Heresy Project X+Y=J: Robert + Lyanna

[NutBurz]

Oh, bash the "fanfic" all you want, my point is only that great medieval lords in general didn´t have the internet or encyclopedias to inform themselves on how a baby progresses over the months, nor would they bother to keep track of the differences between one baby and another, nor would they even want to see the truth if the truth was politically inconvenient and led them to kill or neglect their perfectly healthy sons.

If you think it´s so absurd that such a convenient misconception would be widespread in a place that has spent thousands and thousands of years in the medieval era, just ask the next guy if some old person has never told him that masturbating is bad for your health, or that wearing the shoes in the opposite feet would deform them for life, or something ridiculous like that. And our middle ages are long gone.

Moreover, when it comes to Ned, he doesn´t have to be fooled by Jon´s age, nor would he want to dismount the notion and carry home the dead body of his sister along with a baby that was probably conceived right before the war started because of his siter being raped.

[Kingmonkey]

On 11/05/2016 at 4:32 PM, wolfmaid7 said:

Seriously you can't believe it's a secret ( conception and birth fruit of the poison tree) and expect this "mystery" to be revealed by simple math.

Jon's parentage is a secret. The date of Jon's birth is not.

The 8-9 months does not prove Rhaegar and Lyanna are the parents. There are a number of possible answers to Jon's parentage that are compatible with this gap. Several have been covered in this very series of heresy essays. GRRM is not giving the game away with this "revelation", he's merely precluding some options. 

The 8-9 months thing is not a revelation, it's all there in the book if you just look at the information given. Referring to the SSM is convenient because it's from the horse's mouth. We are told when Dany was born. We are told when Robb was conceived, and that he is a little older than Jon, and that Jon was conceived and born during the year Ned and Cat were apart. There's simply no scope in the book for any answer to be significantly different from GRRM's "8-9 months or thereabout" unless you start assuming that the timeline we have been given is wrong. The easy answer is that it isn't. 

 

On 11/05/2016 at 4:32 PM, wolfmaid7 said:

You are wrong and right Kingmonkey.GRRM is answering a question based on the belief of the interviewer.And instead of giving a concrete answer he gives a "hafa" when it's not needed IF Dany's belief about herself is the truth.There's no reason to say 8-9months before Dany....

There is one very good reason to say 8-9 months before Dany -- because that was the answer to the question he was asked.  He was answering the question of whether Jon was more than a year older than Dany, and he answered that no, he was more like 8-9 months older. How is this anything other than the most clear and concrete answer he could give? He was asked how much earlier Jon was born than Dany. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about him answering how much earlier Jon was born than Dany. 

 

On 11/05/2016 at 4:32 PM, wolfmaid7 said:

Now for the Beltane ritual i'm not ignoring that Rhaegar was the one that crowned her and did so in the context of "their" life experiance.I'm saying it is irrelevant and it doesn't match the real world ritual.

Right. I'm saying it's relevant because not matching the "real world ritual" is exactly the point. I'm saying the ritual was subverted. 

If the ritual went ahead as it was supposed to, and the sacred marriage that is supposed to bring on the spring took place, why is it that instead of spring arriving, winter returned? The ritual surely didn't work. False Spring, remember?

On 11/05/2016 at 4:32 PM, wolfmaid7 said:

The ritual was not usurped by Rhaegar it carried over Robert and Lyanna had sex at the tourney and he did his version of Robert and Lynna kissing in a tree.The only people that had meaning to was the Starks themselves based on the Bael the Bard story.

This is your reading. I've given a different reading. Your argument against my reading is that you disagree with it. That's fine, but it proves nothing. I disagree with your reading. That also proves nothing.

My point was that your evidence of the ritual was "inconclusive". Unless you can disprove alternative readings -- or at the very least show a significant superiority of your reading over the others -- then it remains inconclusive. Right now your reading requires (as you admit) dismissing the fact that it was Rhaegar's pole the crown was on and Rhaegar who crowned Lyanna as irrelevancies because they don't fit the reading, and has no answer to the false spring problem. I'd say that makes my reading a little superior to yours. Certainly not superior enough to be conclusive, so nope -- the beltane ritual stuff remains inconclusive. 

 

On 11/05/2016 at 4:32 PM, wolfmaid7 said:

Lastly,the whole Lyanna didn't love Robert.This too is going to be short.If you walk into a cemetary and saw what Ned described at Lyanna's crypt " Robert stroking the stone of her cheek as if it were living flesh"what would you deduce about the relationship between them? Whatever you may think the crux would be,it would be of an intimate nature be it sibling,wife,girlfriend,best friend....However you view it it would be a mutual one.In this case it's simple to guess given Robert's behavior and the inside info from others.

No, it tells you nothing of Lyanna's feelings towards Robert, only of Robert's feelings towards Lyanna. There is, after all, such a thing as unrequited love.

 In fact not even that. Given every time we have reports of Robert and Lyanna in the same place together he's ignoring her and getting drunk while other men are eyeing her up, I think it's a very valid reading that Robert's passion for Lyanna is in fact for the idea of Lyanna rather than the person, and only really developed after she was taken from him. Robert personifies his lost youth and freedom in the shape of dead Lyanna. 

 

On 11/05/2016 at 4:32 PM, wolfmaid7 said:

This wasn't a onesided affair.You guys keep bringing up Lyanna's comment which is not an indictment that she didn't like or want to marry Robert.If she didn't want to marry him that was the perfect time to show the readers with something so mundane as he saying " i don't want to marry Robert,i don't like him" my gosh GRRM has done that several times.

