Robert Baratheon is Jon Snows father?

[A spoon of knife and fork]

On March 29, 2016 at 3:47 AM, princess_snow said:

Pretty much this sums it up.

There is too much evidence for Rhaegar being his Father. You cant have a pregnancy last longer than approx two weeks past the due date. So I dont think that point is likely at all.  

Actually as anyone who's been pregnant knows, due dates are set at 40 weeks after the estimated conception date.  40 weeks is almost 10 months (certainly closer to 10 than 9).  10 month long pregnancies are actually not rare at all. 

Not that this makes it very likely that Robert is Jons dad. 

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Valens said:

 

Ros isn't in the books, but there IS in fact an equivalent, a redheaded prostitute who is mentioned in the first book. It's just that she is not mentioned so much and this sub-story with Jon not wanting to sleep with her was invented by the show's writers. You don't have to tell me what introverted means, I myself am introverted-but lightly introverted. Highly introverted people ARE asocial, or do not bond easily with other people. I know one such person. They are not necessarily unfriendly, just like to keep to themselves.

Again you are confusing completely different concepts. Bonding is a hormonal process involving hormones. As long as someone makes these hormones and has functional receptors then people make these bonds (psychopaths have an issue at the receptor side, can appear very social, with dozens of friends they make very very easily, but throw them under the bus without afterthought... that's how you know they don't bond). And no, introversion =/= asocial. There are just highly introverted people who are not asocial, who do bond with people easily, but just prefer a lot of time on their own.

Besides, you're just moving goalposts... nobody claimed Jon was asocial, incapable of bonding, or so highly introverted that he's a hermit. But he sure is not an extravert either.

A nameless redheaded prostitute that gets no further mention, doesn't go to KL and doesn't get involved with Sansa. That's like saying that if there's a nurse in the books that she's the equivalent of Talissa.

You used her to point out that Jon is responsible. Again, I fail to see what that has to do with extraversion or introversion. Both temperaments can be responsible or completely irresponsible.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

3 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Again you are confusing completely different concepts. Bonding is a hormonal process involving hormones. As long as someone makes these hormones and has functional receptors then people make these bonds (psychopaths have an issue at the receptor side, can appear very social, with dozens of friends they make very very easily, but throw them under the bus without afterthought... that's how you know they don't bond). And no, introversion =/= asocial. There are just highly introverted people who are not asocial, who do bond with people easily, but just prefer a lot of time on their own.

Besides, you're just moving goalposts... nobody claimed Jon was asocial, incapable of bonding, or so highly introverted that he's a hermit. But he sure is not an extravert either.

While there's some evidence that certain personality traits can be genetically inherited - primarily from twin studies - it's far from clear that environment has as little a role as you are implying.  Anytime someone says something is 100% genetic that's simply wrong.  It's impossible to completely rule out aspects of shared environment in human studies.  Even twins separated at birth have a more similar environment to one another than to the average unrelated human (for example, most are raised in the same country and with the same cultural-racial groups).

For example it's quite clear that early trauma (even low level trauma like too constant noise or anxiety) can impact personality and behavior - which are inextricably intertwined - in drastic ways.

also your definition of introvert-extrovert seems to be based on Myres-Briggs which is only a single personality scale and isn't universally accepted as the only viable scale for personality.

[sweetsunray]

Just now, A spoon of knife and fork said:

While there's some evidence that certain personality traits can be genetically inherited - primarily from twin studies - it's far from clear that environment has as little a role as you are implying.  Anytime someone says something is 100% genetic that's simply wrong.  It's impossible to completely rule out aspects of shared environment in human studies.  Even twins separated at birth have a more similar environment to one another than to the average unrelated human (for example, most are raised in the same country and with the same cultural-racial groups).

For example it's quite clear that early trauma (even low level trauma like too constant noise or anxiety) can impact personality and behavior - which are inextricably intertwined - in drastic ways.

also your definition of introvert-extrovert seems to be based on Myres-Briggs which is only a single personality scale and isn't universally accepted as the only viable scale for personality.

I agree that personality in a broad stroke can be impacted a lot by environment... but temperament is one of the few things that is geneteic.

