Jump to content

There were other survivors of ToJ!


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Woman of War said:

So if one of the women is going to be Jon's wet nurse - where is the second infant and what is his or her name?

A woman can milk herself, and prolong lactation.  But, she would have had to have given birth (not necessarily a live one) at some earlier point to stimulate lactation.  Also, a wetnurse would typically move on from a weened infant to the next, with very little if any respite from nursing.  So, saying that a wetnurse demands another child is silly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Bini Bini said:

He is Edric Dayne, (also known as Ned) of House Dayne. 

Um ... no.

First, Edric "Ned" Dayne's mother would have been Lady Dayne - she's not a wetnurse, she's someone who has wetnurses for her children.

Second, Ned Dayne is several years younger than Jon.

 

Presumably the woman who handed Ned Stark the baby is the Wylla from Starfall.

And, technically, it was never explicit that all of the "seven facing three" except for Ned and Howland died. Just strongly implied between the making of cairns, their lack of known presence anywhere since, and "but only two lived to ride away". The wording leaves open the possibly that some lived but did not or could not ride away, and instead were loaded into a litter, cart, wagon, travois, etc, and were carried away or some lived and walked away. I wouldn't care to lay odds on it, but, the wording does leave a loophole. In the books, that is, in the show it was six against two and everybody but Ned and Howland clearly died. I'm not sure why the show went to six against two from seven facing three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 27 June 2016 at 5:01 PM, Woman of War said:

A woman  who is a wet nurse must  have had a baby herself most recently, otherwise she would not have any milk. So there would have to be a second small child somewhere around.

Nobility often allowed the biological child of the wet nurse to starve and suffer in favor of the "valuable" child though let's assume Ned is the good guy and would not do that. 

So if one of the women is going to be Jon's wet nurse - where is the second infant and what is his or her name?

Very true, interesting and logical! In our case it would be very interesting to see if the wetnurse after the events at the ToJ could speak, due to a "trauma" she suffered during birth. I am pretty sure that Lord Reed would have gone the extra mile to make sure of the " trauma" was there before they departed for the North. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2016 at 1:01 PM, Woman of War said:

A woman  who is a wet nurse must  have had a baby herself most recently, otherwise she would not have any milk. So there would have to be a second small child somewhere around.

Nobility often allowed the biological child of the wet nurse to starve and suffer in favor of the "valuable" child though let's assume Ned is the good guy and would not do that. 

So if one of the women is going to be Jon's wet nurse - where is the second infant and what is his or her name?

Book - Ned Dayne, with Wylla as the Wet Nurse.

Show - Howland either uses a Valyrian Teleporter he borrowed from LittleFinger, or else he nursed John with his magic Crannogman teats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2016 at 8:19 AM, Kytheros said:

Um ... no.

First, Edric "Ned" Dayne's mother would have been Lady Dayne - she's not a wetnurse, she's someone who has wetnurses for her children.

Second, Ned Dayne is several years younger than Jon.

 

Presumably the woman who handed Ned Stark the baby is the Wylla from Starfall.

And, technically, it was never explicit that all of the "seven facing three" except for Ned and Howland died. Just strongly implied between the making of cairns, their lack of known presence anywhere since, and "but only two lived to ride away". The wording leaves open the possibly that some lived but did not or could not ride away, and instead were loaded into a litter, cart, wagon, travois, etc, and were carried away or some lived and walked away. I wouldn't care to lay odds on it, but, the wording does leave a loophole. In the books, that is, in the show it was six against two and everybody but Ned and Howland clearly died. I'm not sure why the show went to six against two from seven facing three.

Money and time. The same excuses for everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 5:31 AM, Marco van Panter said:

Ashara Dayne maybe?

No. Ashara was a highborn lady and a teenager, who will know absolutely nothing about childbirth.

The women there would have been a midwife, and (almost certainly) a wet nurse. Highborn girls did not dirty their hands with something like that, and they absolutely would not have breast fed their child. So Lyanna would have needed two commoners for that.

And in any case, Ashara would have been heavily pregnant herself, and laid up in confinement at Starfall at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 4:19 AM, Kytheros said:

Um ... no.

First, Edric "Ned" Dayne's mother would have been Lady Dayne - she's not a wetnurse, she's someone who has wetnurses for her children.

Second, Ned Dayne is several years younger than Jon.

 

Presumably the woman who handed Ned Stark the baby is the Wylla from Starfall.

And, technically, it was never explicit that all of the "seven facing three" except for Ned and Howland died. Just strongly implied between the making of cairns, their lack of known presence anywhere since, and "but only two lived to ride away". The wording leaves open the possibly that some lived but did not or could not ride away, and instead were loaded into a litter, cart, wagon, travois, etc, and were carried away or some lived and walked away. I wouldn't care to lay odds on it, but, the wording does leave a loophole. In the books, that is, in the show it was six against two and everybody but Ned and Howland clearly died. I'm not sure why the show went to six against two from seven facing three.

As for only two riding away, what they meant was two nobles. Small folk did not warrant mention since they were no one. All of the people involved would have had squires and servants to assist them. So there would have been other people there as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 10:10 AM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I can only guess that Wylla was one of them.

Probably not Wylla, since she was a servant of the Daynes. Arthur would not have had a female servant, and if Wylla was able to wet nurse, she would have remained at Starfall so as to be service to Lady Ashara.

One could argue that she did not work for the Daynes at the time and might have remained at Starfall after Ned went there, but why would she do that when Ashara (supposedly) had a stillborn daughter by then, and Jon would have needed a wet nurse on the trip to Winterfell.