It's literally the sole evidence we have for Lyanna's feelings towards Robert, and it's negative. An indictment no, but it is negative. The only evidence we have, inconclusive as it is, is negative. People keep bringing it up because it's the only evidence we have. That shouldn't be surprising.

Sure, we can't know that Lyanna didn't change her mind, but there's nothing to indicate that she did. 

GRRM failing to directly putting words into a character's mouth does not mean that the opposite of those words must be true. If you say the evidence for Lyanna disliking Robert is weak, then fair enough. Where's is any evidence at all for the contrary? Weak evidence is better than no evidence.

 

[Gaius Gracchus]

11 minutes ago, Kingmonkey said:

It's literally the sole evidence we have for Lyanna's feelings towards Robert, and it's negative. An indictment no, but it is negative. The only evidence we have, inconclusive as it is, is negative. People keep bringing it up because it's the only evidence we have. That shouldn't be surprising.

Sure, we can't know that Lyanna didn't change her mind, but there's nothing to indicate that she did. 

Don't forget the Knight of the Laughing Tree. Clearly that represents the undying love they had for each other..there can't be any other explanation for that

[LmL]

4 hours ago, Gaius Gracchus said:

 

First off, I didn't even think it was possible to interpret the "bastards grow up faster" in any manner other than maturing faster...saying bastards physically grow faster than non-bastards makes absolutely no sense. You could maybe, maybe, make a case that they'd be physically stronger if they led a more difficult life, but we know Robb is stronger than Jon anyway so that's irrelevant. 

With regards to the second point, why would Rhaegar assign even one kingsguard to guard Lyanna and her child if that child is Robert's, much less three kingsguard. Think, Aerys was left with just one by the end, the youngest, but Rhaegar supposedly left three (including both the best knight in Westeros and the Lord Commander!) with a child that Robert doesn't even know exists! How does that make any sense?? 

It doesn't. And the idea that bastatds grow up faster physically is just silly. 

[J. Stargaryen]

3 minutes ago, LmL said:

It doesn't. And the idea that bastatds grow up faster physically is just silly. 

In a strict sense this is of course true. But I wouldn't dismiss the notion that GRRM was trying to tell us something with that line.

“I am almost a man grown,” Jon protested. “I will turn fifteen on my next name day, and Maester Luwin says bastards grow up faster than other children.”

Earlier in the same chapter:

[Joffrey] was twelve, younger than Jon or Robb, but taller than either, to Jon’s vast dismay.

Fwiw, later in AGoT we find out that Jon isn't very tall yet:

The Old Bear seemed pleased by that. “I suppose they do. You’ll want to wear that over the shoulder, I imagine. It’s too long for the hip, at least until you’ve put on a few inches.”

So, we know that Jon isn't very tall yet, and he's shorter than Joffrey, who is a bastard.

[wolfmaid7]

 

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Nor was that what I was saying. At all.

So we are in agreement.Jon's age has nothing to do with him being percieved as a threat.My point is let say Cat did conciously notice something about Jon the thought processes of people during this time would not go to Jon must be older.Her observation of Jon is has relevance only within the setting of how much he is more or less like his father.There's enough variables i.e. Robb being so small....Those are the values for people in this depicted society.

17 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

I'm afraid, Wolfmaid, that I still think you could fly a herd of Targaryen dragons through the holes in this theory.

There is certainly textual evidence that Robert loved Lyanna, but the only direct quote we get from Lyanna about Robert on the very night of the betrothal simply does not suggest a ringing endorsement of her future husband. You're critical of this as evidence because Lyanna doesn't directly say 'I don't want to marry Robert' but you've provided no evidence that the feelings became mutual other than Robert stroking a statue and the fact that other actually married couples came to love each other. What happened with other couples doesn't provide evidence that Lyanna grew to love Robert. They were not married or living together for starters and, frankly, I think that Cat grew to love Ned because of personal qualities that his friend, Robert, didn't share. In my view, Ned was a much better man than Robert in every way that didn't involve wielding a large hammer or looking hot in armour. You don't allow for the possibility that Lyanna might have come to like Robert less the more she knew him, rather than more. That was certainly the case for Cersei.

I'm still at a loss to understand your arguments with regard to Cat and Jon's age. To be conceived at Harrenhal, Jon would surely have to be up to a year older than Robb. How would Cat, a new mother herself, completely fail to notice this? How would the people at Winterfell, including the Maester, fail to notice this? Jon himself believes that he is younger than Robb because his 14th name day is celebrated after Robb's.

Irrespective of 'gold yielding to coal', all of Robert's bastards that we actually meet share his characteristics - that's why they are 'evidence' of Cersei's adultery and such a danger to her that she orders their deaths. The evidence of adultery is twofold - the genetic history of Lannister/Baratheon marriages and the tangible reality that Robert's actual children bear his stamp.

 

 

You went to far with the "ringing endorsement" did i say that...No. GRRM has made it a point to show through POV that people weren't shy about saying what they want and didn't want.Given Lyanna's personality told to us by Ned.Is she the type of person to say no i don't want to marry Robert or just let that not be known? I think the former.We have had Brandon,Sansa,Dany all very expressive when it came to their suitors.It wasn't a big deal saying yes or no. I think what you and a few others are ignoring are those subtly to human behavior.Lyanna was simlpy expressing her concern about Robert to her older brother...concern about Robert being content with only her and he assured her..That's it.

Robert and Lyanna had history she knew Robert and he knew her and again the clues to their mutusl relationship lay in the testimony of insiders.Robert calling out Lyanna's name when inside Cersie,Ned's decription of the intensity the allusion to intimacy.One doesn't express a love that deeply,to the point of it being a point for others to make if said person and the other in question didn't have a mutual relationship.That is crazy.....So everyone was achknowleding the love of a man whose intended was indifferent to him? There is no point to that.

