Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread

[Black Crow]

38 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Yah, i can go with this explanation.

I'd also add to this that while Oberyn Martell is gathering an army in the name of Viserys Targaryen and no doubt has thoughtfully had the appropriate banners made, he still has a big problem; he is a Dornish prince proposing to invade the Kingdoms at the head of a Dornish army. He needs the three white cloaks of the King's Guard to ride with him, not to command the army by any means but to demonstrate that it is indeed the army of Viserys Targaryen around which all leal subjects should rally.

[WeaselPie]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

Is this a religious debate? Are the "semi-canon" sources of information now the Gnostic Gospels? Is the Martin's app now the equivalent of the Gospel of Mary, where the mere mention of which brands you as a heretic. Or is this a search for evidence? Where all evidence is weighed and evaluated for it's own worth. I don't throw out uncontradicted, well supported, and clear evidence because other readers have decided I can't raise the evidence in debate.

Weasel, because you and some others have decided a priori knowledge of what is acceptable as a source doesn't mean the rest of us must bow down to your "superior knowledge."  It is frankly a stupid argument. Tell me why the evidence I cited is likely wrong, and we can have a productive discussion. Tell me evidence must be ruled out because of what is designated "canon" or what is "semi-canon" and we get nowhere. I don't agree with the entire approach.

Um.  That was a direct quote from the author himself.    You can not agree with him all you want.  Don't kill the messenger.

[SFDanny]

22 minutes ago, WeaselPie said:

Um.  That was a direct quote from the author himself.    You can not agree with him all you want.  Don't kill the messenger.

I have never disputed the author divided his published written works from other sources, including his own quoted comments. Canon and semi-canon as he likes to call them. I dispute the notion that he wants us to ignore his semi-canon sources, including what he says, which you obviously don't alway do, when it suites you. Or can you show me where George tells us to ignore and reject his comments and his other semi-canon sources? Because he doesn't.

It seems fairly clear to me that Martin has divided his sources into these two categories in order to warn readers he is more likely to change what appears in his quoted remarks and sources like the app, than what appears in the pages of his books. That's fair enough. So how does that get you the right to substitute your view of what can be considered as evidence for what the author does? Obviously, when Martin makes public comments -  a semi-canon source - he isn't doing so with the idea readers should ignore what he says. Nor does he approve sources like the app without the idea it would be useful for the reader's understanding.

The categorical rejection of semi-canon sources is not George's idea, it is your own and that of a small subset of readers, don't blame Martin for your idea.

[LynnS]

37 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

The categorical rejection of semi-canon sources

I don't understand.  What is a semi-canon source?

[wolfmaid7]

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Is this a religious debate? Are the "semi-canon" sources of information now the Gnostic Gospels? Is the Martin's app now the equivalent of the Gospel of Mary, where the mere mention of which brands you as a heretic. Or is this a search for evidence? Where all evidence is weighed and evaluated for it's own worth. I don't throw out uncontradicted, well supported, and clear evidence because other readers have decided I can't raise the evidence in debate.

Weasel, because you and some others have decided a priori knowledge of what is acceptable as a source doesn't mean the rest of us must bow down to your "superior knowledge."  It is frankly a stupid argument. Tell me why the evidence I cited is likely wrong, and we can have a productive discussion. Tell me evidence must be ruled out because of what is designated "canon" or what is "semi-canon" and we get nowhere. I don't agree with the entire approach.

Ok, the larger question is what pov does this info represent and is it reliable and logical? Its not.

 

[Black Crow]

11 minutes ago, LynnS said:

I don't understand.  What is a semi-canon source?

How long is a piece of string?

Canon is what GRRM has written in the published books.

Semi-canon is what he has said at one time or another or has supposedly approved. It comes from the man himself, sometimes once or twice removed, but he reserves the right to change his mind, to be enigmatic and not to tell the whole story.

An uncontroversial example would be his readings of as yet unpublished chapters. There are sometimes differences between what he reads and what what becomes the final version.

[LynnS]

40 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

How long is a piece of string?

Canon is what GRRM has written in the published books.

