 year old and was too short to wear a sword, people just didn't pay attention.  This also ties with how GRRM defies tropes and plays with our expectations - people expect a hero to be tall.  People want fire, not mud.  Everybody expects the handsome and poetic prince to be the love interest, not the little bog man.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

Yes it's a story involving Bran's family, but that is not the purpose of the telling. Bran is being educated and enlightened by Meera and Jojen and he doesn't need to be taught "honor", but he does need to be educated on wargs, greendreams, greenseers, and old gods in preparation for when he meets Bloodraven. Bran was brought up believing greenseers, old gods, and wargs are only in the distant past and he doesn't know anybody that is one in the current story, nor does he even know these things are real. He's only been told stories by Nan, who even Ned dismisses as "stories"...in other words, basically fairy stories that aren't real, so yes, he needs to learn that these stories were real and that they really did happen and can happen again.

This really doesn't explain why Jojen was so surprised that Bran had never heard the story.

And I seriously doubt that Bran was brought up believing that the old gods are only in the distant past. Bran was familiar with the godswood, spent a lot of time there, his father was a believer and definitely didn't think that. The old gods have always been a part of his life. Same with the other kids: Jon chose to say his vows in front of a heart tree for a reason; if the old gods were thought to be only of the past, it really shouldn't matter where he said his vows. Ned, Sansa and Arya spent the night in the godswood outside Kings Landing after they heard that Bran had awoken; why did they do that? Especially why did they do that there?

Bran does know an actual greenseer: Jojen. And Bran also knows a warg: himself.

Long before the KofLT story is told, Jojen had been instructing him and coaching him about his powers, explaining greenseeing, sharing his visions, teaching Bran how to consciously control his wolf dreams, etc. All of this before even leaving Winterfell. Bran already understands the things you say the story is there to teach him about.

Sorry, but your interpretation is unconvincing.

[Melifeather]

Jojen is not a greenseer. He has greendreams.

Until Meera and Jojen came, Bran did not know he was a warg. They were the ones that helped him realize that he and Summer are connected and that he has the ability to control Summer.

Until Meera and Jojen came along, Bran thought wargs and skinchangers were half-human monsters in Nan's fairy stories. Ned dismissed the tales as Old Nan stories, because even he didn't believe them to be true.

We don't know why Ned never told his children the story of the Knight of the Laughing Tree and we can only speculate as to the reason why.

Just because Meera and Jojen are surprised that he's never heard it before doesn't mean that we're supposed to interpret anything about Lyanna from it. It was told on the journey north to find Bloodraven and to prepare Bran for what lies ahead.

What purpose would having it be about honor or about his family serve as a lesson for Bran?

[Ygrain]

He is quite short.  When he is given Longclaw, he cannot wear it on his hip and has to wear it slung over his back like a two-handed greatsword.  Bastard swords are made to be worn on the hip, and are no longer than the katana, which was traditionally worn in a sash on the hip by samurai - who averaged between 5'1" and 5'3" in height.
A short man of 5'3" should have no trouble with a bastard sword dragging on the ground if worn in a proper scabbard, but Jon does.

There's only two references to Jon's size, both hidden in the first book - Tyrion guesses his age as 10 or 11 when he first meets him, and his inability to wear Longclaw on his hip is commented on when he is given the sword.  If Jon is so short, why is it not commented on more?

First, shortness would not be that uncommon - he may be on the small side for nobles, but plenty of peasants who lacked proper nutrition growing up would be small.  He's not a dwarf, so his small stature is not really worthy of comment.  We don't know how tall a lot of characters are.  I'm sure there are plenty of short wildlings, too.

Secondly, for a good portion of the book Jon is in a position of power and seen as formidable.  Tough guys who are short are often easily provoked by making jokes about their size, so people who know Jon probably keep their mouths shut about his height.