That's on the level of me using Barristan's statement of "Rhaegar loved his lady Lyanna" and calling that proof...That's absurd.

So let's get to your issue with Cat and not noticing Jon because there are several issue at work.

1. Outwardly ignoring the obvious,the conspicuous or the inconsistency because it doesn't serve the purpose to secure Cat and her children (particulary Robb) in their position.

2. Cultural ideologies that favor the quality of stock over something as making an observation.

Jon is a about a year older than Jon and that would have gone unnoticed for the reasons i mentioned above.

Cat a new mother moving into a new place dealing with being a new mom,putting a new household together and dealing with the post war aspects of RR wouldn't be concern with her husband's bastard.To busy her mind wouldn't be on that.Just like her mind wasn't about what Ned was or wasn't doing in the war...preoccupied with otherthings.

If Cat did happen to even rememeber Jon was there in all that and she did peep a couple of times and see Jon i don't know reach for his nursemaid what would that mean to Cat beyond the fact that Jon reached for his nursemaid.

So let's put this into context a segment of this fandom has used Cat's "belief" about when Ned fathered Jon as proof that Jon was born X time.You understand how absurd that is.

For the sake of the arguement i'll run with Cat believed Ned fathered Jon after her....Where did she get that info from if Ned didn't tell her and only he could have done so and he didn't?

 

12 hours ago, LmL said:

It's not complicated.

I'm saying that those who raise the issue of Ned knowing of a Baratheon whose eye color did not dominate are correct - Jon Baratheon renders the entire murder mystery of AGOT senseless and stupid.

That's all. All of the words you typed... I have no idea what you're referring to ... as usual. What myth? What timeline? I never raised those issues.  I don't need to. I'm simply observing that your theory makes no narrative sense and in fact undermines the narrative of the first book, as many have noted on this thread. That's all besides there being no direct evidence of any kind. But whatever - this entire exercise is "farce and spectacle" anyway.  None of these theories ever had a chance unless they could undermine the mountains of evidence the points to RLJ, and these theories have basically avoided RLJ with a ten foot pole.  They have to, because in order to create an alternate reality where these other theories are theoretically possible, you have to pretend RLJ doesn't exist.  

However, none of these other theories have any kind of strong supporting evidence, and none of them even attempt to undermine RLJ. That's been true from the beginning and it's still true now.  It was true when I first went in to Sable Hall and discovered a hardened pack of RLJ deniers and spent ten pages of convo trying to get any one of you to show me where 1.) RLJ has holes in it, or 2.) any other theory has any kind of good evidence for it, and in ten pages, nobody could do either... and it is still the case, 12 months and however many hundreds of pages later.  

The closest anyone has come was SlyWren's essay about Jon being the Sword of the Morning - this at least provides narrative and thematic context for the possibility of Jon Dayne, which was really the only other scenario that ever made any sense to me. Unfortunately, there is still no actual evidence pointing towards Jon Dayne, and nothing has been done to undermine the RLJ evidence.

I think it's telling that all of these essays basically refuse to take on the RLJ evidence, stubbornly making the case that it somehow isn't necessary. But of course it is - if you want to replace a widely accepted theory that has lots of supporting evidence, you must undermine that evidence. 

Let me ask - open question for all - has anyone been swayed by any of these theories to doubt RLJ more than they did before? 

Yeah, lots of that going around on this thread. 

LML but it is senseless and stupid.No one knows Lysa actually killed her husband at LFs behest.Ned,Cat went to their deaths thinking the Lannisters killed him.Stannis and a whole bunch of people still think the Lannisters killed JA.We are the only ones who know different as readers.

1.I'm reffering to your sweeping statement that the theory is nonsense....I separate my personal feelings from what's there.You saying that there is no evidence what's so ever is BS and you know it,that's what so clear about a biased mind and that's me so whatever.

Let's get down to your "no narrative sense"

1.Starting with the myth the Beltane ritual that you all didn't no crap about and are trying and failing miserably to subvert prooves it.That entire myth encompasses the Oak and Holly king myth that's still running through the story and the only way THAT works and makes sense is if Robert is Jon's father.

2. With the exception of Ned the only prospect that has been relatable and relative to Jon has been Robert.He is the only one other than Ned that get's info dumps in Jon's chapter.It is through Jon we first get connection with Robert and Lyanna....He knows about them as a unit and the author wrote in such a way that Ned is talking to Jon often about Robert....

3. We even have it running circular where Robert's children are the one in danger from Mad Cersie and Red priests on the hunt for Kings blood.That is going on now.Rhaegar's kids aren't in danger Robert's kids are.

4. The timline that you guys put your heads on the block for are determined by faulty reasoning....That is clear as day.

LML you are actually wrong and again..oh my gosh you all don't even recognize your own nonsense.Yes many people have been swayed by these essays,but your not addressing anyone else except for those who believe RLJ huh?Those are the people you are asking...Again illogical or biased to the point your blind.

5. I'll be home in a few days and we can do the wrap up thread and put these babies up side by side and we'll see.We have parameters to follow that these should fall in line and we'll see.

10 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Even if the purpose of these topics were not necessarily to sway people to alternate ideas - simply to present them as food for thought - this one in particular is rather spectacularly lacking. Here's an example:

Seriously, no. What I would deduce is that Robert has some strong feelings. I absolutely would deduce nothing whatever about Lyanna's feelings, because they aren't there. Even the most elementary and cursory reading of the passage referred to here tells us only Robert's view, not Lyanna's. There's nothing "mutual" there at all.