Semi-canon is what he has said at one time or another or has supposedly approved. It comes from the man himself, sometimes once or twice removed, but he reserves the right to change his mind, to be enigmatic and not to tell the whole story.

An uncontroversial example would be his readings of as yet unpublished chapters. There are sometimes differences between what he reads and what what becomes the final version.

Great.  Even if something is canon; there's always the unreliable narrator to make things clear.  

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

I don't understand.  What is a semi-canon source?

 The author's public remarks and the app are among those things he has called "semi-canon."

 

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Ok, the larger question is what pov does this info represent and is it reliable and logical? Its not.

 

How is this entry unreliable and illogical? 

[wolfmaid7]

22 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

How is this entry unreliable and illogical? 

Think about the environment,Rhaegar's condition at death.How did the Maester arrive at "Rhaegar would die with Lyanna's name on his lips".

Given the environment how likely was that to have had happen.For in that melee, Rhaegar with his caved in chest to have uttered a name,any name audible and discernable enough to say it was a woman's name and that woman was Lyanna?

Singers started that crap because it makes for a good,romantically tragic tale.

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Singers started that crap because it makes for a good,romantically tragic tale.

Elder Brother tells Brienne that the singers would have you believe Rhaegar and Robert were fighting over the love of a woman; but that it was really about the throne.  

[wolfmaid7]

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

Elder Brother tells Brienne that the singers would have you believe Rhaegar and Robert were fighting over the love of a woman; but that it was really about the throne.  

Bingo!!! Sounds better.

[JNR]

7 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Is this a religious debate? Are the "semi-canon" sources of information now the Gnostic Gospels? Is the Martin's app now the equivalent of the Gospel of Mary, where the mere mention of which brands you as a heretic. Or is this a search for evidence? Where all evidence is weighed and evaluated for it's own worth. I don't throw out uncontradicted, well supported, and clear evidence because other readers have decided I can't raise the evidence in debate.

Weasel, because you and some others have decided a priori knowledge of what is acceptable as a source doesn't mean the rest of us must bow down to your "superior knowledge."  It is frankly a stupid argument. Tell me why the evidence I cited is likely wrong, and we can have a productive discussion. Tell me evidence must be ruled out because of what is designated "canon" or what is "semi-canon" and we get nowhere. I don't agree with the entire approach.

SFDanny -- you seem a fairly decent sort.  Reasonably reasonable.  Even on Sable Hall, I gave you and Kingmonkey credit for this. 

So I'll answer your questions.

The fundamental issue at work here, which goes far beyond any trivial argument about whether Lyanna was at the ToJ, is the attitude that has been expressed so many times, for so many years, that R+L=J is "unwritten canon," or "100% probable," or a "dead lock," or "rock solid."  

Well, that's fine per se, but if people are going to drop that kind of assessment, they'll be held accountable for it.  It's not the kind of statement anybody else has ever made about any other theory of Jon's parentage. 

So, given that context, of course R+L=J is going to be held to a dramatically higher standard of evaluation.

And when it's apparent that Rhaegar and Lyanna can't be shown as having had a conversation... that they can't be shown to have spent five minutes alone together... that Rhaegar can't be shown as ever having been in the ToJ... that even Lyanna's presence in the ToJ is tied, in canon, solely to a fever dream...

Well.  That's revealing.  It shows that this purportedly 100% sure thing is a little -- shall we say -- flimsier than 100% probable.  There is a gross contradiction between the claim and the reality.

it's a little silly to object that we also can't show (for example) Ned and Ashara spent five minutes alone together prior to Jon being born.   Because you see, nobody ever said that N + A = J is unwritten canon, or 100% probable, or a dead lock in the first place!  

There's no absurd claim of unwritten canonicity to dispute for that theory; it's just an idea somebody floated, once upon a time.  It was only ever said to be a theory, and it was a theory.  There's nothing to defend as a supposedly sure thing.

Re the importance of canon. In making a case for any theory about ASOIAF at all, I stick to unquestionably canonical sources, plus SSMs, because I consider things GRRM wrote to be dramatically superior, as evidence, to things other people wrote. 

