Jump to content

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread, Part II


Werthead

Recommended Posts

MyDoGIsNamedDane, clearly the promises Lyanna asked Ned to make (which he did) are important. He thinks about them constantly, even though by the time the series starts 14 years have passed. Given that a war was fought because it was thought that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna (and by the time Ned finds her Rhaegar is dead), I really don't think she was asking him to keep the fact that she was with Rhaegar a secret. "Bloody bed" is a phrase used by Maggie Maz Durr in GoT to refer to childbed, although that doesn't mean it can't also mean a bed that is bloody. An alternate theory of Jon's birth doesn't have to explain those promises . . . but eventually they do have to be explained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I have never heard anyone use "close to <firm figure>" to seriously mean beyond that figure

Has anyone else heard this usage?

For what it's worth, I agree that the phrase "close to ..." normally means "almost as much as ..." not "in excess of ...." That is my experience. If I wanted to indicate a time just over a year ago, I'd say "a little more than ...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MyDoGIsNamedDane, clearly the promises Lyanna asked Ned to make (which he did) are important. He thinks about them constantly, even though by the time the series starts 14 years have passed. Given that a war was fought because it was thought that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna (and by the time Ned finds her Rhaegar is dead), I really don't think she was asking him to keep the fact that she was with Rhaegar a secret. "Bloody bed" is a phrase used by Maggie Maz Durr in GoT to refer to childbed, although that doesn't mean it can't also mean a bed that is bloody. An alternate theory of Jon's birth doesn't have to explain those promises . . . but eventually they do have to be explained.

I never said it wasn't important. In fact, I said this was THE main issue that was not satisfactorily explained by N+A = J, and is one of the reasons R+L = J is satisfying (ties together both mysteries - what happened to Lyanna and who is Jon's mom).

However, as we dont' know exactly what Lyanna promised Ned, it's not direct proof against N+A=J either. It just means that if Ashara is Jon's mum the Lyanna mystery has a vital missing piece still to be revealed.

I have to admit, I have never heard anyone use "close to <firm figure>" to seriously mean beyond that figure

Hmm, I think "close to" in a literal sense means the same as "around" or "about" <amount>. I think you may be right that when referring to TIME it is common for close to, to mean "near but not quite as long as"... however as GRRM was probably doing his best to be as vague as possible he might not have been thinking that hard about it.

I think you're being very picky here, also. GRRM Martin giving very rough estimates of people's ages and timelines in impromptu interviews shoudl not be considered absolute evidence for anything (especially when it seems to differ from character's perceptions of the same events).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MyDogIsNamedDanerys,

however as GRRM was probably doing his best to be as vague as possible he might not have been thinking that hard about it.

He could have just used "a year", as he does most other places. His "year" could indeed be of the 'give or take two months' kind.

But he uses "close to a year" twice in reference to the war: Catelyn's reference, and Maester Cressen referring to the siege of Storm's End lasting "close to a year". In the latter case especially, it makes no sense for "close to a year" to mean "more than a year" -- why not just say "more than a year"? It's a very strange benchmark.

We could analyze GRRM's use of 'close to' and see what he usually means by it:

"The war had raged for close to a year."

"We've taken close to a hundred knights captive..."

"Two boys close to Arya's age scampered past..."

"Lord Stannis and a small garrison had held the castle for close to a year..."

"Close to a hundred knights had already come forth..."

Other than the third quote, which is obviously pretty ambiguous where Arya is referring to strangers whom she knows nothing about and is referring to only in passing, all the other quotes seem to be people speaking about something they have firm knowledge of: the length of the war, the length of the siege of Storm's End, the number of knights, and in all cases the clearest obvious reading is that it means "near to, but less than, <figure>".

GRRM Martin giving very rough estimates of people's ages and timelines in impromptu interviews

These aren't impromptu interviews. They are e-mail responses from GRRM to fan questions, with no obvious time pressure (and I can verify that in many cases, the responses came days after the initial mails), so there's no reason to suppose that his answers are inaccurate due to time pressure.

especially when it seems to differ from character's perceptions of the same events

Why should their perceptions count when they aren't direct witnesses, and there's obvious confusion? And, for that matter, that Jon being no more than a couple of months older -- and possibly no more than days older (or, indeed, a little bit younger I suppose) -- is not something that would be realized if Eddard decided to lie about such things? Why, after all, would anyone doubt him?

Further more,

SPOILER: Minor ADwD Spoiler
a new rumor regarding his birth is given in AFfC, in which a lord who claims to have been familiar with some of the events states unequivocally his belief that Jon Snow was concieved at the very start of the war, when Ned Stark had only just left the Vale for the North -- months before he ever married Catelyn. I bring this up to show that people in Westeros, with different pieces of knowledge and different sets of rumors, can come to substantially different conclusions regarding Jon Snow's age.