I mean, I could easily proclaim my utter devotion to Sam Heughan of Outlander  and that would tell everyone something about me, but it would reveal absolutely nothing about Sam Heughan's feelings. (I'm pretty sure his would be similar to Lyanna's, i.e. none, because he doesn't even know me and she's dead.)

If anyone is to take seriously the idea that Robert and Lyanna loved each other and had sex and produced a child, there needs to be some reason to believe that. Yet, we never even see them interact with each other. We see them in the same vicinity exactly once and they aren't even sitting next to each other; he's blatantly ignoring her and she's getting sniffly over someone else.

It's too huge a leap to make and requires setting aside the basic meanings of words to make that leap.

 

Sigh let me show you how your reason is lacking and your bias made clear.You are simply unable to identify subtle clues and let me give you example of that fact.You do not know how to read between the lines.

1.You are an RLJ believer i take it.....Show me through evidence not andectodal statements that Lyanna and Rhaegar spent one min together and i'll show you a theory built on predominantly speculation.

And i'll show you that Lyanna and Robert had a relationship...Nahhhh how about i show you anyway....By reasoning out behaviors,phrases in relation to people.

Quote

 “The gods be damned. It was a hollow victory they gave me. A crown ... it was the girl I prayed them for. Your sister, safe ... and mine again, as she was meant to be.”

Are we in agreement that Lynna was still bethrothed to Robert? A oblivious person would say no.So here's the thing the bethrothal was still on,so what does Robert mean by "mine again"..She was still his bethrothed sooooooo???

As i pointed out we have seen what "mine" means not in the ownership and entitlement sense but in the belonging and intimate sense.That is what Robert is expressing.

Quote

 

"Your sister would never have shamed me like that.”“You never knew Lyanna as I did, Robert,” Ned told him. “You saw her beauty, but not the iron underneath. She would have told you that you have no business in the melee.”

 

Robert knew Lyanna well enough to make the statement that Lyanna wouldn't have shamed him like that.He's never seen her iron side because he never had cause to until a situation like what Ned described would have occured.Ned intern shows a difference in Robert's knowledge of Lyanna compared to his own.Its a differentiation of relationships between Robert as Lyanna's love interest and Ned as her brother.That my dear is a clue about their relationship.Those are the subtly that you and sadly so many miss.

And lastly,it is utterly ridculous and i really can't believe you are comparing Robert's feeling to your crush on Sam ( another great set of books by the way,i'll start the second season of the series when i get home).

Eyeballing it,its different and again unless Robert and Ned had sometype of pathology behavior wise that expression of love could only be visible if Robert was getting some type of reciprocity.The connotative meaning behind "words,phrases,and behaviors" went over your head.

 

 

[wolfmaid7]

2 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

In a strict sense this is of course true. But I wouldn't dismiss the notion that GRRM was trying to tell us something with that line.

“I am almost a man grown,” Jon protested. “I will turn fifteen on my next name day, and Maester Luwin says bastards grow up faster than other children.”

Earlier in the same chapter:

[Joffrey] was twelve, younger than Jon or Robb, but taller than either, to Jon’s vast dismay.

Fwiw, later in AGoT we find out that Jon isn't very tall yet:

The Old Bear seemed pleased by that. “I suppose they do. You’ll want to wear that over the shoulder, I imagine. It’s too long for the hip, at least until you’ve put on a few inches.”

So, we know that Jon isn't very tall yet, and he's shorter than Joffrey, who is a bastard.

By our reasoning yes it is absurd but we must put ourselves in these people's shoes.This notion is just as ridiculous as bastards are treacherous,wonton looked down upon by the gods,terrible nature all around

But these are the thoughts prevelant in this society.Is any of this true?

Lastly, and i mean no disrespect but this "bastards grow up faster physically" ...Ok i'm going to highlight this...Thank you JStar for posting that quote i couldn't find it....

We all agree that Luuwin is speaking of maturity correct.....Well do you all know what that means?I mean think about it do you all get what Jon is saying? Or do you all want to compare Erikson and Piaget.Shot yourselves in the foot with this one guys.

To get the implications of a boy maturing faster than his peer and how that correlates to the nature of bastards;why that would be explained away as something negative.

 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

16 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Sigh let me show you how your reason is lacking and your bias made clear.You are simply unable to identify subtle clues and let me give you example of that fact.You do not know how to read between the lines.

HA HA HA HA! I knew accusations of "bias" would be your first response.

And enough with the personal comments, please. You have no right whatsoever to be commenting about my reading abilities or understanding abilities. Just stop it.

 

21 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

And lastly,it is utterly ridculous and i really can't believe you are comparing Robert's feeling to your crush on Sam ( another great set of books by the way,i'll start the second season of the series when i get home).

It was a joke.   Also, to demonstrate that crushes can be one-sided.

[J. Stargaryen]

12 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

By our reasoning yes it is absurd but we must put ourselves in these people's shoes.This notion is just as ridiculous as bastards are treacherous,wonton looked down upon by the gods,terrible nature all around

But these are the thoughts prevelant in this society.Is any of this true?

Lastly, and i mean no disrespect but this "bastards grow up faster physically" ...Ok i'm going to highlight this...Thank you JStar for posting that quote i could find it....

We all agree that Luuwin is speaking of maturity correct.....Well do you people know what that means?

To get the implications of a boy maturing faster than his peer and how that correlates to the nature of bastards;why that would be explained away as something negative.