Surely we can agree that D&D or Ran... for instance... however friendly they may be with GRRM... however many business projects they may share... fall far short of GRRM, in terms of authority concerning the world of ASOIAF.  

We also know, because they've said so in public, that D&D and Ran do not have even a tiny fraction of the information about future ASOIAF books in their heads that GRRM has in his. 

So this is why I, at least, have always used the same algorithm as Kingmonkey when deciding which sources to consider worth a turd when I evaluate theories:

Quote

I'm pretty much the "doubt everything that isn't canon and be extremely suspicious of that too" type

Yep.  So... I fear that an app GRRM never wrote -- as just one instance -- does not rise to an adequate level.  And I also point out that it has no POV basis to justify epistemological analysis. 

What do I mean by that?  When GRRM writes "it was said" Rhaegar named the tower of joy, he knows exactly what he is doing.  He is not telling us Rhaegar named it that.  He is telling us Ned heard, in some way, from an unknown source... of unknown credibility... that Rhaegar named it that.  It's for us to assess whether it's true or not, based on what we know.

As trustworthy information goes, it doesn't come close to, for instance, the information that Ned went into the crypts with Robert, which we saw through Ned's eyes at it happened and can absolutely be certain about.

That Rhaegar named the ToJ might be right.  If it is right, I wouldn't be surprised.  But I am aware it could easily be bullshit.  And as for Rhaegar's motive to name it that... we are nowhere close to being able to say that with any certainty.  I could easily imagine a hundred different explanations.  As evidence of a purported love relationship with Lyanna, I find it mighty thin soup.

Now, the app?  Compared to that? Has no POV structure at all.  Doesn't even try.  Just presents a pile of info and expects us to trust it all, despite being full of absurd premises and contradictions from the canon GRRM so painstakingly wrote.   Its reliability can't be assessed rigorously because there's no in-world source for any of that information.

So I roll my eyes at it, and am glad I didn't waste my money on such a thing.  Especially given that a real novel, really written by GRRM, full of real fiction based on real POV scenes, is soon going to be in our hands.

[Kingmonkey]

On 28/08/2016 at 5:24 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Unfortunately, i don't see that it happened any differently,specifically i don't see that they didn't have sex at Harrenhall and concieve Jon..

Nor should you see that. Just like you should not see that they DID -- because neither instance has been shown. You have attempted to demonstrate that the symbolism itself shows that they must have had sex at Harrenhal. I don't preclude the possibility, however I have shown that the symbolism also works -- I'd say rather better, due to the false spring thing -- for Lyanna and Robert not having sex, symbolically or literally.

I am not attempting to prove your hypothesis wrong, I am showing that the observation that you use, is by no means exclusive of the conclusion you draw from it, and is therefore not evidence of that conclusion. 

On 28/08/2016 at 5:24 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Secondly,Kingmonkey Lyanna and Robert not getting married doesn't exclude that under the right circumstances they could have had sex.

Ummmm yes? 

Ah I think I understand where you're coming from with this. I'm not arguing that they couldn't have had sex because they weren't married (I don't think Rhaegar and Lyanna had to be married either). I'm making the point that the fact they were supposed to be married and were not, due to the intervention of Rhaegar -- and that if we are to follow the thematic parallel of the rite, where Rhaegar also intervened, it's hardly a stretch to think that the sacred marriage between Robert and Lyanna didn't take place either. The apparently unique event of the false spring supports this reading.

On 28/08/2016 at 5:24 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Some arguements are a win some are a lose and i think this one you can't win.

Quite possibly not -- mainly because you're not really responding beyond disagreeing.  However you've given me something to actually get my teeth into this time, so...

On 28/08/2016 at 5:24 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

The point of the great rite in Beltane is that its about bringing about change, prosperity,removing the old etc. THAT  did happen.The Targs after 300 yrs of their rule and ways were made low by Robert's war hammer.