Finally, if more attention was given to Jon's height, it would draw more attention to his Crannogmen heritage, which is being kept secret in part because of misdirection from the R+L=J theory.  If "unusually short" was a consistent part of Jon's description, that would lead anyone who is questioning his parentage right to the Neck - who else is described as short?  Tyrion and Crannogmen, that's it.

So GRRM made a couple of allusions early on that don't flat out say "Jon is unusually short" but can be called back on so nobody could say "Wait, you never told us Jon was short until now!"  Yes he did, he was mistaken for a 10 year old and was too short to wear a sword, people just didn't pay attention.  This also ties with how GRRM defies tropes and plays with our expectations - people expect a hero to be tall.  People want fire, not mud.  Everybody expects the handsome and poetic prince to be the love interest, not the little bog man.

Sorry but do you honestly believe that the author who has his characters draw a greatsword over the shoulder really goes as far as hinting at a character's height through the length of his sword?

Plus, your reasoning about why no-one ever comments on Jon's height is completely unconvincing. We have been in the heads of almost all of Jon's siblings, yet none of them ever notices. We have seen those who hate Jon's gut and outrank him, like Alliser Thorne, yet then fail to mention such a trait, either. We have even been in Jon's head, yet there is zero self-observation of such a prominent trait as one's insufficient height.

Jon is apparently not particularly tall because no-one ever makes such a comment, either, but there is no reason to believe that he is shorter than the average.  'Sides, "bastard sword" is defined by the length of the hilt, allowing for both one-hand as well as two-hand grasp, anyway.

[Taenqyrhae]

Sorry but do you honestly believe that the author who has his characters draw a greatsword over the shoulder really goes as far as hinting at a character's height through the length of his sword?

Plus, your reasoning about why no-one ever comments on Jon's height is completely unconvincing. We have been in the heads of almost all of Jon's siblings, yet none of them ever notices. We have seen those who hate Jon's gut and outrank him, like Alliser Thorne, yet then fail to mention such a trait, either. We have even been in Jon's head, yet there is zero self-observation of such a prominent trait as one's insufficient height.

Jon is apparently not particularly tall because no-one ever makes such a comment, either, but there is no reason to believe that he is shorter than the average.  'Sides, "bastard sword" is defined by the length of the hilt, allowing for both one-hand as well as two-hand grasp, anyway.

Right, that was a point I intended to make but I didn't get around to - the added length of a bastard sword is in the handle, not the blade - so the part that extends below the waist and would drag on the ground would be no longer than a longsword.  I'm guessing that swords made for Jon in the past, in the Winterfell forge, were on the short side of average for a longsword - there is room for a lot of variation in size while still being considered the same type of sword.  Longclaw was his first "Big Boy" sword and he was too short to wear it properly.

The author TWICE said things that implied he was unusually short.  How many other characters have had their height commented on in the series?  Tyrion, Meera, Jojen, and the Mad Mouse are the only ones I can recall.  Howland is referred to as little in a tale told about him, too.  Does that mean that none of the characters in the book are short, or that being short is not really seen as embarrassing or worthy of comment in Westeros?  

Edited to add:  You reminded me, when Slynt is talking trash about Jon, doesn't he refer to him as a child or something akin to that?  That may have been a reference to his small stature as well as his young age (which is not THAT young, he should be considered a man grown).

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Right, that was a point I intended to make but I didn't get around to - the added length of a bastard sword is in the handle, not the blade - so the part that extends below the waist and would drag on the ground would be no longer than a longsword.  I'm guessing that swords made for Jon in the past, in the Winterfell forge, were on the short side of average for a longsword - there is room for a lot of variation in size while still being considered the same type of sword.  Longclaw was his first "Big Boy" sword and he was too short to wear it properly.
The author TWICE said things that implied he was unusually short.  How many other characters have had their height commented on in the series?  Tyrion, Meera, Jojen, and the Mad Mouse are the only ones I can recall.  Howland is referred to as little in a tale told about him, too.  Does that mean that none of the characters in the book are short, or that being short is not really seen as embarrassing or worthy of comment in Westeros?  