I think you might be referring to puberty. And if so, using this to argue that Jon is older. Am I correct?

I agree that Luwin was referring to maturity. But then it's a question of what kind of maturity; physical, emotional, intellectual? If physical, then you might be onto something. But in the given context it appears to mean intellectual. Is it possible that there is a double meaning here? Sure, it's possible.

43 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

And enough with the personal comments, please. You have no right whatsoever to be commenting about my reading abilities or understanding abilities. Just stop it.

Agreed.

[Ygrain]

7 hours ago, NutBurz said:

Oh, bash the "fanfic" all you want, my point is only that great medieval lords in general didn´t have the internet or encyclopedias to inform themselves on how a baby progresses over the months, nor would they bother to keep track of the differences between one baby and another, nor would they even want to see the truth if the truth was politically inconvenient and led them to kill or neglect their perfectly healthy sons.

It may come as a huge surprise to you but people knew things from merely observing fact of life well before the internet, and to see that a newborn can do next to nothing whereas a baby almost a year older is able to move around and the like doesn't require tracking anything.

Quote

If you think it´s so absurd that such a convenient misconception would be widespread in a place that has spent thousands and thousands of years in the medieval era, just ask the next guy if some old person has never told him that masturbating is bad for your health, or that wearing the shoes in the opposite feet would deform them for life, or something ridiculous like that. And our middle ages are long gone.

IIRC, the masturbating myth comes from the Victorian era, and as for ill-fitting shoes, just take a look at the feet of some lady who wore shoes with a narrow front all her life and got herself a nasty hallux.

You seem to have a lot of weird preconceptions about the middle ages.

 

Quote

Moreover, when it comes to Ned, he doesn´t have to be fooled by Jon´s age, nor would he want to dismount the notion and carry home the dead body of his sister along with a baby that was probably conceived right before the war started because of his siter being raped.

And where is it stated that he brought Jon right along with Lyanna's bones? It is not.

Besides, by such an obvious lie, he wouldn't have fooled anyone.

[NutBurz]

This is funny, you´re arguing that most Lords, who besides governors were also military commanders, would be perfectly and sharply aware of the nuances between a 4 months-old, an 8 months-old and an 1 year and 3 months old (or any small difference, please stop trying to argue against random examples that only mean to express a general idea), when not even modern parents can easily tell such things from a glance. I have closely watched a younger brother and 5 nephews be born and grow up and I most certainly can´t spot months of difference between babies.

You´re also ignoring the fact they didn´t even want to see the truth. So the Lord says that a bastard is a whole year younger than he looks - do you think the Maester will walk up to him and go "Nope, you´re wrong, my Lord, this kid that might one day have aspirations of inheriting your kingdom is clearly much older than that."? It´s off with his head. "How old is this kid, new Maester?" "2 months old, it´s clear!"

I don´t really care where or when these myths come from, that they are still around after ~500 years of humanist, illuminist, intellectual society is telling of how eager humans are to accept such easy explanations.

Also, why would anyone even pay attention to a bastard´s maturity? This is -not- an intellectual society, and bastards do -not- tend to have a position which would highlight their maturity, people don´t even -pay attention- to bastards. Why would a myth be made around something no one has any interest on?

They can´t help but -see- that bastards look bigger and older than the lords say they are. And being older also explain the fact they might tend to be more mature, since their teenage brains are better formed than they were supposed to be if they were a year younger.

[Ygrain]

We are arguing the difference between Robb, a couple of months old at best, and Jon, who was supposedly conceived at HH and about a year older. Claiming that such a difference could go unnoticed and backing it by a supposed lack of encyclopaedic knowledge is pure bullshit.

The same goes for vastly overgeneralising what maester Luwin said, and for which we don't have any other in-world examples, not one, and which is used in the context of bastards needing to mature faster because they need to fend for themselves way more than trueborn children.

But, yeah, stick to your denial all you wish.

[NutBurz]

Well, I under the impression we were arguing how the misconcept that bastards grow faster came to be, and whether it reffers to psychological maturity or physical maturity.

When Jon mentions the notion that he received from Maester Luwin, Benjen says "true enough", which estabilishes this is common knowledge at least in the north.

Do you honestly think the medieval era as a whole was more demanding of your psychological maturity than your physical maturity? And they were discussing The Wall - a literally frozen place that houses thieves and rapists. Are these guys mature? Or they´re just being sent to a place that physically kills people frozen?

And if we´re arguing the difference between Robb and Jon, it´s even easier to make my point. Ned effectively needs people to not know how old Jon is, if the Lord of Winterfell tells people "hey, this is my son, he is 4 months old, isn´t he strong like a stag?", people will not second guess him. They might realise the baby looks big, too hairy, but they would not contradict their honorable lord. "Hell, he´s even claiming it´s his bastard, why would he lie about age? Wouldn´t it be easier to say that he´s actually older than he looks, so he couldn´t possibly be his bastard?"
Catelyn might have noticed, but she did -not- want to see, and she certainly couldn´t casually discuss Jon´s age with Ned.

In Jon´s specific case, the misconception that bastards grow up faster (up, mind you, not older, or bolder, or sterner, or wiser, like psychologically speaking) than royals was something everyone wanted to hold on to, because it explained everything without akward notions.

 

 

edit - it´s funny you should mention denial, I don´t have a preference for the outcome, I´m just exposing what I read. I liked the idea that Jon´s a Targeryen when I first saw it, but it´s simply not in the text, anywhere.

[Wall Flower]

So apparently this theory rests on everyone at Winterfell being blind, deaf, dumb or too servile to speak up about a small baby already being able to toddle about and eat solid food.

