The Wolf Maid Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Maybe nothing explicit to make us think that, but it would make sense that he left the Eryie to return home to call the banners after he hears of his father's and brother's murder. IIRC, in one of the POVs, it was mentioned that Robert Arryn raised his banners rather than give up his two charges when Aerys demanded their heads, so I guess it is quite possible Ned was in the Eyrie when Lyanna got abducted and just went to Winterfell to raise the banners when his brother and father were 'arrested'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicodimas Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Random question: Since Starks seem to name their children of starks of old. Was there a previous Jon in the familyline? I think if Jon was Neds Bastard he would name him after an older stark. Brandon, Rickon and Robb were all other starks names right? Just curious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 IIRC, in one of the POVs, it was mentioned that Robert Arryn raised his banners rather than give up his two charges when Aerys demanded their heads, so I guess it is quite possible Ned was in the Eyrie when Lyanna got abducted and just went to Winterfell to raise the banners when his brother and father were 'arrested'. To me the question is why would Ned not do exactly as he does in A Game of Thrones? That is, why not send a message on to Benjen to call the banners and have him send them south. Is there a need for Ned to go all the way to Winterfell and thereby have a chance to confer with Benjen? If so he has a chance of getting Lyanna's location from Benjen - assuming she told her little brother where she would be. I still don't think this is a likely scenario. It means Eddard carries the information of Lyanna's hiding place all the way through the war and does nothing about it until after all armed combat on the mainland of Westeros is resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Random question: Since Starks seem to name their children of starks of old. Was there a previous Jon in the familyline? I think if Jon was Neds Bastard he would name him after an older stark. Brandon, Rickon and Robb were all other starks names right? Just curious... When Bran, Osha, and Maester Luwin go down into the crypts after Ned's death, Bran lists the names of the Starks whose tombs they pass and he names a Jon Stark as the one who drove off sea raiders in the east and built the castle at White Harbor. Having said that, I was pretty sure Robb and Jon were named after King Robert Baratheon and Lord Jon Arryn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Well, it states in AGoT that Lord Arryn refused to give up his charges when Aerys called for their heads so it's pretty safe to assume that both Ned and Robert were at the Eyrie when Lyanna was abducted. We also know Robert returned to Storm's End to rally his banners so it is also safe to assume that Ned returned to Winterfell to raise his banners as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arantius Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Jon Snow might well have been named for Jon Stark, but that doesn't make him Ned's bastard. If his mother is Lyanna, then naming him after an old Stark would fit just as well. It would be more helpful if an ancient Jon Targaryen existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Jon Snow might well have been named for Jon Stark, but that doesn't make him Ned's bastard. If his mother is Lyanna, then naming him after an old Stark would fit just as well. It would be more helpful if an ancient Jon Targaryen existed. I don't believe I ever expressed an opinion on whether or not Jon's name made him more likely to be Ned's or Lyanna's. I just answered a question about where his name came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat of Braavos Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 I think that it is telling that Jon and Arrya both look just like Lyanna. Of course its possible I'm reading more into that than I should, but it would make more sense to me that Arrya would look like Ned's sister but not that Ned's bastard son would look like his sister. But that said, if Jon was not Ned's bastard, I dont think he would have let Cat beleive it was so when she heard the rumors in Winterfell...perhaps I'm wrong on that, but I felt that Ned trusted Cat enough that he would have let her know this. CoB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 But that said, if Jon was not Ned's bastard, I dont think he would have let Cat beleive it was so when she heard the rumors in Winterfell...perhaps I'm wrong on that, but I felt that Ned trusted Cat enough that he would have let her know this. "He is my blood, and that is all you need to know." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat of Braavos Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Excellent point. Maybe Ned didnt want Cat to know for some reason. I just cant think of what that reason would be. CoB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Excellent point. Maybe Ned didnt want Cat to know for some reason. I just cant think of what that reason would be. The way I see it is that, if Jon is truly the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna and that knowledge goes beyond him and Howland Reed, Jon is dead. Remember how much of sociopath Robert is about killing Targaryens. The best way to protect Lyanna's son, and I do believe Ned promised Lyanna he'd protect Jon and maybe raise him as his own, would be to tell no one who didn't already know. The risk of discovery always goes up if a secret is shared, even if it's Ned sharing it with his wife. If it ended up costing Ned pain and distance in his own marriage, well, that's perfectly in keeping with Ned's character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat of Braavos Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 This is very true, I admittedly hope that Jon is also L+R. I'm just afraid to hope for it too much Blood of the old north and blood of the dragons in one man...that would be the person I'd want on the wall to defend the realm. CoB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoheeks Bili Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Or maybe Jon's real name is Rheajon or Aerjon but just shortened to Jon so Robert wouldn't freak out ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sijjvra Visz Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 If Jon IS the son of L+ R... well, what would it change? He's still a bastard, he's still commander of the Wall, he still has Others to deal with. In all honesty, though it's a 'twist'... I really would prefer he just turns out to be Ned Stark's bastard. I think it's probable he IS L + R = J... and I think GRRM does a great job of staying away from typical fantasy cliche's... but...eh, we already have Dany, the beautiful dragon princess of prophecy, we have Gendry the son-of-king blacksmith, I kind of hope Jon isn't that oh-so-typical ' hidden bastard chosen one prince' that seems to have to be in every fantasy epic. I mean, if he was, I'm sure GRRM would handle it well, but part of the reason I like the series so much is because a lot of those cliche's are missing. It's refreshing when a bastard is just a bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 If Jon IS the son of L+ R... well, what would it change? He's still a bastard, he's still commander of the Wall, he still has Others to deal with. It doesn't necessarily