Last but not least, Catelyn doesn't ever explicitly say she heard from the women of Winterfell that Ashara Dayne was Jon's mother:

Ned would not speak of the mother, not so much as a word, but a castle has no secrets, and Catelyn heard her maids repeating tales they heard from the lips of her husband's soldiers. They whispered of Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's Kingsguard, and of how their young lord had slain him in single combat. And they told how afterward Ned had carried Ser Arthur's sword back to the beautiful young sister who awaited him in a castle called Starfall on the shores of the Summer Sea. The Lady Ashara Dayne, tall and fair, with haunting violet eyes.

She seems to have inferred from this talk and from Ashara Dayne's death that maybe she was the mother, but she does not know. In fact, there's no evidence to say she knows anything of Ashara Dayne's whereabouts during the war. She may simply be going off her impressions and the telephone game of rumors; we don't know. Maybe they said it directly. Maybe they implied it. Maybe she's reading into what they did say. Maybe it's all a big game of telephone, and what the women around the wall picked up at second hand from others who may themselves have picked up at second hand isn't to be trusted; certainly, Harwin doesn't believe tales of Eddard Stark falling in love with Ashara Dayne, and it seems to imply his disbelief as to Ashara Dayne being Jon Snow's mother.

Combine one part 'younger lovers in Harrenhal' rumor + 'lady throwing herself from a tower at war's end' and consider it in light of 'lord returns to Winterfell with bastard by unnamed mother' and it's not hard to see how anyone could fail to leap to certain assumptions without knowing anything about what Eddard was doing in the course of the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further more,
SPOILER: Minor AFfC Spoiler
a new rumor regarding his birth is given in AFfC, in which a lord who claims to have been familiar with some of the events states unequivocally his belief that Jon Snow was concieved at the very start of the war, when Ned Stark had only just left the Vale for the North -- months before he ever married Catelyn. I bring this up to show that people in Westeros, with different pieces of knowledge and different sets of rumors, can come to substantially different conclusions regarding Jon Snow's age.

you mean Dance, not Feast?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ran--yeah, I've heard "close to a year" used to mean "about a year, give or take a bit." I haven't heard it used to mean 7 months or 16, but the usage doesn't seem unusual to me. If someone can't remember exactly how long ago something was but that it's roughly a year, the odds are probably just as good that the time was a little OVER a year as that it was a little under.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick question here:

Do you guys think that Barristan Selmy knows about Jon's true parents? In order for this revelation to mean something, someone will have to be a witness and Howland Reed is not exactly a character that Kings and Queens will believe. Selmy on the other hand, is someone that Dany will believe.

The Kingsguard knew of R+L, thus they had to have known about them having a child or Lyanna becoming pregnant. It occured to me that Barristan probably knows about this and it could be a possible way for the truth to come out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barristan doesn't know Jon's parentage, as Barristan wasn't present at the tower of joy and those who were (and who survived) wouldn't confide in him.

True,as to that,what do you think led to the choise thet Arthur,Gerold and Oswell went to TOJ,and not the other 3(not counting Jamie for obvious reasons)?Did Rhaegar have free hands at chosing KGs at TOJ or some of them were "busy"?

As to the overall topic,i would be a little bit disapointed if we knew the major mystery after a less the half series(after only 3 books),so i expect some twist in the next books,proving the R+L red herring(wich,in my opinio is most likely).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True,as to that,what do you think led to the choise thet Arthur,Gerold and Oswell went to TOJ,and not the other 3(not counting Jamie for obvious reasons)?Did Rhaegar have free hands at chosing KGs at TOJ or some of them were "busy"?

As to the overall topic,i would be a little bit disapointed if we knew the major mystery after a less the half series(after only 3 books),so i expect some twist in the next books,proving the R+L red herring(wich,in my opinio is most likely).

I think Ser Barristan was otherwise engaged in battle.

I think Rhaegar had a free hand, and IIRC, Ser Arthur Dayne is one of his closest friend, so I guess Rhaegar wanted him with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ser Barristan was otherwise engaged in battle.

I think Rhaegar had a free hand, and IIRC, Ser Arthur Dayne is one of his closest friend, so I guess Rhaegar wanted him with him.

The timeline here gets interesting. Gerold Hightower was at King's Landing for the murder of the Starks, then at some point during the ensuing war winds up at the Tower of Joy. Conversly, Rhaegar was out of town at this point, and had to be recalled. Stands to reason that someone knew where to find him, both to bring him back to lead the force that wound up losing at the Trident, and because somehow Hightower (at least) knew how to makes his way to Lyanna (and Jon?).