That doesn't even begin to answer why Lyanna would run off rather than tell her approved fiancé that she was pregnant or why Ned would keep Robert's child with her a secret from it's own father well before Robert even married Cersei. The brutal murder of Rhaegar's children and the change of dynasty, on the other hand, gives a real reason to keep Jon's identity a deep, dark secret from everyone.

[NutBurz]

9 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

So apparently this theory rests on everyone at Winterfell being blind, deaf, dumb or too servile to speak up about a small baby already being able to toddle about and eat solid food.

That doesn't even begin to answer why Lyanna would run off rather than tell her approved fiancé that she was pregnant or why Ned would keep Robert's child with her a secret from it's own father well before Robert even married Cersei. The brutal murder of Rhaegar's children and the change of dynasty, on the other hand, gives a real reason to keep Jon's identity a deep, dark secret from everyone.

1-If you want to put it like that, yes. That is clearly the relation between common people and highborns everywhere in the books, this is even clearly the relation of Ned and Catelyn regarding the mother of Jon Snow, why not his age which is a convenient fact?

 

2-The world is not just what goes on regarding Jon´s parentage, everything else is still happening around them, and the story gives clear indications that there are people plotting against the Targaryen dynasty. These people could have intercepted Lyanna as she tried to make her way home or the riverlands, and promised to protect her under the King´s name.

"why Lyanna would run off rather than tell her approved fiancé that she was pregnant" - she didn´t know she was pregnant when she had just ran away from her rapist husband.

"why Ned would keep Robert's child with her a secret" - maybe because he promised, because his sister didn´t want her rapist rasing her child? So he names him Jon, like the foster father both of them had?

Maybe he´s just that loyal (like he is), but also just maybe he doesn´t want to acknowledge to himself that his beloved friend would do such a terrible thing to his sister, even though he had every evidence of it? Talking to Robert about Lyanna being pregnant of his baby means talking about how they had a sexual relation which caused her to run away from Robert and start the whole war, and all the akwardness and anger that would ensue. Isn´t it easier to lie?

"The brutal murder of Rhaegar's children and the change of dynasty, on the other hand, gives a real reason to keep Jon's identity a deep, dark secret from everyone." - Yes, if he was a Targaryen, it would make sense to hide his identity, I don´t question that, but that doesn´t prove he is. The brutal murder of any Targaryen left would happen anyway because of the conspiracy.

[corbon]

2 hours ago, NutBurz said:

Well, I under the impression we were arguing how the misconcept that bastards grow faster came to be, and whether it reffers to psychological maturity or physical maturity.

Thats only one minor point in the larger whole (which is in turn part of an even larger whole).

Quote

When Jon mentions the notion that he received from Maester Luwin, Benjen says "true enough", which estabilishes this is common knowledge at least in the north.

Yes, but it does not establish anything about how or when bastards grow up faster. Just that its widely recognised that they do.

Quote

Do you honestly think the medieval era as a whole was more demanding of your psychological maturity than your physical maturity?

Hell yes! 15 year olds leading armies. Little Bran ruling as the Stark in Winterfell (with advisors, sure, but he has to play that role and make the calls). Girls marrying in their teens and running extensive households. Everyone in medieval times had much greater demands on their psychological maturation.
Physical demands too, but they come with training and practice.
And none of this applies to infants.

Quote

And if we´re arguing the difference between Robb and Jon, it´s even easier to make my point. Ned effectively needs people to not know how old Jon is, if the Lord of Winterfell tells people "hey, this is my son, he is 4 months old, isn´t he strong like a stag?", people will not second guess him. They might realise the baby looks big, too hairy, but they would not contradict their honorable lord. "Hell, he´s even claiming it´s his bastard, why would he lie about age? Wouldn´t it be easier to say that he´s actually older than he looks, so he couldn´t possibly be his bastard?"

No, its patently ridiculous. We are talking at least 9 months to a year or more difference, and Robb is only 3 months old. So Robb, the elder, is a 3 month old baby who is just starting to hold his head up and look around, starting to put things in his mouth, starting to turn his head to respond to voices and similar basic things, whereas Jon is over a year old, probably standing alone or walking already, putting objects in containers, trying to drink alone from cups, interested in playing with others, starting to use verbals etc etc.

And its not about what Ned sees or says, its about what everyone sees or says. The difference is e-fricken-normous at those ages and someone would have said something, they always do.  And they'd still be thinking it all these years later.

Quote

Catelyn might have noticed, but she did -not- want to see, and she certainly couldn´t casually discuss Jon´s age with Ned.

Not just Catelyn but anyone associated with Jon at all. And no, they would not have just blindly followed a ridiculous statement by their lord that was clearly and obviously completely wrong. Someone would have talked about it, asked about it, there would need to be a scene and GRRM hasn't given us that.
Catelyn couldn't possibly not have noticed though, even if she didn't have the courage to challenge Ned. And it would prey on her mind still. But it does not, we've seen.

Quote

In Jon´s specific case, the misconception that bastards grow up faster (up, mind you, not older, or bolder, or sterner, or wiser, like psychologically speaking) than royals was something everyone wanted to hold on to, because it explained everything without akward notions.

Nothing explains the development of a 12 month old in a 3 month old. Bastards growing up faster than other kids happens later than this and not so extreme either. Its also a mental/psychological thing, not an extreme biological change like this.
And they may not have had the wide data and information we have about these things but they had people with vast experience with kchildren and they are not stupid. Most of the women in the castle would tell the difference between a 1 year old and a 3 month old in seconds, and frankly, so could most of the men, including Ned.