You can see personality as a layered onion. The full package of personality is

1. Temperament you're born with
2. Habbits and views and manner of interaction you get from home
3. Habbits, views and manner of interaction you get through social experience with peers
4. Life experience
5. More life experience

Our personalities can adapt and grow and alter throughout our lives, but our temperament won't... although you can learn to be selective when to show that temperament or not. An exam for example is not the appropriate moment to be highly extraverted for example. But when I'm feeling really spent, the best way to re-energize is to seek out people and hang out. I was for example an adventure tourleader in the summer months (I'm a teacher otherwise) for several years leading groups of 12 people. Because of the 24/7 job eventually that can be very taxing, so any moment I could have for myself I used it... but not to sit alone in my room and read (not that I can enjoy myself all on my own with a book). No, those usually were the moments I'd go grab a beer and hang with guides or hotel personnel or go to a bar and have contact with locals. Our temperament is so fundamental that if we negate it chronically that we can end up with a form of an id-crisis. And introversion and extraversion are aspects of temperament. A baby is not an empty shell you can fill with whatever temperament you wish. The chore is there already. The rest are other layers of personality or learning to figure out when behaviour is appropriate and when not. An extravert can enjoy alone time and learn when to be silent... but if they have to be alone all the time and never meet someone or not allowed to ever communicate with someone, they'll whither away. An introvert can enjoy meeting people and making contact, but if they never get the space and time to be by themselves 24/7 and constantly are forced to engage in conversation, they'll end up with a burn out.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

11 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

I agree that personality in a broad stroke can be impacted a lot by environment... but temperament is one of the few things that is geneteic.

You can see personality as a layered onion. The full package of personality is

1. Temperament you're born with
2. Habbits and views and manner of interaction you get from home
3. Habbits, views and manner of interaction you get through social experience with peers
4. Life experience
5. More life experience

Our personalities can adapt and grow and alter throughout our lives, but our temperament won't... although you can learn to be selective when to show that temperament or not. An exam for example is not the appropriate moment to be highly extraverted for example. But when I'm feeling really spent, the best way to re-energize is to seek out people and hang out. I was for example an adventure tourleader in the summer months (I'm a teacher otherwise) for several years leading groups of 12 people. Because of the 24/7 job eventually that can be very taxing, so any moment I could have for myself I used it... but not to sit alone in my room and read (not that I can enjoy myself all on my own with a book). No, those usually were the moments I'd go grab a beer and hang with guides or hotel personnel or go to a bar and have contact with locals. Our temperament is so fundamental that if we negate it chronically that we can end up with a form of an id-crisis. And introversion and extraversion are aspects of temperament. A baby is not an empty shell you can fill with whatever temperament you wish. The chore is there already. The rest are other layers of personality or learning to figure out when behaviour is appropriate and when not. An extravert can enjoy alone time and learn when to be silent... but if they have to be alone all the time and never meet someone or not allowed to ever communicate with someone, they'll whither away. An introvert can enjoy meeting people and making contact, but if they never get the space and time to be by themselves 24/7 and constantly are forced to engage in conversation, they'll end up with a burn out.

Problem what what you're saying is that it is literally impossible to prove for the reasons I pointed out.  You cannot rule out environment for any trait that could conceivably be impacted by it.  

What you're saying is fine as a theoretical framework I suppose, and assuming that is helpful for people (for example in a clinical setting with helping people deal with personality issues) then it's potentially valuable.  But since you cannot prove 100% genetic heritability of a trait in humans that's all it will ever be.  Even if you Map a causal gene with a massive association or quantitative genetic study (eg pedigrees) all you will get is a measure of the strength of the association, and the degree to which the observed variation - which is always a subset of the real variation - is explained by the gene or genes.

And as far as I know, there hasn't even been a study that mapped specific loci for temperament but I haven't done a thorough search recently.  If you have any to share i'd be interested to read them.

eta: biggest problem with your assertion "you're born with your temperament" as I see it is the same problem all science has to address on a daily basis.  Which is, how do you measure it?  How accurate and reproducible is that measurement?  And finally How are potential sources of error and confounding variables accounted for?  

[Light a wight tonight]

On 3/29/2016 at 5:07 AM, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

So, Jon Snow is the son of Brandon Stark and Ashara Dayne, and Ned kept it secret for what reason, now?