Edited to add:  You reminded me, when Slynt is talking trash about Jon, doesn't he refer to him as a child or something akin to that?  That may have been a reference to his small stature as well as his young age (which is not THAT young, he should be considered a man grown).

Robb:

"Ice," that sword was called. It was as wide across as a man's hand, and taller even than Robb. 

 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

Until Meera and Jojen came, Bran did not know he was a warg. They were the ones that helped him realize that he and Summer are connected and that he has the ability to control Summer.

Sure. But that knowledge was imparted to him long before he heard the KotLT story. He already knew that warging and green dreams were real things and not only in the distant past.

 

We don't know why Ned never told his children the story of the Knight of the Laughing Tree and we can only speculate as to the reason why.

Sure, we can only speculate. But the speculation has to make sense and fit. It sure makes sense and fits that Ned didn't have any desire to relate this story as it concerns memories that are only painful and tragic for him, even though Lyanna being the Knight makes her actions quite heroic.

 

Just because Meera and Jojen are surprised that he's never heard it before doesn't mean that we're supposed to interpret anything about Lyanna from it. It was told on the journey north to find Bloodraven and to prepare Bran for what lies ahead.

That this story was never told to Bran is one of the strongest hints that it was about Lyanna.

It was told on the journey north to find Bloodraven and also to pass the time while walking for hours on end. Not everything exists for didactic purposes.

 

What purpose would having it be about honor or about his family serve as a lesson for Bran?

Why does it have to serve as a lesson? Can't it just be a story worth telling, that also contains some family history? Not everything exists for didactic purposes.

 

[Taenqyrhae]

Robb:

"Ice," that sword was called. It was as wide across as a man's hand, and taller even than Robb. 

 

 

 

There ya go, more proof that Jon is short.  Jon is smaller than Robb, and Robb was shorter than a greatsword, albeit a very large and legendary one.

[WhitewolfStark]

There ya go, more proof that Jon is short.  Jon is smaller than Robb, and Robb was shorter than a greatsword, albeit a very large and legendary one.

To be fair though, this is early on in Book 1, and Catelyn makes note of Robb having grown by the end of the book.

The only question to ask is if Jon ever grew enough that he stopped wearing his bastard sword across his back and instead switched it to his waist.

[WhitewolfStark]

Given my post above, I took liberty of tracking mentions of Longclaw in ADWD:

Jon II:
 

Janos Slynt's face went as white as milk. The spoon slipped from his fingers. Edd and Emmett crossed the room, their footsteps ringing on the stone floor. Bowen Marsh's mouth opened and closed though no words came out. Ser Alliser Thorne reached for his sword hilt. Go on, Jon thought.

Longclaw was slung across his back

. Show your steel. Give me cause to do the same.

 

Jon VII:

Ahead he glimpsed a pale white trunk that could only be a weirwood, crowned with a head of dark red leaves. Jon Snow

reached back and pulled Longclaw from his sheath

. He looked to right and left, gave Satin and Horse a nod, watched them pass it on to the men beyond. They rushed the grove together, kicking through drifts of old snow with no sound but their breathing. Ghost ran with them, a white shadow at Jon's side.

 

So Jon Snow is still wearing it on his back as recent as the most recent book that features him in it, implying he's still too short to wear it at his hip.

 

[wolfmaid7]

I look forward to your response. I think this is a basic problem with not only this scenario, but with some of the others as well. As I said in the Arthur + Lyanna = Jon thread proximity is a good factor for ruling people out, but not so good in ruling them in. Unlike Arthur, when we have Howland separated from Lyanna without any indication of just how they could have possibly got together to conceive Jon, any reasonable reader will look on that as a major problem.  The same happens with the various crackpot ideas such as Rickard, Brandon, Ned, or Benjen being Jon's father with Lyanna his mother. There we get the added problem of Rickard and Brandon being dead when Jon is conceived. If the theory can't pass this simple test it is time to look elsewhere.