Quote

 

edit - it´s funny you should mention denial, I don´t have a preference for the outcome, I´m just exposing what I read. I liked the idea that Jon´s a Targeryen when I first saw it, but it´s simply not in the text, anywhere.

Well, you have to be in denial not to understand the basic biological facts once they've been explained. There is no other option.

[NutBurz]

2 minutes ago, corbon said:

1 - Hell yes! 15 year olds leading armies. Little Bran ruling as the Stark in Winterfell (with advisors, sure, but he has to play that role and make the calls). Girls marrying in their teens and running extensive households. Everyone in medieval times had much greater demands on their psychological maturation.
Physical demands too, but they come with training and practice.
And none of this applies to infants.

2 - No, its patently ridiculous. We are talking at least 9 months to a year or more difference, and Robb is only 3 months old. So Robb, the elder, is a 3 month old baby who is just starting to hod his head up and look around, starting to put things in his mouth, starting to turn his head to respond to voices and similar basic things, whereas Jon is over a year old, probably standing alone or walking already, putting objects in containers, trying to drink alone from cups, interested in playing with others, starting to use verbals etc etc.

3 - And its not about what Ned sees or says, its about what everyone sees or says. The difference is e-fricken-normous at those ages and someone would have said something, they always do.  And they'd stil be thinking it all these years later.

4 - Not just Catelyn but anyone associated with Jon at all. And no, they would not have just blindly followed a ridiculous statement by their lord that was clearly and obviously completely wrong. Someone would have talked about it, asked about it, there would need to be a scene and GRRM hasn't given us that.
Catelyn couldn't possibly not have noticed though, even if she didn't have the courage to challenge Ned. ANd it would prey on her mind still. But it does not, we've seen.

5- Nothing explains the development of a 12 month old in a 3 year old. Bastards growing up faster than other kids happens later than this and not so extreme either. Its also a mental/psychological thing, not an extreme biological change like this.

6 -And they may not have had the wide data and information we have about these things but they had people with vast experience in these things and they are not stupid. Most of the women in the castle would tell the difference between a 1 year old and a 3 month old in seconds, and frankly, so could most of the men, including Ned.

1 - Are there many 15 year old leading armies, either in actual medieval times or in the story? Does Bran actually make decisions of his own? I don´t see why you´d think girls would run households.

In any case, those would all be premisses of highborns. Why would bastards grow wiser even faster without being exposed to such responsibilities?

2 - yes, yes, you know a lot about babies, I´m sure you´ve also had classes about biology when you were a kid, and watched at least a couple of documentaries in your life, and had personal experience, and you could consult the nuances at any point in your life in which the subject came to your mind. People in the story still think gods have anything to do whatsoever with babies. You cannot assume they would go all scientific and measury when one baby developed differently from another, especially considering that the Warden of the North would very much rather if you never came up anything related to his conception, and considering we´re talking about a bastard that no one cares about.

3 - Everyone sees and says what the Lord alows them to, and bastards are not a rich subject for long when you can´t be heard whispering about his conception.

4 - Yes, GRRM gives us a scene where it´s estabilished people apparently think bastards grow up faster for whatever reason. It can´t be clearer than that without saying "Jon was actually older, guys".

5 - Nothing explains the development of a 1 year old in a 3 years old, I agree, never said 2 years difference could be explained.

How come you have so much information regarding what it means that bastards grow faster? Like I said before, in the most extensive scene regarding that, growing up faster is given as a counterpoint to already being wise but not ready for the Wall. His uncle wants him to know what a girl is like, sexually, which implies to me physical maturity, not psychological one. A man doesn´t become wiser after laying with a woman.

6 - The people with actual vast experience with babies were always bound to their Lord´s will. In the case of Ned, the second he got to know that the mother was being discussed (which is not even a problem, ultimately, if the father was not a problem), all whispers stopped. Imagine if there were still whispers regarding his age, which would be much more telling of something wrong.

Instead, we hear from the person with vast experience that bastards grow up faster. i.i

[nanother]

Cultivating a physical 'bastards grow faster' myth indeed might make a degree of sense in a world where bastards are frequently in a position of competing with trueborn children for inheritance - where there would be a motivation to pass them off as younger for various reasons. However, in Westeros, bastards don't seem to be a threat unless 1. legitimised (but how often does that happen with trueborn heirs still around?) or 2. decide to ignore the rules and make a power grab despite their bastard status, in which case they're just as likely to also ignore their younger age. Most of the time a bastard's age wouldn't make a significant difference in threat level, only if there's a danger of them getting legitimised. So, it might have been used as an excuse for ... something ... in Winterfell, but IMO there's no reason to think it's a widespread belief. Most likely the phrase does refer to maturity rather than physical growth.

As for relying on people's ignorance to keep up the ruse, that's indeed shown to work to a great extent in the books (and it works better in real life than I like to acknowledge). However, it's also shown that from time to time there will be someone who is observant enough to notice. Cat, in particular, is no Tyrion-class smart, but is still one of those people who actively try and more or less succeed in putting two and two together, at least where her family and children are concerned. From her point of view, I agree with posters saying that she had every reason to pay attention to Jon as a potential threat to her own son, and she's perceptive enough for the 'people see what they expect' principle not to work on her. Would she be so easily fooled by 'bastards grow faster' bullshit? Would  she lull herself into a false sense of security, or would she be paranoid and watch Jon like a hawk, as we have evidence of her doing later? Would she'd start ignoring him right after she was 'cut deeply' by his mere presence in Winterfell? Could there be a combination of Jon being kept mostly out of her sight (and anyone else's sight that might tell her tales about Jon), her having too much to cope with, being new to the whole northern culture etc, and emotional pressure somehow causing her not to notice that something's up with Jon? Possibly. I can't see a way that fits with what we've seen of her character, but there's a reason Martin's writing these books and not me.

