R+L=J v.165

[Ygrain]

2 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Not if he does it immediately. No one would have the stomach to do more fighting at that point, especially with the peace and soldiers going home. Ned has perhaps the biggest army in his bloc composed from a single region, Hoster is his father in law, Jon is not only his foster father but also his brother through marriagr and also son in law to Hoster, at worst he'll be neutral, more likely he'll see this as a better solution. Only one in that bloc who'll strongly disagree is the weakest Overlord among them, Robert. Tywin can quickly disentengle himself by cutting loose Amory and Gregor. Loyalists would also feel less fucked with just Aerys deposed and not the Targaryens removed entirely. Only exception coule be Dorne, they can be granted marriages and heads, perhaps even Tywin's.

Except, he cannot do it immediately because by the time Ned reaches ToJ (not to mention the time it would take to get back), Robert is already on the throne.

Also, I doubt there would be much support among the Northmen to push the claim of a Targaryen infant after they spent a year fighting against the Targaryens.

[SFDanny]

I don't believe Ned thinks Jon is Rhaegar's legitimate son. Why would the dying Lyanna, so frantic to save her son from Rhaenys and Aegon's fate, spend her dying breath to discuss her martial status with the dead Rhaegar? She made Ned promise to do somethings, that he tries to do and pays a price for doing, but I don't think putting Jon on the throne or pushing his claim has anything to do with it. My guess is these promises are about Jon's survival by keeping his parent's identity secret. She asks Ned to raise Jon as his own son and never let the world know who he really is.

That is, after all, what Ned does over the next 14 years. He tells the world Jon is his bastard, and will talk to almost no one about who his mother is. The only person we know Ned tells the identity of Jon's mother is Robert, and I'm fairly certain that is a lie.

I think it is a complete misread of Ned's character to think, if he knew Jon to be trueborn, he would fight to get him the throne. His interest with Jon is, first and foremost, Jon's survival. Announcing a claim for Jon would be tantamount to putting a target on his back. To understand Ned, I think one has to go back to his response to Cersei's question in the godswood in King's Landing.

Quote

Tell me, my honorable Lord Eddard, how are you any different from Robert, or me, or Jaime?

"For a start," said Ned. "I do not kill children." (AGoT 514) bold emphasis added

That, I suggest, is Ned's touchstone. Not the pretense of honor we see in someone like Ser Barristan. Ned lies, and admits to himself to living lies. The protection of innocents, however, is what Ned sees as the beginning of honor. One can try to live up to the letter of one's oaths, or never tell a lie, or dishonor themselves in many ways. It's all well and good, but it is not honorable if in doing so one forgets the core of what honor is. To Ned that is not some quixotic claim to a throne. That is a long life for his sister's son.

Whether or not Jon really is the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna is a separate discussion, oft repeated in these threads, from if Ned knows the truth of that question.

[Lord Varys]

@SFDanny

I think we have discussed that a couple of times already, but I really don't think that Lyanna's child would have been in any real danger from Robert if the child had been just Lyanna's bastard - and Lyanna herself would have known that just as well as Ned.

Ned would not have soiled his honor to disguise his sister's bastard as his own if he didn't have a very good reason to do this. He either knew Rhaegar and Lyanna were married - and I think many people actually knew and still know that - or he suspected that they were. 

[SFDanny]

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@SFDanny

I think we have discussed that a couple of times already, but I really don't think that Lyanna's child would have been in any real danger from Robert if the child had been just Lyanna's bastard - and Lyanna herself would have known that just as well as Ned.

Ned would not have soiled his honor to disguise his sister's bastard as his own if he didn't have a very good reason to do this. He either knew Rhaegar and Lyanna were married - and I think many people actually knew and still know that - or he suspected that they were. 

We have discussed it before, my friend, and you and I continue to disagree on this point. 

I think the idea Robert would not be a threat to Lyanna's child if he is "just" Rhaegar's bastard is simply wrong. It makes Robert into a man with no passions and motivated by cold calm evaluations of legal claims. All evidence shows us that is not Robert. It ignores Ned and Robert's history and Ned's characterization of Robert's "madness" when it comes to Targaryens. It bypasses the evidence of Robert's preoccupation with killing a young girl because she may bring forth more "dragonspawn." 

The threat Robert represents to Jon if he is Rhaegar's son with Lyanna is all the more magnified as his need to revenge himself on Rhaegar's repeated "rape" of his betrothed. So, does Ned have a reason to lie to Robert and hide Jon's identity? Absolutely. Regardless if he is trueborn or not. I would again suggest this is the reason for Lyanna's fear for what Ned would do as she lay dying. Robert is Ned's best friend who brought his marriage proposal to Lyanna and Rickard. Ned is the general who led the rebel forces into King's Landing where Aegon and Rhaenys and Elia are murdered. She has every reason to fear what her brother will do with her son, until she gets his promises.

[Lord Varys]

It makes too great a case about a relatively minor affair. A bastard is pretty much nothing in this world, unless legitimized, and but a legitimate child does have a claim.

Robert has *never* actually commanded the murder of a Targaryen child up until he authorizes the attempt on the pregnant Daenerys, and Daenerys and Viserys III are undoubtedly and definitely children of a Targaryen monogamous marriage. I really don't see on what you base such a far-flung speculation.

Even the murders of Aegon and Rhaenys were only authorized/accepted by Robert after the fact, and Lyanna's son - legitimate or illegitimate - was not some Dornishwoman's child Robert didn't care about - it was also Lyanna's child and Ned's nephew.

