Why Ned let Jon join the KW knowing of his heritage?

[The Ice Wolf of Loki]

On 29/06/2016 at 1:33 PM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Jon could have went anywhere he wanted, his father is the Lord of the North. A raven to any of his vassals asking them to accept his son as a part of their Household would have been gladly accepted. He also could have taken him to Kings Landing or asked any number of his southern allies (such as the Tullys) to accept them into their Household.

 

Hell Ned could probably have paid for Jon to go on an all expenses trip adventuring in Essos with some hand picked companions.

[Free Northman Reborn]

You assume that the Iron Throne is something that one would wish onto someone you love. Ned didn't care about the Iron Throne. He cared about Jon's safety.

However, I do agree that only in Ned's extremely twisted view of a life worth living would you see value in having your nephew live out his life on the freezing pile of shit that is the Wall, robbed of any chance to have children or a family.

To Ned, the honor of that choice was something worth striving for. To any normal person it should be the last thing on earth you wish for someone you care about.

But that's Ned for you. Honor above all else, even above happiness.

[Manderly's Rat Cook]

On 30-6-2016 at 0:04 AM, Masha said:

 Edric was curiously interested in Jon, and I don't buy "milk brothers theory", why would a Heir to an old and honorable House of Dayne be interested in some northern bastard even though they might have been milk brothers. 

Also, it doesn't go well with me. Milk Brothers = babies born within few months of each other, fed by breastmilk of the same woman/milk nurse. (unlike super-mother Lysa, most women usually start losing their milk at around 6 months after child's birth and if baby doesn't continuously eat they lose it sooner) So Jon is 14 years old and Edric is 12. So, unless Wylla had another child 2 years later at the near the same time as Edric was borne, I sincerely doubt that she could have been Jon's mother and Edric's milk nurse.  And if she did have another child - an actual milk-brother to Edric, he doesn't seem to care about him, his actual milk-brother, the one he should have grown up with.

Or more likely, Wylla is an excuse to find out about Jon

This is not true. It was not uncommon in history to nurse a child for up to 4 years,  because it reduces the chances of pregnancy. A woman stops producing milk when she stops breastfeeding,  which in western culture usually would be around 6 months. 

Some quotes from Wikipedia on wet nurses :

Quote

A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds and cares for another's child.^[1] Wet nurses are employed when the mother is unable or chooses not to nurse the child herself. Wet-nursed children may be known as "milk-siblings", and in some cultures the families are linked by a special relationship of milk kinship. Mothers who nurse each other's babies are engaging in a reciprocal act known as cross-nursing or co-nursing.

Quote

A woman can only act as a wet-nurse if she islactating. It was once believed that a wet-nurse must have recently undergone childbirth. This is not necessarily true, as regular breast suckling can elicit lactation via a neural reflex of prolactin production and secretion.^[6] Some adoptive mothers have been able to establish lactation using a breast pump so that they could feed an adopted infant.^[7]

Dr Gabrielle Palmer^[8] states:

There is no medical reason why women should not lactate indefinitely or feed more than one child simultaneously (known as 'tandem feeding')... some women could theoretically be able to feed up to five babies.^[9]

Quote

Wet nursing is an ancient practice, common to many cultures. It has been linked to social class, where monarchies, the aristocracy,nobility or upper classes had their children wet-nursed in the hope of becoming pregnant again quickly. Lactation inhibits ovulation in some women, thus the practice has a rational basis. Poor women, especially those who suffered the stigma of giving birth to anillegitimate child, sometimes had to give their baby up, temporarily or permanently, to a wet-nurse.^{[citation needed]}

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Manderly's Rat Cook said:

This is not true. It was not uncommon in history to nurse a child for up to 4 years,  because it reduces the chances of pregnancy. A woman stops producing milk when she stops breastfeeding,  which in western culture usually would be Welaround 6 months. 

Some quotes from Wikipedia on wet nurses :

 

Well, Jon was not around for 4 years. He was taken North pretty much immediately. So clearly he was not the same baby that Wylla was feeding by the time Edrick arrived.