I don't think we can say quite the same thing for the scenarios of Wylla, or Ashara, or the fisherman's daughter. Here we have not only real textual evidence showing at least some characters think these three candidates are, in fact, Jon's mom, but it is also easier to come up with realistic ideas for how it is possible for Ned, as opposed to Lyanna's situation, could meet with any of these three. During the time in question Lyanna is hiding away from just about everybody. Ned is not. We know the rebellion goes on for just about a year before the sack, but Lyanna is taken away much longer ago than that. Her isolation from various "candidates" such as Howland is for an extended period, or at least if one believes that not to be the case is should be shown how it is not.

Getting Wylla into contact with Ned is not hard to imagine, if we don't assume she is in Starfall for the entirety of the rebellion. Likewise, Martin's comment about Ashara not being "nailed to the floor" in Dorne gives us reason to think it is not impossible for the two to have met. Getting someone to Lyanna's hiding place and back is much, much more difficult to explain. Lyanna leaving hiding and returning is even more so. But the bottom line is it is the responsibility of those who think it possible to explain how it is. Ignoring these problems don't make a theory more credible.

And here i'm thinking this is a problem for any theory that "definitvely" asserts Jon was born 1-2 months or so of the sack.When we look at how GRRM writes and unfolds his mysteries the ones we have seen i.e Jon Arryn's death,Joffrey's murder we see that a lot of it plays on not only the perception of the characters but the readers as well.How long has it been stressed beyond count that Jon's parentage is cloaked in subtle and obscure clues that only "astute readers" have the ability to figure out. The things about clues SFDanny is they have "to be clues" something that takes......Well effort,be challenging to the mind.

This isn't a case of Schrodinger's cat when it comes to this mystery and i speak from the readers POV .At its core it can't be a mystery and not a mystery at the same time.So i'm going with Jon's parentage being a mystery because:

1.For most of us clues in the story  indicate that Ned isn't the dad

2.The 98 letter pretty much tells us Ned aint the dad

3. GRRM's tight lip interviews and other interviews on the matter pretty much says Ned aint the dad.

Therefore, we know that this "is" a mystery that we the readers recognize and that GRRM has  affirmed right? We are on this? Is it suppose to be a mystery?

So then tell me why would he "seemingly" unravel that by an answer in an ssm that shows all you need to do to figure out Jon's birth is "simple math".Consider nothing else, just count and accept the story on the cover that everyone in verse thinks they know ( no brain work again neccessary) just what characters in the story had said and believe...BOOM there's nothing to argue about and we've wasted 20yrs arguing something that was never a mystery to solve...except we know it is a mystery.So our reasoning of GRRM's quote and the context of the story is wrong.

Every time any prospect is brought up they are immediately hit with 'time line doesn't match" because  posters are using the ssm in conjunction with what Dany believes about when she was born to come up with the timeline .But if George has set this up to be a mystery reaffirmed it time and time again he wouldn't  just give us the answer.

The truth is he told us nothing except that Jon is older than Dany by approximately 8-9 months and mark my words today people, Dany was not born when she thinks she was.George did two things

1. Cast ambiguity on Dany's birth by giving a non specific and non commitant answer.One that ensures there's no way will he be lying because he did tell us Jon was older than Dany by 8-9months and that will be the truth based soley on when she was really born.The joke will be on some of us for not questioning... 

2. The inconsistencies and inaccuracies of Dany's memory and some of the accounts given to us by various people.  

But the overall problem with this staunch belief on when Jon was born is that it was reached by a method that reveals one thing....Its conclusion could never have been a clue to the mystery of Jon's parentage in the first place if it took no effort to find it.This is something that always blew my mind when given the speech about how astute and observant one had to be to figure this out.You don't,you just have to know how to add,but you do have to be to find out the truth.

Given that this is suppose to be some deep mystery where the author has to make a test question about it and be all evasive Its not reasonable to assume Jon was born 1-2 months of the sack based on the ssm and Dany's belief about her birth.