Yet that change was nearly two years later, at a time when, according to Robert himself, Rhaegar has Lyanna and Robert has Cersei. Nor was it a more prosperous time -- Robert's reign saw the coffers run dry. However the festival is more specific than simply "bringing about change" -- it's quite specifically about bringing about a change from winter to summer. That is absolutely central to what we're dealing with here. All the symbolism concerns fertility, growth, a shift from a period of death to one of life, etc. In this context we are given the unique detail of the "False Spring". Do you think that unique detail is irrelevant background?

Certainly, Robert seems to be the Horned King, and Lyanna is the Queen of May. Certainly, we would expect them to have sex. I agree with all that. However:

The only sexual symbolism we're given is between Rhaegar and Lyanna.

The festival is most fundamentally one of optimism, yet at Rhaegar's actions, "all smiles died".

The return to fertility that should be marked by the festival failed with the end of the "false spring".

All this points to the significant possibility that what was supposed to happen at the rite -- the "sacred marriage" of Robert and Lyanna having sex -- did not take place, because of Rhaegar's intervention. This perfectly mirrors what we know happened in the mundane realm. Robert and Lyanna's actual marriage did not take place because of Rhaegar's intervention.

I'm not expecting you to drop your hypothesis and accept that what I'm saying here must be what GRRM intended -- but just look how well this symbolism works. You can't simply disregard it without reason. Thus the existence of the rite symbolism in GRRM's Harrenhal narrative simply cannot be strong evidence that Robert and Lyanna had sex. Granted that's one interpretation of GRRM's use of this symbolism, but it's not even the strongest interpretation. With significant supporting evidence elsewhere this could be a piece of the puzzle, but you're presenting it as the central pillar of evidence, and it just doesn't hold up.

 

On 28/08/2016 at 5:24 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Lastly,you call can't assert and be confident in what you are saying and be offended that others are.

You misunderstand me. I'm not asserting that this is what DID happen. I'm disagreeing with your assertion that your interpretation is what DID happen, by showing that there is an alternative reading of the evidence that is if anything a better fit for the symbolism. 

On 28/08/2016 at 5:24 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Kingmonkey you know you are proving my point with these examples do you. Arryan was claoked and hooded when he went to see Gendry because he didn't want anyone to see it was him.He was concealing his identity.Cersie was cloaked and hooded because she didn't want anyone to see it was "her" going to see her brother.Othor was cloaked and hooded because without it,it would be evident with his blue eyes and the fact that you know his body was on display for the entire watch to see earlier.Edric storm is cloaked and hooded because they didn't want anyone to know who was being snuck out of Dragonstone.

Precisely so, but that's not proving your point. You argued that being cloaked and hooded indicates that the figure in question was someone other than who they were believed to be -- which is untrue in every single one of the instances provided. 

Rhaella was cloaked and hooded for the same reason that all these other people were cloaked and hooded -- because she was going in secret and hiding her face.  

On 28/08/2016 at 5:24 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Every example you gave,everyone we know because we saw of the character who was claoked and hooded told us so etc. To the looker they didn't know who was under the claok which is the point.

Not true of Jon spotting Othor. Not true of Brienne meeting Stoneheart. Not true of Ned meeting Cersei, cloaked and hooded to hid the signs of her husband's violence towards her. Just not true. 

On 28/08/2016 at 5:24 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

I agree with you with 100% GRRM is giving us Jamie's memory of that day.He saw a cloaked and hooded figure and thought it was the queen.Be the looker my friend what and who are all these people seeing?

Someone who didn't want to be seen. Who might, perhaps, not have actually been Rhaella. It's not impossible, of course. However the claim that GRRM wouldn't have included that detail unless it was a stand-in simply doesn't stand up to analysis when he uses the same detail time and time again without it ever indicating that in any other instance.

On 28/08/2016 at 5:24 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

I hate to disgree ,but i disagree.Based on what constituites a mystery this isn't.The very definition of a mystery is:

Something that is difficult.It is a puzzle,and enigma,a problem a riddle.This is neither.

Puzzles are MEANT to have solutions. That doesn't stop them being puzzles. GRRM's timeline statement does not immediately drop the answer into the reader's lap -- it's only useful taken in conjunction with a number of other details. Even then, as you yourself acknowledge with the Arthur/Rhaegar point, it's not enough to provide a singular answer. 