[Manderly's Rat Cook]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, Jon was not around for 4 years. He was taken North pretty much immediately. So clearly he was not the same baby that Wylla was feeding by the time Edrick arrived.

No he wasn't,  that was my response to the claim that women only lactate for 6 months,  which isn't true. There's also no indication that milk siblings should be born and nursed around the same time. The only connection necessary is that they have the same wet nurse.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Manderly's Rat Cook said:

No he wasn't,  that was my response to the claim that women only lactate for 6 months,  which isn't true. There's also no indication that milk siblings should be born and nursed around the same time. The only connection necessary is that they have the same wet nurse.

OK.

My view is not that Edrick knew anything more about Jon than he let on. Instead, I think it was just Martin's way to keep the mystery of Jon's birth at the forefront of the reader's mind.

[Manderly's Rat Cook]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

OK.

My view is not that Edrick knew anything more about Jon than he let on. Instead, I think it was just Martin's way to keep the mystery of Jon's birth at the forefront of the reader's mind.

Imo he might know a bit more,  but not the whole story. I think he was mostly interested in Jon because he was his milk-brother,  and he was aware of some mystery surrounding Jon. Perhaps he hoped that Arya would enlighten him,  only to find out that she didn't know shit.

[Guest jasonothegreat]

On 7/10/2016 at 9:52 PM, sifth said:

So as a parent, you'd be perfectly fine with your son/nephew working with former murders and rapers? If so then I'm done chatting with you.  Also Jon did not know the truth of the Night's Watch. He out right says that no one except Tyrion told him that the watch mostly consists of criminals and even that was not until he was more than half way to the Wall.

There is a huge difference in fighting in an army and fighting along side criminals who's loyalty can't be trusted. Case and point, the last two LC of the Night's Watch were murdered by their own men and not by enemy forces. If even half of the watch consisted of men like The Old Bear, Edd, Benjin and the Half Hand I would have no issue with Ned's choice, though he does lose points for not telling Jon the whole truth.

Except this isn't the 21st century I'm sure if Ned lived in the suburbs of White Harbor some thousand years in the future of Westeros and while over their take out dinner Jon said he wanted to Join an order of mostly criminals, then yeah of course no one do that. But this is the Middle Ages where Honour is above all else. If I was a Lord with a Bastard during that time, especially if I was in the North, I would send all my sons but my heir to the wall. Honour and Tradition is literally everything in the North and sending a Bastard to Serve an 8000 year old order that held heroes and tales that would take a millenia to tell? that would be a great honour and follow tradition, You can't really reason with that logic if you are in that time, where else would Jon have gone? married some less noblewoman and continue the blood that could get him killed, and if he had children, his children killed? it doesn't make much sense. During a time period like this we see that no matter what the old rings louder than the new. The same way how in our world the Austro-Hungarian empire refused to change and admit its flaws... the Empires of old don't see their current state they see their state a thousand years ago and say they did a good job. As well not to mention the Watch only recently fell into this state. Lord commander Hoare commanded 10 000 men during Aegon's Conquest and then over half a century later King Jaehaerys and Queen Alyssanne visit Castle Black and think its doing so well they give it more land. Then not even 100 years before the current events the Bloodraven was lord Commander. really the only instance we see the Night's Watch starting to fade is when Raymun Redbeard invaded and the Lord Commander was late for the war. only 82 years before the start of ASOIAF. So if Empires and Kingdoms can stay proud and honorable 500 years since they were last decent then the Night's Watch can too. In fact we should applaud the Southron lords for seeing the dwindling of the Nights Watch before it became too late. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

On 11/07/2016 at 2:52 AM, sifth said:

So as a parent, you'd be perfectly fine with your son/nephew working with former murders and rapers?

What kind of bullshit argument is this? Seriously, this is just dumb, what me or you would do in our society is vastly different to how the characters live in this fictional world.

 

On 11/07/2016 at 2:52 AM, sifth said:

 

Also Jon did not know the truth of the Night's Watch.