 

Jon can be born before or during the rebellion and still be 8 or 9 months older than Dany, if Dany isn't who we think she is, there's enough hints in the books (lemon trees, "remember who you are" when she never forgets she is a Targ) to at least leave that as a possibility, we can't say with 100% certainty that Dany is the daughter of Rhaella and Aerys.

The problem with having Jon too young is with Robb. Jon has to at least look young enough to be believed as being younger than Robb, for me that would be no more than 6 months older and that's if Jon is small for his age and Robb is big for his age.

Not a problem. Just think Sealord's cat.

"Everyone" at WF says he is,acts as he is,he believes he is,so he is.

Hell Jon pulled something similar with Monster and Aemon far were they in age several months.Yet,a thing like age didn't matter comparing them .People believed what Jon said concerning who was who .Plus there's so many factors that can affect one baby from the other and people will come up with all kinds of explanations.

Interestingly,we have some people thinking Jon is  the son of a Fisherman's daughter Ned banged on the way to WF to call his banners which would make him how old  in relation to Robb. Hmmmmm?

Its all about perception people believe what's easy,what they want to see or what they are told to see.....Sealord's Cat

How so? 

If we want to say that Rhaegar was sireing the 3 heads.He looks straight at Dany when he says there must be one more then that could imply her being his child.

If we want to say well Rhaegar was putting together siblings of which he was one,not TPTWP but a wing man then the "Aegon" in the dream would be a sibling.

All this to say again our premises may be right and we should consider the above.Our premise is wrong and Rhaegar was just putting together babies with Dragon blood how much? Anything along that lines would be guessing as to how strong the Targ blood needs to be.

 

 The bold is speculative, isn't it?

Very,again given how GRRM beautifully screws with what people think they know.

Martin is actually quite evasive in his SSM on the topic.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1040

All of which is a long winded way of saying, no, Jon was not born "more than 1 year" before Dany... probably closer to eight or nine months or thereabouts.

Probably isn't certain.

Pretty much.

Non commitant...His answer gave nothing away.If some want to go with what Dany was told about when she was born as the truth cool.My mind goes to the ambiguity and the main thing of this supposedly being a mystery.

[SFDanny]

Wolfmaid, 

For most readers of this series the quote by Martin that puts Jon's birth relative in time to Daenerys's birth is completely unknown. It has absolutely no effect on the vast majority of readers's understanding of who can be Jon's parents. Readers of Martin's public comments that have been chronicled on this site over the years have the advantage of this extra bit of knowledge, along with many other bits of information not readily available elsewhere, and the readers of this site also have the benefit of many years of debate over many aspects of the series that would otherwise go unnoticed. But these extra bits of knowledge in no way eliminate the mystery of who are Jon's parents.

It is not a simple math equation to understand the timeline of Robert's Rebellion and the events immediately before and after it. It actually takes considerable time and shifting through many clues to make any sense of, or get even a rudimentary understanding of the timing of these events. People have been trying to come up with the best understanding of what happens when in this backstory for many years of discussion, and the discussion continues to this day. I can only say I've participated in that effort since I joined these boards in 2007, and I can tell you I've seen many attempts to sort all this out. Some of it works and makes a contribution, and other efforts don't.

Martin's comment about Jon being "eight or nine months" older than Daenerys is only one piece, an important piece, but still only one clue of the what is the actual timeline. It is a clue that, to my knowledge, he has never changed or retracted. Because we have very good textual evidence for when Daenerys is born relative to the time of the flight of her mother and her brother from King's Landing, and we know this, meaning the flight from King's Landing to Dragonstone,  happens before the sack, we do have a time range before those events in which Jon's conception takes place. Obviously that has an impact on who can be Jon's parents, but not to the extent you seem to think. If you had read my comments in the post you quoted, you would know I don't think this understanding of the range in which Jon's conception takes place eliminates many known theories about Jon's parent's identities. I include in this Wylla, Ashara, and the Fisherman's daughter as Jon's mother along with Ned as his father, Rhaegar and Lyanna as Jon's parents, and I even include the Arthur and Lyanna pairing as a scenario that the timeline can't eliminate. If you want to make up a scenario for Lyanna and Ser Oswell Whent the timeline can't eliminate that either. So all the red bolded type about reducing the mystery to no mystery based on simple math is not only not accurate, it is complete nonsense.