Wylla's role does not make a whole lot of sense. And since Robert apparently knew her name, even 15 years later, you have to think that she may be more significant than being just a handy wet nurse. What was so special about her that he would remember her name all these years later? Perhaps he knew there was something peculiar about the whole situation and was fishing to try and trip Ned up to find out what really was going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2016 at 4:35 PM, jbob said:

Howland Reed will appear next season, I'm calling it. Bran will tell Meera and either she or both will fetch Howland. That will be their main story for that season.

I like this idea. There has to be some form of proof given to Jon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2016 at 10:07 AM, tugela said:

Probably not Wylla, since she was a servant of the Daynes.

And?

On 12/7/2016 at 10:07 AM, tugela said:

Arthur would not have had a female servant, and if Wylla was able to wet nurse, she would have remained at Starfall so as to be service to Lady Ashara.

Arthur was a part of Rhaegar's conspiracy and he was the only one who had people who he could trust near.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

And?

Arthur was a part of Rhaegar's conspiracy and he was the only one who had people who he could trust near.

And? Well, if she was a servant at the Dayne household then she would have been there at Starfall, attending to Ashara, who was about to give birth to Daenerys at the same time. Taking care of Ashara and her child would have been a higher priority to the Daynes that helping Rhaegar commit treason.

Plus, if Lyanna was holed up in the tower of joy, she would probably want to keep that fact a secret, and the best way to do that would be to recruit servants from local small folk. People who lived in the immediate vicinity of the tower, and provided service to the tower. That would minimize the risk of word getting out since there was no mass communication in medieval society and people did not travel further than walking distance from where they lived. The local peasants would have been illiterate and would have no idea who Lyanna was, other than that she was highborn. Bringing people in from hundreds of miles away, who would have been aware of what was happening in Westeros with respect to Lyanna, would attract far too much attention potentially.

Arthur was part of the conspiracy, but I don't believe he would have exposed either his family or his prince to that sort of risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 1:13 AM, sharding85 said:

I like this idea. There has to be some form of proof given to Jon. 

Why? It will not change anything for him. in fact, it could even undermine his position because he would no longer be Ned Stark's son, and that might give some northern lords pause for providing support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tugela said:

And? Well, if she was a servant at the Dayne household then she would have been there at Starfall, attending to Ashara, who was about to give birth to Daenerys at the same time. Taking care of Ashara and her child would have been a higher priority to the Daynes that helping Rhaegar commit treason.

I had forgotten that in a parallel universe Jon and Dany had the same age.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tugela said:

Why? It will not change anything for him. in fact, it could even undermine his position because he would no longer be Ned Stark's son, and that might give some northern lords pause for providing support.

And why would Jon, son of Lyanna, raised as a son by Ned, be objectionable to the Northern Lords? Especially since they just went and proclaimed him their King.

 

1 hour ago, tugela said:

And? Well, if she was a servant at the Dayne household then she would have been there at Starfall, attending to Ashara, who was about to give birth to Daenerys at the same time. Taking care of Ashara and her child would have been a higher priority to the Daynes that helping Rhaegar commit treason.

Plus, if Lyanna was holed up in the tower of joy, she would probably want to keep that fact a secret, and the best way to do that would be to recruit servants from local small folk. People who lived in the immediate vicinity of the tower, and provided service to the tower. That would minimize the risk of word getting out since there was no mass communication in medieval society and people did not travel further than walking distance from where they lived. The local peasants would have been illiterate and would have no idea who Lyanna was, other than that she was highborn. Bringing people in from hundreds of miles away, who would have been aware of what was happening in Westeros with respect to Lyanna, would attract far too much attention potentially.

Arthur was part of the conspiracy, but I don't believe he would have exposed either his family or his prince to that sort of risk.

Ashara was not at Starfall, pregnant with Daenerys. Ashara was never at Starfall pregnant with Daenerys. Ashara was never pregnant with Daenerys. Daenerys is about 8 months younger than Jon, and born on Dragonstone, per GRRM.

Ashara may or may not have been pregnant during the events of ToJ. She might never have been pregnant. If she ever were pregnant, and the baby survived, her child would have remained at Starfall afterwards.

 

ToJ-local smallfolk would gossip about the strangers in the tower with a pregnant highborn lady, presuming there were any. It is far safer to bring in an already trusted servant of the Daynes - House Dayne and Starfall is out of the way for pretty much everything, so once she was back there, there's little or no cause to be concerned about the knowledge getting out. Even supposing that there were a pregnant Ashara at Starfall at the time -  which is pure speculation - it's easier and safer for there to be a locally sourced (ie, Dayne-smallfolk) temporary wetnurse at Starfall, whilst Wylla is at the ToJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, tugela said:

Why? It will not change anything for him. in fact, it could even undermine his position because he would no longer be Ned Stark's son, and that might give some northern lords pause for providing support.

Because they wouldn't have built up the plot line for 5 books and 6 seasons for Jon to hear this by hearsay. If anything being Rheagar's son along with being a stark will only cement his position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it would be interesting to know who the young woman was with the long dark hair, I do not think the show is going to tell us.  The wording in the book tells us that 'they' found Ned, so I always assumed there were serving folks, cooks and such at the tower, esp since Lyanna was carrying a royal child.  If there is to be another flashback, I would prefer the tourney at Harrenhall.  I can live with not knowing some servants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...