This raises a number of questions, such as the posibilty of Hightower being the one to bring word to Rhaegar to come North. But more importantly, it shows that someone knew where Rhaegar was - and thus, possibly but not nessisarily, what he was doing.

Food for thought, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick question here:

Do you guys think that Barristan Selmy knows about Jon's true parents? In order for this revelation to mean something, someone will have to be a witness and Howland Reed is not exactly a character that Kings and Queens will believe. Selmy on the other hand, is someone that Dany will believe.

The Kingsguard knew of R+L, thus they had to have known about them having a child or Lyanna becoming pregnant. It occured to me that Barristan probably knows about this and it could be a possible way for the truth to come out...

There is no reason to think Ser Barristan even knows who Jon is, other than a name mentioned in gossip about Ned, much less that he is the child of Rheagar and Lyanna. Now, the interesting question is your second assertion. Did Rhaegar tell Selmy on their trip to the Trident that Lyanna was pregnant with his child? Rhaegar can't tell him of Jon or Ned's promise to Lyanna because he doesn't live to know about it himself, but he could have told Ser Barristan that an new prince or princess may need his protection. If that is true we could expect Ser Barristan to revel his limited knowledge to Daenerys in this next book.

btw, when is that going to be out? ;):cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barristan doesn't know Jon's parentage, as Barristan wasn't present at the tower of joy and those who were (and who survived) wouldn't confide in him.

True enough, but I was thinking that the Kingsguard most certainly knew of the extent of Rhaegar and Lyanna's relationship and if they were in fact secretly married (like I am inclined to believe) then Rhaegar would've surely mentioned something to his Kingsguard.

Barristan was with Rhaegar at the Trident and he most likely confided with his Kingsguard about the plan of attack...perhaps he even told them about Jon? Just a wild guess. I'm thinking this would be one of the only plausible ways for the truth to come out if it were to come either from Barristan or Howland. I don't like the idea of a mystery witness showing up and spilling the beans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this is a day late and a dollar short but I would really like to weigh in on this topic. I am convinced that Jon is NOT the product of Lyanna and Rhaegar. I have not scrutinized every detail of every post so if this has been posted before, please excuse. I'll only hit on what I think are some of the more potent and persuasive arguments to me personally:

1. In favor of Jon being Rhaegar's son: Ned's adherence to duty and honor. It always did seem out of character for Ned to have gotten some action on the side. The issue always felt "skirted" in my opinion. I could see, however, that Ned never did breach his morals and was sacrificing them to cover up for what really happened in order to protect Jon from Robert and whoever else.

2. In favor of Jon NOT being Rhaegar's son: Jon lacks pretty much all of the Targaryen characteristics. He is said to look tremendously like Ned. Now, the latter is not necessarily persuasive of shit b/c we are told that most of Ned's other kids (except Arya right?) look very much like Cat and not him. But the Targaryen characteristics seemed to be pretty pervasive throughout the bloodline: the eyes, the hair, etc.

3. In favor of Jon NOT being Rhaegar's son and my strongest argument: (disclaimer, this alone totally convinces me. Perhaps you will not accord it near the gravity I do but truly this and this alone was all I needed to convince myself and a couple of my friends). The direwolf pups. It is vital to recall that all of the pups that the Starks picked up in book 1 are safe to assume came from the same mother and there were exactly the right number for all of Ned's kids (which I think Jon was) and all of those pups were ergo brothers and sisters. GRRM does not jack around very often and if he uses these little plot devices they usually mean something. I really believe that the fact that the direwolf pups were all brothers and sisters to each other that carries over to the Stark kids.

I would love to see what the reactions to point 3 are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jannedaarc1,

The Targaryen traits are recessive. They only appear so often because of the incest in the Targaryen line. So it isn't surprising that a Targ/Stark pairing resulted in no recessive Targ physical traits. And we don't know what Targ personality traits Jon possesses. Certainly his sudden temper at times is similar to "waking the dragon".

What about all of the other hints at L+R=J, do you just ignore them? How, for example, do you explain Dany's vision of the blue flower on The Wall?

The role of the pup omen was to show us that Jon was different. Now, we didn't need Jon's direwolf to be different in order to realize that he was Ned's bastard. We already knew that.

What the pup was there for, was to tell us that Jon is different in a way that we don't yet know.

I don't think the fact that all of the pups were brothers and sisters means that Jon must be a half-brother rather than a cousin. It is an omen. Like prophesy, it doesn't have to be, and often isn't, exact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the dire wolf pups show that all the children are descendants of the First Men, and in particular the Starks. Ghost is different from the others because Jon is different from his relatives. Jon is a Stark and a Targaryen. In other words, jannedaarc, I don't find your point #3 very persuasive. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...