What the timeline does is to give us a framework to ask questions. It is not reducing the mystery to a math equation to say that if we have information that places two characters in very different places during the timeframe of Jon's conception that it is logical to ask how that pairing could work. So when we know Lyanna's abduction takes place sometime before the start of the rebellion, and we know Ned travels north to call his banners around the same time Jon Arryn does the same, and we know Howland would be part of Ned's muster of his troops as a loyal vassal, then we should ask how these clues impact the possibility of Howland and Lyanna being together during the time Jon is conceived. I think it raises a number of other questions, such as if Howland and Lyanna are lovers, does this mean Rhaegar truly kidnapped Lyanna instead of going willingly? If Lyanna is kept by force how would she get to Howland? Why would she go back if she once was free. Or how Howland finds out about where Lyanna is being held and how does he get behind lines to find her. Why would he leave her imprisoned if he did? And on and on the questions go. But these are questions that never get asked if we don't use the timeline facts we think we know to judge the likelihood of theories.

If you disagree with those "facts" then this would be a good place to explain why, or if you just have more information about timeline issues this would be an appropriate place to tell us all the new information. Instead all I'm seeing is irritation that others raise questions that put theories you like in doubt. 

[wolfmaid7]

Wolfmaid, 

For most readers of this series the quote by Martin that puts Jon's birth relative in time to Daenerys's birth is completely unknown. It has absolutely no effect on the vast majority of readers's understanding of who can be Jon's parents. Readers of Martin's public comments that have been chronicled on this site over the years have the advantage of this extra bit of knowledge, along with many other bits of information not readily available elsewhere, and the readers of this site also have the benefit of many years of debate over many aspects of the series that would otherwise go unnoticed. But these extra bits of knowledge in no way eliminate the mystery of who are Jon's parents.

It is not a simple math equation to understand the timeline of Robert's Rebellion and the events immediately before and after it. It actually takes considerable time and shifting through many clues to make any sense of, or get even a rudimentary understanding of the timing of these events. People have been trying to come up with the best understanding of what happens when in this backstory for many years of discussion, and the discussion continues to this day. I can only say I've participated in that effort since I joined these boards in 2007, and I can tell you I've seen many attempts to sort all this out. Some of it works and makes a contribution, and other efforts don't.

Martin's comment about Jon being "eight or nine months" older than Daenerys is only one piece, an important piece, but still only one clue of the what is the actual timeline. It is a clue that, to my knowledge, he has never changed or retracted. Because we have very good textual evidence for when Daenerys is born relative to the time of the flight of her mother and her brother from King's Landing, and we know this, meaning the flight from King's Landing to Dragonstone,  happens before the sack, we do have a time range before those events in which Jon's conception takes place. Obviously that has an impact on who can be Jon's parents, but not to the extent you seem to think. If you had read my comments in the post you quoted, you would know I don't think this understanding of the range in which Jon's conception takes place eliminates many known theories about Jon's parent's identities. I include in this Wylla, Ashara, and the Fisherman's daughter as Jon's mother along with Ned as his father, Rhaegar and Lyanna as Jon's parents, and I even include the Arthur and Lyanna pairing as a scenario that the timeline can't eliminate. If you want to make up a scenario for Lyanna and Ser Oswell Whent the timeline can't eliminate that either. So all the red bolded type about reducing the mystery to no mystery based on simple math is not only not accurate, it is complete nonsense.