This is an author who comes up with a character in disguise who's adopted name is simply their own name backwards. Of course he's not going to think that his mysteries should be too obscure to solve!

[Kingmonkey]

On 28/08/2016 at 6:04 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Ned isn't passing off his son as an 18mth old,that unfortunately is a creation of fans.Ned has only ever done one thing.Let anyone and everyone draw their own conclusion about Jon;denying nothing,validating nothing.He has been completely,mum on the subject of Jon.

What do you base that on? Jon has a nameday, for example. Do you assume that people in Winterfell just picked a day at random and declared that his nameday,  because Ned refused to confirm or deny when Jon's actual nameday was? Ned refuses to talk about Jon's mother, but there's no reason to assume he hasn't been precise on the wheres and whens of Jon's birth.

On the other hand, if we were to accept that assumption, then the age problem gets worse, not better.  It's hard enough to credit the notion that Ned could turn up with a near two year old and claim he was born a couple of months ago without raising a whole lot of eyebrows, but if he wasn't saying when the kid was born, why would anyone assume it was only a couple of months ago rather than believing the evidence of their own eyes?

On 28/08/2016 at 6:04 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

And that has created a situation whereby people in authority have crafted all these characteristic about bastards to avoid the truth,the uncomfortable truth.Jon is older than the Lord's legitamate son.I speak ofcourse about those intimately close to the family because let's face it.The rest of Westeros don't know who came first and they don't care because they have other things to worry about.

That's a very distinct possibility, but we're talking weeks, not years.

If you put a 1.5-2 year old down next to a 3 month old and claim the 3 month old is the eldest, then bastard or not, nobody's going to buy it for a second. Robb would be just about capable of babbling and vaguely clutching his hands in the general direction of nearby objects, while Jon would be walking and talking, and twice Robb's size. This age gap simply does not work. Jon was not conceived at Harrenhal. 

 

[Kingmonkey]

On 29/08/2016 at 4:04 AM, Sly Wren said:

Or, that we don't yet know the point? The fight itself is symbolically connected to the Others--blue as the eyes of death. As I yammered about above--that's the only time that phrase gets used in the books. ONLY as the fight begins. 

It's a very curious and provocative phrase, I agree. It could indeed indicate some esoteric point for the event occurring in the story, but my problem is to why the event took place in world rather than why it was included in the story. I think we all agree that Ned didn't do what he did at the ToJ with the purpose of causing the return of the Others or anything like that -- if there is some causal link, then it's something that happened as an unintended consequence. This leaves the question of why Ned did what he did.

On 29/08/2016 at 4:04 AM, Sly Wren said:

As for the "narrative" sense of their being in Dorne--if they are guarding Rhaegar's pregnant mistress/wife who isn't Lyanna (say, Ashara)--then their fighting isn't pointless at all. Either in the moment of the fight nor in the symbolism and thematic needs of the story.

Oh sure, I wouldn't dream of saying that there's no way there could be a point, but it would require some additional thing that hasn't been mentioned yet to give us that point, and that I have trouble with. At this point in the story, I think we should have heard something. As for your suggestion above -- yeah, that could just about work. Most scenarios raise a huge problem of why nobody would have mentioned it, but maybe Ned would have kept that quiet for Ashara's sake.

Might Ned's anger at Ashara being discussed, and his peculiar sympathies to and with the Daynes, suggest that he'd hide such a massive truth out of respect for Ashara? That's a tricky one. I'm in the camp that suspects Ned had a thing for Ashara and would have done quite a lot for her, but then Ned's attitudes towards Rhaegar doesn't really paint him as Ned's rival in love. 

On 29/08/2016 at 4:04 AM, Sly Wren said:

If my sketchy scenario laid out above were to hold, would you still say it the current story should have had a different outcome for ALJ?

The Brotherhood without Banners (complete with Beric who is full of Arthur Dayne imagery) hold onto a Stark maid--to protect her and to get money for her. But Arya is not their primary mission, even in the moment when they declare their loyalty to their dead King's mission. If Lyanna were in a similar situation--that would fit thematically, no? The KG at the tower would have a different mission, is all. Not "Stark Maid" oriented.