Yeah, he did. Jon was not an idiot, he knew full well what happened to people who committed crimes, they were sent to the Wall. This is not a secret, nor is it a secret that some of these men do not wish to stay there. He knows this as he witnesses his father execute one such chap. 

On 11/07/2016 at 2:52 AM, sifth said:

 

He out right says that no one except Tyrion told him that the watch mostly consists of criminals and even that was not until he was more than half way to the Wall.

No. He does not say that. Tyrion points out that it is not the noble adventure Jon thinks it will be, but a cold miserable life full of many people, criminals, peasants and bastards who don't want to be there.

So cold, he thought, remembering the warm halls of Winterfell, where the hot waters ran through the walls like blood through a man's body. There was scant warmth to be found in Castle Black; the walls were cold here, and the people colder.

No one had told him the Night's Watch would be like this; no one except Tyrion Lannister. The dwarf had given him the truth on the road north, but by then it had been too late. Jon wondered if his father had known what the Wall would be like. He must have, he thought; that only made it hurt the worse.

Even his uncle had abandoned him in this cold place at the end of the world. Up here, the genial Benjen Stark he had known became a different person. He was First Ranger, and he spent his days and nights with Lord Commander Mormont and Maester Aemon and the other high officers, while Jon was given over to the less than tender charge of Ser Alliser Thorne.

 

Jon is not angry about the rapists, he is angry that it is not the brotherhood that he thought it was going to be and that he does not get to spend time with his beloved uncle.

 

 

On 11/07/2016 at 2:52 AM, sifth said:

There is a huge difference in fighting in an army and fighting along side criminals who's loyalty can't be trusted.

But Jon knew criminals went to the Wall. This was not a shock to him.

On 11/07/2016 at 2:52 AM, sifth said:

Case and point, the last two LC of the Night's Watch were murdered by their own men and not by enemy forces.

Not before Jon joined the Watch. Are you critizing Ned for not being able to predict the future?

On 11/07/2016 at 2:52 AM, sifth said:

If even half of the watch consisted of men like The Old Bear, Edd, Benjin and the Half Hand I would have no issue with Ned's choice, though he does lose points for not telling Jon the whole truth.

Jon is aware of the whole truth. No one pulled the rug under his eyes, infact the speech that Tyrion gives him actually plays down the dangers of the Wall, rather makes it sound as miserable as possible and not the 'real' adventure that Jon seemed to be looking for.

"The Night's Watch is a noble calling!"

Tyrion laughed. "You're too smart to believe that. The Night's Watch is a midden heap for all the misfits of the realm. I've seen you looking at Yoren and his boys. Those are your new brothers, Jon Snow, how do you like them? Sullen peasants, debtors, poachers, rapers, thieves, and bastards like you all wind up on the Wall, watching for grumkins and snarks and all the other monsters your wet nurse warned you about. The good part is there are no grumkins or snarks, so it's scarcely dangerous work. The bad part is you freeze your balls off, but since you're not allowed to breed anyway, I don't suppose that matters."

 

Jon is not angry about the company of the men he keeps with, after all it is Ser Alliser Thorne he seems to have most issue with, rather the initial pointlessness of the situation.

 

Ironically Tyrion is actually wrong about this. It does actually become a noble and important position and there is camaraderie amongst Jon and some of his fellow brothers (certainly before he becomes LC) and he does get to rise far in rank.

[Lord Lannister]

On 6/28/2016 at 0:17 PM, Nami said:

So I know many think Jon is not a Targ bastard. But if you think that, it makes Ned a huge asshole for basically allowing Jon to give up his right on the IT and to be tied forever to the NW.
If he is a bastard then it makes sense because Jon has no claim anyway

Forget about his claim to the Iron Throne. How can you allow the boy you raised as your son to voluntarily exile himself to the edge of the world with a bunch of criminals simply because he has fairy tale illusions? Even if Ned was unwilling to overrule Catelyn's objections about keeping Jon at Winterfell, it's not as if he couldn't ask one out of any dozen bannermen to taken him in, who wouldn't be honored to do so. I even think his excuse of Robert not allowing him at court was fairly weak.