What the timeline does is to give us a framework to ask questions. It is not reducing the mystery to a math equation to say that if we have information that places two characters in very different places during the timeframe of Jon's conception that it is logical to ask how that pairing could work. So when we know Lyanna's abduction takes place sometime before the start of the rebellion, and we know Ned travels north to call his banners around the same time Jon Arryn does the same, and we know Howland would be part of Ned's muster of his troops as a loyal vassal, then we should ask how these clues impact the possibility of Howland and Lyanna being together during the time Jon is conceived. I think it raises a number of other questions, such as if Howland and Lyanna are lovers, does this mean Rhaegar truly kidnapped Lyanna instead of going willingly? If Lyanna is kept by force how would she get to Howland? Why would she go back if she once was free. Or how Howland finds out about where Lyanna is being held and how does he get behind lines to find her. Why would he leave her imprisoned if he did? And on and on the questions go. But these are questions that never get asked if we don't use the timeline facts we think we know to judge the likelihood of theories.

If you disagree with those "facts" then this would be a good place to explain why, or if you just have more information about timeline issues this would be an appropriate place to tell us all the new information. Instead all I'm seeing is irritation that others raise questions that put theories you like in doubt. 

We don't have a poll to tell us how many readers know about the quote.Its fairly accurate to say most people on sites like these know the quote.Its accurate to say that everyday more an more people come on sites like these to discuss the show or the books and are exposed to the things we talks about inclusing ssms.Knowledge in this regard is exponential.Additionally,think about the many people now who believe that there are inconsistencies surrounding Dany's origin and that conversations that arise out of that and the beliefs that would change because of conversations direced at it. 

It doesn't matter how many people discuss and debate, some people will be wrong and some people will be right.Some people will notice things while others will not.A mystery is a mystery nevermind how many people sidcuss it or not. The ssm is out there in the universe,the 98 letter and GRRMs interview on the subject is out in the verse.The fact that this is mystery is a fact and again it can and can't be at the same time.

The 8-9 months isn't a clue used its "the" clue used the only one.And why would he retract the statement? He has no reason to if the fans choose to accept what Dany was told about her birth and ignore clues its up to them.Which brings me to what you call good texual evidence of when Dany's birth occured. I disagree with you .What we have is what Dany has been told, which was what 8yr old Viserys told her. Based on:

1.Jamie and Viserys's differing account of "the flight to Dragonstone" crucial details given by characters and the ambiguity intentionally set by the author that prompts us to question.Ignoring the ambiguities is ridiculous and nonsense

GRRM wrote in the inconsistencies for a reason i.e .

"Jaime had only seen Rhaella once after that, the morning of the day she left for Dragonstone. The queen had been cloaked and hooded as she climbed inside the royal wheelhouse that would take her down Aegon's High Hill to the waiting ship, but he heard her maids whispering after she was gone. They said the queen looked as if some beast had savaged her, clawing at her thighs and chewing on her breasts. A crowned beast, Jaime knew."

"Viserys had been a boy of eight when they fled King's Landing to escape the advancing armies of the Usurper, but Daenerys had been only a quickening in their mother's womb.Yet sometimes Dany would picture the way it had been, so often had her brother told her the stories. The midnight flight to Dragonstone, moonlight shimmering on the ship's black sails.............."

There's so much in these two quotes alone that should have people's brain peaking its not funny.

2. Dany's own memories and what local it matches and doesn't

Lastly, the idea that it really does "only" take simple math to come up with common thinking tells us is accurate.No matter how its tried to down play.SFDanny come on now ALL it took to come up with what you think is Jon's conception and birth is ony two bits of info.The ssm and Dany's belief.

Also, it doesn't matter who the current scenario helps its still based on faulty reasoning..........

I'll come back to this later because its really late and i should be sleeping now.Ok i'm back.