I rather like the Arthur + Lyanna theories. There's some nice symbolism there, and though there's very little indicative of it, in a way that helps the theory, as it means there's not much scope for contradiction either. However, if Lyanna was simply hanging out with her main squeeze Arthur while he was on guard duty, it's hard to see why the misunderstanding would have lasted so long. Couldn't she have just written Ned a letter? And why would Ned have kept it secret? With this scenario, what is there to hide?

 Perhaps the biggest problem I have with this scenario is the question of why Ned left his army behind and took only six men with him to the ToJ. If we can consider this a final battle of the war where Lyanna just happened to be present, then I'd expect Ned to have turned up with overwhelming force. The fact that he chose not to suggest that he had some reason to suspect, or hope, that a fight wouldn't be necessary. If there was an heir of Rhaegar's by someone other than Lyanna there, then either Ned knew and wanted to seize the heir -- in which case he would have known no compromise was possible and would have brought an army -- or knew and didn't want to seize the heir, in which case there was no reason to fight, or he didn't know, in which case the 3KGs purpose would be far better served by agreeing to hand Lyanna over and slipping away with the real prize rather than making a last stand. 

[Kingmonkey]

On 29/08/2016 at 11:14 PM, Tucu said:

In the first book GRRM makes us think that the tower of joy is in an isolated place in Dorne. A place where the KG were hiding something. But in the following books he shows us that the tower was in the Prince's Pass, the main entry point to Dorne. This is like hiding in the Inn at the Crossroads.

This is a common objection, but I think it fails to recognise the sheer size of the Prince's Pass. It's the main route through a massive mountain range, so it narrows the point of entry into Dorne hugely, but it's still a very big place. Judging by the maps it's in the range of 2-300 miles long and up to 50-60 miles wide. It's the size of a small country. Somewhere between say Jamaica and Denmark. There may be choke points that an army couldn't pass without being challenged, but there's plenty of space for seven men on horseback to go unnoticed -- or for a handful of people to occupy an abandoned watchtower for months on end without attracting attention. 

 

 

[SFDanny]

5 hours ago, JNR said:

SFDanny -- you seem a fairly decent sort.  Reasonably reasonable.  Even on Sable Hall, I gave you and Kingmonkey credit for this. 

So I'll answer your questions.

<clip>

Now, the app?  Compared to that? Has no POV structure at all.  Doesn't even try.  Just presents a pile of info and expects us to trust it all, despite being full of absurd premises and contradictions from the canon GRRM so painstakingly wrote.   Its reliability can't be assessed rigorously because there's no in-world source for any of that information.

So I roll my eyes at it, and am glad I didn't waste my money on such a thing.  Especially given that a real novel, really written by GRRM, full of real fiction based on real POV scenes, is soon going to be in our hands.

The first part of this doesn't answer my questions and instead raises arguments I haven't made. I appreciate the kind words and tone, but I've never claimed R+L=J is a certainty. Instead, I've tried to state clearly that I think the author has gone to great lengths to keep other possibilities alive for the solution of who are Jon's parents. I certainly think it likely R+L=J true, but that doesn't mean I can't see other solutions. I've postulated in the past meetings of both Wylla or Ashara with Ned during the time it is likely Jon is conceived. So, your characterizations just don't apply to my positions. 

As to the app, it isn't meant to have one in-world pov. It is the author's attempt to give readers a way to easily access information he thinks the readers should know. That doesn't mean it is always reliable, any more than the books and their detailed povs are always reliable. Martin doesn't want the reader to be able to go to the app and find out mysteries he doesn't want us to know yet. So, search as  you might there is no confirmation of who Jon's parents are, or any of the other tantalizing questions he wants us to puzzle out. So, it is certainly likely that there are false leads in the app. Again, just like the books. That is why each entry needs to be evaluated, not discarded because you don't like the format.