From Ned's point of view, he has this toddler whose origins he's determined to hide. He'll have to do some lying anyway, but will he try to keep it to a minimum and shut down all lines of questioning (as we see him doing), or will he compound it by also trying to pass the toddler off as a few months old babe?  He can't just rely on people obediently fooling themselves over an extended period of time, in a castle with serving women who are likely to have a pretty good idea of how babes are supposed to look like, a wife he barely knows, so has no idea what to expect from her, Old Nan, and a maester who also knows a thing or two about children ... well, he can, and it might even work if he gets really lucky, but there's massive risk that something will go wrong, so it'd be rather stupid even for Ned. And what does he stand to gain by taking this risk? His wife might be a somewhat less paranoid about Jon? And I suppose he will have a slightly better excuse for not wanting to talk about the whole thing (dishonouring a wife is more credibly shameful than slipping up before he even kew he was going to marry). Doesn't sound like a good deal to me, but again, it's not impossible that Martin will contrive a scenario where this believably happens.

So, I guess, there are reasons to leave the possibility open for such a ruse having happened at Winterfell, although these reasons only move it up from 'utterly insane' to 'very unlikely'.

[LmL]

11 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

HA HA HA HA! I knew accusations of "bias" would be your first response.

And enough with the personal comments, please. You have no right whatsoever to be commenting about my reading abilities or understanding abilities. Just stop it.

 

It was a joke.   Also, to demonstrate that crushes can be one-sided.

Oh, so your're biased too? Man! We are all biased! We just can't see the brilliance of @wolfmaid7's argument, there must be something wrong with us! 

@wolfmaid7, you are confusing "bias" with "we don't buy any of your arguments." And my question of "have these essays hanged anyone's mind?" was asked to everyone, without qualification. Where in the world did you imagine the idea that I was asking only RLJ believers? Do you just make stuff up when it's convenient? And are you really going to sit here and keep telling everyone who doesn't agree with you they are biased or have some personal flaw? Perhaps you're arguments are simply unconvincing - that seems to be the case. 

Your insistence that the only way a Beltane influence can work is the specific theory you've come up with is rubbish. As others pointed out, George often SUBVERTS the mythological influences he's drawing from. He frequently twists them around or swaps roles. In fact, he pretty much always does that. I've reached out many, many mythological influences in his books and they are never a straight correlation. So your point in his regard is nonsense. It's simply the way YOU see it working out. 

You think that because you are a Wiccan that you understand the horned God stuff better than everyone, but the Wiccan version is but one of many manifestations of this archetype, and you seem to (again) have a very narrow view here which is by no means the only one. Even your application of it to the tourney is flawed, because you cannot account for the fact that Rhaegar Was the one with the damn pole. 

[LmL]

Example: Jon is Mithras. Not sure if you're aware of it, but Jon has repeated and extensive correlations to Mithras. When Mithras is reborn, he has to sacrifice the white bull. When Jon is born at the Tower of Joy, a white bull is indeed sacrificed - Gerold Hightower, the White Bull. Therefore, Jon was born at the Tower of Joy, case closed, and any theory that says different is wrong. 

Right? Well not exactly, because George twists his mythological influences around in all sorts of ways. George might be including the white bull to shout out to Mithras inside of the "cover story" of Jon's birth, even if Jon was actually born at Starfall. That's the sort of thing he does. So while the maypole idea is clearly evident at the Harrenhall tourney, you cannot interpret it in such a narrow way as to say "this is the only way it can be a perfect parallel to be myth!" - because a one to one correlation to myth is exactly what Martin does NOT do.  And again, until you can account for the fact that Rhaegar was the one with the lance, your interpretation has holes in it and cannot be regarded as absolute or even correct. 

A other issue with you narrow view of the greater, well-travelled horned God archetype, is that Jon is referred to as "the Corn King" by Martin through the raven.. The corn King is an umbrella term which is refers to the widespread archetype of the "dying and resurrected God," of which there are many varieties, one of which is your Wiccan concept of the horned God. But other dying gods are not horned gods and still play into the Corn King pattern. Mithras is not a horned god but he is a resurrected god who's rebirth gives life to the world again and renews it.  Mythology is not neat and well defined, and almost any time someone tries to draw a narrow, inflexible, and exclusive interpretation of ancient myth, they are making a mistake. Point is, the corn king is specifically an umbrella term, referring to many myths, and this is the term applied to Jon by George. So you can't look at his story exclusively through the lense of one myth, particularly one you've interpreted in such a narrow way. Mithras has just as much to do with Jon as the Holly and Oak King, if not more, but you don't pay any attention to this, just as you don't pay any attention to Rhaegar's presence on the middle of your maypole reenactment. You may be an expert on the Oak and Holly King but you need to consider other myths as well. George is drawing from the entire tapestry of world mythology, and he's combining these influences in myriad ways, always tangled with each other, rearranged, and re-configured, so trying unravel the story through the lense of only one myth - whether it's the Horned God or Mithras or Norse mythology - you will only have one piece of the puzzle. That's the same mistake that fellow made with the Norse mythology and ASOIAF website, which started out great. He correctly identified many Norse myth ideas in ASOIAF, but he assumed Martin's story would closely follow Ragnarok, and he didn't account for any other mythological influences - this led him to draw the absurd conclusion that Tommen was TPTWP and that Jamie be Bran would fight each other somehow to decide the end game.