I get what you are trying to say it didn't evade me in your previous post but we are back in the same boat of weighing what people say vs the clues. So if you believe Lyanna was abducted or left around a certain time.Your question about if Rhaegar abducted Lyanna or she went willingly is the right question .Bran said so,Robert thinks so ,but was Lyanna with Rhaegar the entire time at all or did she just end up there in the end,or was she ever there at all? I submit another event that shows "how" GRRM thinks and we should be thinking along those line. So in the Bael the Bard story was the daughter 'truly' missing or was she infact hiding in the crypts? Not so say this is the exact situation with Lyanna but i bring it up to show where and who she was thought to be with wasn't where she actually was in the end.

What you call "facts" is what i call the beliefs of people.There are many facts in this story but they aren't cut an dry.How many people in the story think its factual that Cersie killed JA or think its factual Sansa and Tyrion killed Joff.When it was really Sansa unknowingly with the QOT.

Remember what Ygritte told Jon about a Bard's truth being different from the everyday person.Its something to keep in mind when you are told something is factual in this story unless you the reader have a front row seat to an event that happens.

So i'm sorry to me its illogical to dismiss prospects based on a timeline(s) when even GRRM says don't worry about it just read the story.Why? It is in reading the story and not trying to hack out complicated details about travel time,how many days it takes to get here and there. No one will get it right or has because its impossible to. 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

1.Jamie and Viserys's differing account of "the flight to Dragonstone" crucial details given by characters and the ambiguity intentionally set by the author that prompts us to question.Ignoring the ambiguities is ridiculous and nonsense

GRRM wrote in the inconsistencies for a reason i.e .

"Jaime had only seen Rhaella once after that, the morning of the day she left for Dragonstone. The queen had been cloaked and hooded as she climbed inside the royal wheelhouse that would take her down Aegon's High Hill to the waiting ship, but he heard her maids whispering after she was gone. They said the queen looked as if some beast had savaged her, clawing at her thighs and chewing on her breasts. A crowned beast, Jaime knew."

"Viserys had been a boy of eight when they fled King's Landing to escape the advancing armies of the Usurper, but Daenerys had been only a quickening in their mother's womb.Yet sometimes Dany would picture the way it had been, so often had her brother told her the stories. The midnight flight to Dragonstone, moonlight shimmering on the ship's black sails.............."

There's so much in these two quotes alone that should have people's brain peaking its not funny.

 

Hmm.. Are they inconsistencies, though? Jaime is speaking of the day Rhaella left for Dragonstone, and that he last saw her that morning, climbing into the wheelhouse. But that doesn't mean that the ship itself took off in the morning as well, does it?

I assume that it won't have taken Rhaella an entire day to ride from the Red Keep to the harbor, of course, but nothing here implies that the ship took off as soon as Rhaella arrived. So Jaime can have seen Rhaella late in the morning on th eday that she left, with the ship itself leaving closer towards the evening, with Viserys remembering (most vividly) the part of the journey where the sun had gone down.

After all, the trip to Dragonstone will take a few days. And calling it a 'midnight flight' won't cover all of that. 

 

But I don't think these two passages necessarily contradict each other. They seem to simply be describing a different part of the same day.

[Taenqyrhae]

Given my post above, I took liberty of tracking mentions of Longclaw in ADWD:

Jon II:
 

 

Jon VII:

 

So Jon Snow is still wearing it on his back as recent as the most recent book that features him in it, implying he's still too short to wear it at his hip.

 

This makes it seem even more obvious that GRRM intends for Jon to be short but is trying not to accentuate it.  If he decided that Jon had a growth spurt, or if he changed his mind about Jon being THAT short, or if he had just forgotten that he had Jon as a short kid in the book he wrote a couple of decades before, he would have Jon drawing his sword just like everybody else does - but in GRRMs mental image, Jon still wears the bastard sword on his back.  He's not growing very fast - because his facial features may come from his mother but his build is from his father.

Of course he doesn't have people still commenting on his height…it would be a dead giveaway as to his parentage - who was short and with Ned at the Tower of Joy?..only one extremely obvious option, made more obvious when Reed sends his other children north and we are introduced to other characters described as very short, one of which is the exact same age as Jon.