change the outcome of the books. Jon doesn't have to become King of Westeros because he is Lyanna's and Rhaegar's son. My guess is, though he is their son and the rightful heir to the Targaryen throne, he keeps with his sworn word and dies defending Westeros against the Others as the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch (and probable commander of all forces against the Others.) Just my guess, but I don't see a happy future for Jon, regardless of the truth of his birth. One point about Jon still being a "bastard." In Ned's dream of the confrontation at the Tower of Joy with the Kingsguard, he obviously wonders why they are not somewhere else. He states he thought to see them on the Trident with their Crown Prince. Then he says he thought they would be at King's Landing defending their King, and last of all Ned says he thought they would be in Dragonstone with Viserys - the Targaryen heir. Ned doesn't understand why these three members of the Kingsguard are guarding his sister and preventing him from taking her after the war is essentially over. They should have been defending the royal line. The only way it makes sense to me is if there is a child of Rhaegar and Lyanna at the Tower of Joy and that child is the legitimate heir to the throne - they wouldn't die for a bastard while the heir is in danger at Dragonstone and without any member of the kingsguard to guard him. The only alternatives I can see are (1) the old orders from Rhaegar supersede the basic responsibility of the kingsguard and they therefore abandon their responsibility to Viserys to guard Rhaegar's mistress, Lyanna (with or without a newborn bastard child,) or (2) the vagaries of war have placed the kingsguard in a position where they can't get to their king and are just caught unexpectedly at the Tower of Joy. The first doesn't pass the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3YiPC91QUk, to me at least, and the second - while certainly more possible - doesn't jive with the responses from the kingsguard to Ned's questions. Does anyone believe that Ned would not have let the three knights go into exile if they only wanted to get to Viserys? I don't. Both sides fight to the death to protect Lyanna and her child(ren) - the heir(s) to the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arantius Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 I don't believe I ever expressed an opinion on whether or not Jon's name made him more likely to be Ned's or Lyanna's. I just answered a question about where his name came from. Dante, the above is true, it was nicodimas who thought Jon being named after an old Stark might mean he really was Ned's bastard ... Random question: Since Starks seem to name their children of starks of old. Was there a previous Jon in the familyline? I think if Jon was Neds Bastard he would name him after an older stark. Brandon, Rickon and Robb were all other starks names right? Just curious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errant Bard Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 I think that it is telling that Jon and Arrya both look just like Lyanna. Of course its possible I'm reading more into that than I should, but it would make more sense to me that Arrya would look like Ned's sister but not that Ned's bastard son would look like his sister.What kind of backwards logic is that? Arya has the "Stark look", because she got it from her father. If her likeness to Lyanna was telling anything on the R+L=J issue, then that would make Arya Lyanna's daughter as well. Jon looks like a Stark, he looks like Ned, Lyanna or Arya in this regard, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezeh Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 It is discussed in another topic yet… There is pretty much evidence in the favor of R+l+J theory. The only trouble is all of this evidence is good enough for us readers but would be simply irrelevant for those who live in Westeros. They know nothing of Ned’s feeling and thoughts they know nothing of the promise he gave to his sister before she died. The only witness who was at the Tower of Joy is Howland Reed but his witness barely could be sufficient for Jon to be accepted as Rhaegar’s son. Would for example Dany believe if she will meet Reed and he would say to her that Jon is her nephew? I really doubt it. So if the theory is true there must be some additional witness to it in Westeros. Somebody who would directly or indirectly confirm Reed words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 It is discussed in another topic yet… There is pretty much evidence in the favor of R+l+J theory. The only trouble is all of this evidence is good enough for us readers but would be simply irrelevant for those who live in Westeros. They know nothing of Ned’s feeling and thoughts they know nothing of the promise he gave to his sister before she died. The only witness who was at the Tower of Joy is Howland Reed but his witness barely could be sufficient for Jon to be accepted as Rhaegar’s son. Would for example Dany believe if she will meet Reed and he would say to her that Jon is her nephew? I really doubt it. So if the theory is true there must be some additional witness to it in Westeros. Somebody who would directly or indirectly confirm Reed words. There has been lots of speculation about who the "they" consists of in the people who found Ned grieving for his dead sister. Clearly there was at least one other person at the Tower of Joy than Howland Reed, but who or how many people could have been witness to the events there is very much up in the air. My money is on Wylla and at least a maester brought there to attend the birth. If it ever gets to the point of verifying the fact Jon is Lyanna and Rhaegar's child all of these people and more would be important to building his claim to the throne. However, to convince Jon of his history I think Howland Reed is quite sufficient, especially if Benjen shows up and backs up the story or Jon finds that "something" that is waiting for him in Lyanna's tomb below Winterfell. In short, I agree that the evidence needed for Jon or us to believe he is the heir to the Targaryen throne is different than what would be needed to convince the rest of Westeros, but then I don't think he will ever sit the Iron Throne regardless of the truth of the matter. However, assuming Jon does want the throne, the only person he really has to satisfy to the validity of his claim is Daenerys. If she were to support him, along with her dragons and growing army, the rest of Westeros' suspicions about his claim wouldn't matter very much, would it? At that point, it's not a question of laying out the proof for an independent court to decide if he's been able to convince his cute little auntie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shewoman Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 I think it's Wylla too. We know that Ned made Lyanna "promises," and I think one of them was probably to make sure no one knew that Jon had Targaryen blood. Robert would want to kill him because he hated Rhaegar but also because he could possibly reinstate the Targaryen dynasty (yes, he's a bastard, but we saw as late as Feast that there were still those holding to the Targaryens in Westeros). Although he couldn't inherit, he might conquer the throne as the Targs and Robert did. If Ned did make that promise--and I think he did--his sense of honor would keep him from telling Catelyn or anyone else (including Jon). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.