The same would apply to Ashara Dayne's son...

Aaaand, what is the reason for Lyanna's "bed of blood"?

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 2:55 AM, Christopher Six said:

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 2:55 AM, Christopher Six said:

 

 What if Robert is Jons father? In the first chapter when we meet Jon Snow he looks stronger and has darker features. Who else has dark features? Yes, I know he has brown hair but a darker brown hair. Also I interpreted the stag that killed the direwolf in the beginning as Robert having a child that killed Lyanna

 Also there is a year span of when the war started and the tourney at harrenhall
So maybe he got jealous and really proved to Lyanna that he loved her. And maybe things happened.

 Yes I know the war lasted possibly over a year. But we are actually never given the actual date of when it stops.....why.....because of Jon. And really all that I have seen is that the war lasted about a year? That could mean under or over a year. So what if it was just right under a year of war? Is it possible that her pregnancy was that long, because that would also explain why she died. Because of stress she never went into giving birth.

Also what if Lyanna didn't want him to be king. Maybe she wanted him to be a Stark so he could never be around piles of lies and schemes, or if she didn't want the child out of wedlock.

So what do you guys think.....is this possible at all? I think it could at least be possible right?   

 

Sorry, this is complicated, but bear with me:

Ned says the war lasted "close to a year" and he marks the beginning when Jon Arryn called his banners in defiance of the king. This was some time after Brandon and Rickard were killed in the throne room, after the kidnapping, and after the tourney at Harrenhall, which was the last time we saw Robert and Lyanna together.

Meanwhile, Robb was conceived at Riverrun right after the double wedding, and he is a few weeks older than Jon. GRRM has said Jon was born "8 to 9" months before Dany, which was "9 moons" after Rhaella fled King's Landing, about two weeks before the sack. So that means we need at least nine months between the wedding at Riverrun and the sack at King's Landing.

This makes it impossible to squeeze Robert and Lyanna's last meeting and Jon's birth within a ten-month time-span. They would had to have been together on or about the wedding, which is inconceivable by any stretch of the imagination.

It would be unheard of for a woman to go more than three weeks past her due date. The lungs are the last things to develop and once they are ready the baby needs air or it dies in the womb.

I'm the first to admit that the entire timeline for the war doesn't work out with Catelyn's pregnancy taking up three-quarters of it, but there is no way you can get Robert and Lyanna together after she was kidnapped.

Good try, though.

 

 

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

Problem what what you're saying is that it is literally impossible to prove for the reasons I pointed out.  You cannot rule out environment for any trait that could conceivably be impacted by it.  

What you're saying is fine as a theoretical framework I suppose, and assuming that is helpful for people (for example in a clinical setting with helping people deal with personality issues) then it's potentially valuable.  But since you cannot prove 100% genetic heritability of a trait in humans that's all it will ever be.  Even if you Map a causal gene with a massive association or quantitative genetic study (eg pedigrees) all you will get is a measure of the strength of the association, and the degree to which the observed variation - which is always a subset of the real variation - is explained by the gene or genes.

And as far as I know, there hasn't even been a study that mapped specific loci for temperament but I haven't done a thorough search recently.  If you have any to share i'd be interested to read them.

eta: biggest problem with your assertion "you're born with your temperament" as I see it is the same problem all science has to address on a daily basis.  Which is, how do you measure it?  How accurate and reproducible is that measurement?  And finally How are potential sources of error and confounding variables accounted for?  

Yes, you are correct, it cannot be proven with hard science that this or that classified temperate trait within psychology is 100% nature. All the evidence for that are behavior studies and gathered anecdotes by therapists, and anecdotes aren't hard evidence. What the ammassed studies and anecdotes and professional experience does show though is that it cannot be 100% nurture. If that were the case then we can shape babies into whatever personality we wish as parents, teachers, society if we only hand them the correct environment for it and the appropriate experiences, without ever encountering issues that require therapy to solve. And that of course, reality teaches us, is not the case. Despite environment and nurture and experiences people's temperament, including level of introversion or extraversion, will show and people end up in therapy if they or their environment ignore it. So, some aspects or a degree of them are innate. What it means is that we must be careful and ammassing lots and lots of data and be willing to alter the theoretical model, and that we'll always be using a theoretical model to which someone can answer - where's the hard evidence for it?