The entry in question is very plain. It tells us exactly where Lyanna dies. The question should be does this contradict information we get from other sources? From the books? From the author's own words? No, it doesn't. In fact the books support the entry in the app. How the entry reads is rather more likely a reflection that the author doesn't think this is something we need to wonder about. I would also point out the location of Lyanna's death really proves nothing about any of the various theories of who are Jon's parents.

There are no such clues suggesting some other place as the location of Lyanna's death. I've read some theories in these threads that make assumptions based on nothing other than the sometimes interesting theories of fans just making stuff up. Nothing wrong with spinning crackpot tales, as long as we don't assume our musings substitute for clues.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

How does the Robert + Lyanna = Jon theory reconcile itself with the fact that Baratheons are supposed to have black hair and blue eyes, no matter who the other parent is? 

[wolfmaid7]

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

What do you base that on? Jon has a nameday, for example. Do you assume that people in Winterfell just picked a day at random and declared that his nameday,  because Ned refused to confirm or deny when Jon's actual nameday was? Ned refuses to talk about Jon's mother, but there's no reason to assume he hasn't been precise on the wheres and whens of Jon's birth.

On the other hand, if we were to accept that assumption, then the age problem gets worse, not better.  It's hard enough to credit the notion that Ned could turn up with a near two year old and claim he was born a couple of months ago without raising a whole lot of eyebrows, but if he wasn't saying when the kid was born, why would anyone assume it was only a couple of months ago rather than believing the evidence of their own eyes?

True Jon has a name day and i don't think it unreasonable that Jon's name day was picked,not randomly, but so that it came after Robb.Where's and when leads to questions, its far better for Ned to just let people think what they wish and he has done that.But to further clarify what i mean Ned comes home with Jon from wherever all he would have had to say is "this is my son" and that's it.No one,no matter how suspicious it looked is going to ask or question it  because Ned's their Lord .Plus,really from any outsiders point of view Ned could have fathered Jon before he married Cat..And every treatment of Jon as if he's a second son was done in order to secure Robb's inheritance,and staus at WF.

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

That's a very distinct possibility, but we're talking weeks, not years.

If you put a 1.5-2 year old down next to a 3 month old and claim the 3 month old is the eldest, then bastard or not, nobody's going to buy it for a second. Robb would be just about capable of babbling and vaguely clutching his hands in the general direction of nearby objects, while Jon would be walking and talking, and twice Robb's size. This age gap simply does not work. Jon was not conceived at Harrenhal. 

I think the problem is assuming Ned was actively passing off Jon as younger than Rob or he was attempting to somehow hide Jon's age.We have no proof of that.We have proof of Ned's avoidance.What we do have is two incidences that indicate that Jon could be older based on what opinions people formed or stories they concocted ,AND no one cares ---because no one cares.Those who do care and are a bit suspect have a dog in this race and its not Jon because ,it keeps the whole bastard and legits dynamics the way that society feels it should be.In this case Robb in a position that has him at every social advantage..

Consider this,per the Fisher man's daughter story, Ned seeded Jon at the begining of RR...In that scenario he's most definitely older than Robb and nobody cares.Why?Its got nothing to do with them,its not going to serve them and the more logical he's being passed off as a second son for Robb sake.There's status that associated with being born first.

Second,Jon's reply to Benjen when he requested to go to the Wall.

Quote

“Take me with you when you go back to the Wall,” Jon said in a sudden rush. “Father will give me leave to go if you ask him, I know he will.”
Uncle Benjen studied his face carefully. “The Wall is a hard place for a boy, Jon.”
“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.”“That’s true enough,” Benjen said with a downward twist of his mouth."

Now we've had the arguements about this "grow up faster" and i've stated that IMO its obvious what's being spoken about is maturity.Bastards mature faster and i think Jon hitting puberty before Robb is what caused this query.In a game of " guess the question" what could have been said or asked that prompted Maester Luuwin to say this.Most definitely Jon's appearance.

Lastly,atleast for a while Cat would have been to preoccupied with Robb,settling into WF,dealing with laying loveed ones to rest the whole grieving.Doing a side by side comparision would be put off for a while not until the bys were old enough to interact,by then the gap wouldn't be noticible.