[A spoon of knife and fork]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Yes, you are correct, it cannot be proven with hard science that this or that classified temperate trait within psychology is 100% nature. All the evidence for that are behavior studies and gathered anecdotes by therapists, and anecdotes aren't hard evidence. What the ammassed studies and anecdotes and professional experience does show though is that it cannot be 100% nurture. If that were the case then we can shape babies into whatever personality we wish as parents, teachers, society if we only hand them the correct environment for it and the appropriate experiences, without ever encountering issues that require therapy to solve. And that of course, reality teaches us, is not the case. Despite environment and nurture and experiences people's temperament, including level of introversion or extraversion, will show and people end up in therapy if they or their environment ignore it. So, some aspects or a degree of them are innate. What it means is that we must be careful and ammassing lots and lots of data and be willing to alter the theoretical model, and that we'll always be using a theoretical model to which someone can answer - where's the hard evidence for it?

I don't believe in a blank slate either.  I'm sure that some individuall differences are things we are born with - however you were making very specific assertions about which things in particular are innate.  Namely you seem to be arguing that Jon must be Rhaegars son and not Roberts because they share one specific aspect of personality which is the Myers Briggs definition of introversion.  And arguing against someone who's saying that could have been due to nurture.  In reality there's not enough evidence for either nurture or nature in this case.  So, the correct conclusion is that Jons personality tells us very little about who his father is.  

[sweetsunray]

27 minutes ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

I don't believe in a blank slate either.  I'm sure that some individuall differences are things we are born with - however you were making very specific assertions about which things in particular are innate.  Namely you seem to be arguing that Jon must be Rhaegars son and not Roberts because they share one specific aspect of personality which is the Myers Briggs definition of introversion.  And arguing against someone who's saying that could have been due to nurture.  In reality there's not enough evidence for either nurture or nature in this case.  So, the correct conclusion is that Jons personality tells us very little about who his father is.  

While I do think R+L=J, I did not explictly say that Jon can't be Robert's son because one is introverted and the other extraverted. I made comments about introversion. We can conclude that according to the Myers Briggs definition that Jon is an introvert. I also used the example of Rhaegar showing similar introversion. But in that respect Ned also shows introversion. So, perhaps it's a temperament that he got from the Starks. People can assume that Lyanna is an extravert, because of her wildness... But we don't know enough about Lyanna's nature with regards to whether she sought isolation or people to relax and recharge. People can be adventurous and wild in that sense, and yet still be introverted. Arya comes across as an extravert (so does her mother Catelyn). So, do we need to consider Lyanna to be like Arya or not. And even then, since nobody is 100% extraverted or introverted (except someone with a personality disorder), and Ned Stark does not sound like an exceptional introverted Stark, we can assume that several ancestors of the Starks have been introverts as well, and hence it could be passed on partly via Lyanna. Same reasoning goes for Robert's family, since Stannis is an introverted man (although here it might be related to other aspects that seem to point to Asperger). 

So, I agree with you that Jon's temperament strictly speaking cannot say much about who his father is. Literary though George is probably making Jon look like a Stark but matches him more with Rhaegar, while making sure that the man who claims to be his father, Ned, also shows an introverted temperament. He presents Jon in a way by looks and temperament that we do not directly doubt him to be Ned's son. However, when the reveal comes that R+L=J then nobody will say - how odd, he's the opposite in temperament from his real father (which is of course a simplification of the actual real life cases). But until now, I never made that point.

I only argued against the claim that 1) Jon isn't an introvert 2) he makes friends easy so he can't be an introvert 3) he is only moody and reclusive at times because of upbringing. 4) he isn't an introvert, just responsible about not having bastards with the likes of Ros (whatever that's supposed to mean)

[Valens]

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Again you are confusing completely different concepts. Bonding is a hormonal process involving hormones. As long as someone makes these hormones and has functional receptors then people make these bonds (psychopaths have an issue at the receptor side, can appear very social, with dozens of friends they make very very easily, but throw them under the bus without afterthought... that's how you know they don't bond). And no, introversion =/= asocial. There are just highly introverted people who are not asocial, who do bond with people easily, but just prefer a lot of time on their own.

Besides, you're just moving goalposts... nobody claimed Jon was asocial, incapable of bonding, or so highly introverted that he's a hermit. But he sure is not an extravert either.

A nameless redheaded prostitute that gets no further mention, doesn't go to KL and doesn't get involved with Sansa. That's like saying that if there's a nurse in the books that she's the equivalent of Talissa.

You used her to point out that Jon is responsible. Again, I fail to see what that has to do with extraversion or introversion. Both temperaments can be responsible or completely irresponsible.

It means he has inherited this from Ned. Who I, in the end, sorry to all you Rhaegar-theorists, do believe is most likely to be Jon's father. Rhaegar may not have been not responsible, but hardly anyone can match Ned in responsibility and seriousness.

[Wall Flower]

Sweetsunray, speaking as a definite introvert, I can't tell you how much I've enjoyed your posts in this thread. I think the trouble with the nurture viewpoint is that it comes a little to close to regarding extroversion as the norm or default, with introversion something that comes out of a difficult childhood rather than a natural variation of personality (whether heritable or not). Whatever the scientific limits of personality tests like Myer Briggs, I personally found it really helpful to be able to see introversion as just a personality trait rather than an aberration that I had to train myself out of.

While Jon Snow has his detractors as a character, I thought that he was really well written as a non-cliched introvert. Jon's certainly one of the most introspective characters in the books and I found myself really relating to the way his mind worked.

Jon wants to be Ned's perfect copy but I'm not so sure that he is. He's much less conventional in his thinking than Ned, capable of thinking outside the box and looking at the big picture seems to come naturally to him. We don't know enough about Rhaegar to say that Jon gets this from him, but I don't see Jon being much like Ned or Robert in this regard.  

[Ygrain]

As an introverted person, I very much appreciate the insight :-)

Aside from introversy and certain melancholism, there are other traits in Jon, both physical and mental, which definitely point to someone else than Robert.

Robert used to be tall and muscular. Jon is neither - no exceptional height or musculature.

Robert was never noted for being keenly intelligent; Jon shows intelligence and wit and we learn, from a passing remark, that he bested Robb in about anything they were taught (which earned him looks from Cat). Rhaegar showed the same keen intelligence as a child. Innovativeness and creativity in his leadership, ability to see the big picture... none of this we see in Robert.

[JonisHenryTudor]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

As an introverted person, I very much appreciate the insight :-)

Aside from introversy and certain melancholism, there are other traits in Jon, both physical and mental, which definitely point to someone else than Robert.

Robert used to be tall and muscular. Jon is neither - no exceptional height or musculature.

Robert was never noted for being keenly intelligent; Jon shows intelligence and wit and we learn, from a passing remark, that he bested Robb in about anything they were taught (which earned him looks from Cat). Rhaegar showed the same keen intelligence as a child. Innovativeness and creativity in his leadership, ability to see the big picture... none of this we see in Robert.

To be fair, the traits you listed are mannerisms or acquired traits, not necessarily genetics. Both my parents are very social, whereas I am very much an introvert. Intelligence is gained, not passed down. Muscle mass, perhaps, but again babies are not born with massive amounts of muscle, that is gained through various activities and the social circle one belongs to. The book even highlights this...Sam is nothing like his father. This is fantasy, so I suppose you can use those as identifiers, but in real life smart, muscular, and social parents do not necessarily beget the same thing. 

 

Having said that....Rhaeghar is the daddy.   

[corbon]

14 hours ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

Actually as anyone who's been pregnant knows, due dates are set at 40 weeks after the estimated conception date.  40 weeks is almost 10 months (certainly closer to 10 than 9).  10 month long pregnancies are actually not rare at all. 

Err, what?

12 months is 52 weeks.
40/52 is 10/13 (0.769). Thats a lot closer to 3/4 (9 months, 0.75) than 5/6 (10 months, 0.833).

40 weeks is approximately 9 months, a fraction over. Thats why a 40 week pregnancy is usually noted as 9 months, not 10. Common usage does follow the math...

19 minutes ago, JonisHenryTudor said:

To be fair, the traits you listed are mannerisms or acquired traits, not necessarily genetics. Both my parents are very social, whereas I am very much an introvert. Intelligence is gained, not passed down. Muscle mass, perhaps, but again babies are not born with massive amounts of muscle, that is gained through various activities and the social circle one belongs to. The book even highlights this...Sam is nothing like his father. This is fantasy, so I suppose you can use those as identifiers, but in real life smart, muscular, and social parents do not necessarily beget the same thing.

 

Problem is, Jon and Robb share pretty much the same upbringing in many respects. Yet they are definitively different in almost every way. And in every way they differ, or in every way that Jon differs from Robert Baratheon's archtype, Jon follows traits that are shown by Rhaegar.
Nature or nurture is all very well, but in GRRM's word it is very clear that nature has a higher role to play than in ours.

[JonisHenryTudor]

3 minutes ago, corbon said:

 

Problem is, Jon and Robb share pretty much the same upbringing in many respects. Yet they are definitively different in almost every way. And in every way they differ, or in every way that Jon differs from Robert Baratheon's archtype, Jon follows traits that are shown by Rhaegar.
Nature or nurture is all very well, but in GRRM's word it is very clear that nature has a higher role to play than in ours.

Which is why I suggested that it is fantasy so typical rules do not need to follow. Jon also has a lot of Ned's traits as well. Perhaps it is a little of both. Martin needs to have that connection to Rhaegar, so I can see how some of the things Ygrain pointed out would work. I was merely suggesting that it is terribly misleading to see smart parents = smart child; dumb oaf = oaf-child. Now, I do agree that, to some extent, it plays out that way in Martin's realm, and in a sense it has too.

 

You can easily lean on Gendry as an example; however, there is a trap in doing so. Gendry was taken in and raised ( I think) by a blacksmith. So that sort of muddles his case. It is not that the blacksmith was unintelligent, but Gendry's social circle was certainly limited to laborers and the poor. Gendry is not exactly stupid, but he isn't quite as sharp as Jon, Tyrion, etc. He can, however, fight. At the same time, Ned isn't exactly an idiot, and Maester Luwin's role in Jon's life is not negligible. 

 

But as I said, I do think it is important to draw links between characters based on certain personality traits, etc, because convincing us that Samuel Tarly is the son of Rhaegar would be an impossible pill to swallow. Possible? Yes of course. In context of this book and world...well it simply does not fit. 

 

[sweetsunray]

8 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

Sweetsunray, speaking as a definite introvert, I can't tell you how much I've enjoyed your posts in this thread. I think the trouble with the nurture viewpoint is that it comes a little to close to regarding extroversion as the norm or default, with introversion something that comes out of a difficult childhood rather than a natural variation of personality (whether heritable or not). Whatever the scientific limits of personality tests like Myer Briggs, I personally found it really helpful to be able to see introversion as just a personality trait rather than an aberration that I had to train myself out of.

 

4 hours ago, Ygrain said:

As an introverted person, I very much appreciate the insight :-)

With pleasure... I myself am an extravert. But regardless of your temperament we can all end up in a chronic situation where we end up thinking there must be something fundamentally wrong with us (parental rejection, peer rejection) and at some point led to believe it is the introversion or extraversion by a well meaning partner, best friend or parent with the opposite temperament. If we then try to curb it/train ourselves out of it, the result is not pretty. It's different, not problematic. Problematic is being callous, chronically irresponsible and wanting to harm others just because.

[Hoppy Hour]

No.

[kissdbyfire]

On 29 March 2016 at 9:08 AM, Valens said:

Who knows why he'd keep it a secret...maybe he wanted Jon to feel like his own son, not a bastard son of his brother. A result of a one night stand with Ashara Dayne. Jon is more handsome than Eddard, in the show anyway, I don't know about the books. Brandon was more handsome than Eddard. There is a possible connection.

Ned wanted Jon to feel like his own bastard son instead of Brandon's bastard son? Makes no sense. 

[Valens]

50 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Ned wanted Jon to feel like his own bastard son instead of Brandon's bastard son? Makes no sense. 

It doesn't, does it? But still...it's a possibility. As I wrote last, I still think Ned is more likely to be his father. But I don't discount the Rhaegar theory, I just don't like that people have taken it as given, as if Martin himself wrote or said that he IS the father.