If Robert had contemplated something like that, Ned would have unmake 'King Robert' as quickly as he made him - Robert was not a powerful king at his coronation. He was just the figurehead of an army controlled by Lords Stark, Tully, and Arryn - and Lord Stark was the one married to the Tully daughter, not 'King Robert'. It is not believable that anyone in the Realm would have sided with Robert over the issue of murdering the bastard of Lyanna Stark, just as it isn't really believable that Robert would have even commanded such a murder. There are no precedents for the murders of (royal) children commanded by any authorities in peace times - Rhaegar's children died during the Sack, and the other Targaryen children we know of were killed during the Dance. If Robert had commanded to murder such a bastard it would have been the end of his short term as king.

And if nobody ingratiated himself with him by killing the Targaryens in exile - who were threats to his dynasty - then it is even less likely that somebody would have done so by trying to kill a bastard living at Winterfell.

Nobody but Cersei ever targeted royal bastards - and she did this only because her own children had no claim to the throne and those bastards could, perhaps, be seen as proof that this was the case.

A legitimate child is another matter - but a bastard child could be treated the way Aegon II and Aegon III treated Gaemon Palehair. If we talk about a legitimate child then both Robert and many of his advisers and family might see its very existence as a threat to House Baratheon, making it much more likely that they would conclude that something had to be done. But a bastard could at best a stain on Robert's personal honor - something he would have to suffer if he wanted no war with Winterfell, Riverrun, and perhaps even the Vale.

 

[kleevedge]

Just throwing this out there but I've been fiddling with the idea that Howland Reed and Lyanna hooked up at/after the tourney of Harrenhal and that Lyanna actually gave birth to Meera Reed at the Tower of Joy. I think when Lyanna was on her way back north after the tourney  she was to marry Howland Reed but then she was "kidnapped" by Rhaegar (not sure about this aspect). The thing that really gets me thinking about this idea is this line from AGoT

Quote

They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his

I think right there Howland had married Lyanna and that's what Ned had promised her. I know there's hardly any information to assume this, and even I'm not sold of this but it does make me want to investigate a bit further.

[SFDanny]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It makes too great a case about a relatively minor affair. A bastard is pretty much nothing in this world, unless legitimized, and but a legitimate child does have a claim.

You are kidding my friend, right? We are not talking about a bastard child Rhaegar had with a tavern wench here. We are talking about a child Rhaegar has with Lyanna Stark, Robert's betrothed and Ned's sister. The man Robert dreams of killing every night. The man Robert accuses of raping Lyanna "hundreds of times." 

LV, this is no "minor affair" as you well know. It is THE central event of the backstory and casts a shadow across all the story in the present. 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert has *never* actually commanded the murder of a Targaryen child up until he authorizes the attempt on the pregnant Daenerys, and Daenerys and Viserys III are undoubtedly and definitely children of a Targaryen monogamous marriage. I really don't see on what you base such a far-flung speculation.

You don't know this. We know Jon Arryn talks Robert out of assassinating Viserys and Daenerys while he is alive, but we don't know if that is after Robert has tried to make this happen. We do know he may have tried to get his hands on them before he orders the assassination of Dany. We know because Ned says to Robert:

Quote

"You can't get your hands on this one can you? he said quietly.

The king's mouth twisted in a bitter grimace. "No, gods be cursed. Some pox-ridden Pentoshi cheesemonger had her brother and her wasted up on his estate with pointy-hatted eunuchs all around them, and now he handed them over to the Dothraki. I should have had them both killed years ago, when it was easy to get at them, but Jon was as bad as you. More fool I, I listen to him." (AGoT 124-125) bold emphasis added. 

How does Robert know he can't get assassins into Illyrio's estate? He obviously knows something about the obstacles to doing so. That tells me he has at least considered it, if not found out it was impossible by trying. In short, you have no evidence he never commanded such a murder, only that Jon Arryn tried to stop any such attempts, especially in the later years of his life.

As to what I base this "far-flung speculation," I can only say I base it on Robert's continuing obsession or "madness" as Ned calls it in not only reliving the killing of Rhaegar every night, but in his stated aim of killing all Targaryens. Not all trueborn Targaryens, but all Targaryens. The evidence of this starts in almost every chapter in which Robert appears starting with his visit to the Winterfell crypts and up to his repentance on his deathbed. If you want me to repeat all the quotes, I can.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Even the murders of Aegon and Rhaenys were only authorized/accepted by Robert after the fact, and Lyanna's son - legitimate or illegitimate - was not some Dornishwoman's child Robert didn't care about - it was also Lyanna's child and Ned's nephew.

That he is Ned's nephew isn't the point. He is likely Rhaegar's son and a Targaryen. The focus of Robert's madness. Those are the facts that drive Robert's obsession, and would fuel the danger from Robert towards Jon. The fact he is likely Lyanna's child only furthers that danger in that Robert has convinced himself Lyanna was with Rhaegar against her choice, and any child would be the child of rape and Rhaegar's evil ways. None of which changes if Jon is a bastard or trueborn.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If Robert had contemplated something like that, Ned would have unmake 'King Robert' as quickly as he made him - Robert was not a powerful king at his coronation. He was just the figurehead of an army controlled by Lords Stark, Tully, and Arryn - and Lord Stark was the one married to the Tully daughter, not 'King Robert'. It is not believable that anyone in the Realm would have sided with Robert over the issue of murdering the bastard of Lyanna Stark, just as it isn't really believable that Robert would have even commanded such a murder. There are no precedents for the murders of (royal) children commanded by any authorities in peace times - Rhaegar's children died during the Sack, and the other Targaryen children we know of were killed during the Dance. If Robert had commanded to murder such a bastard it would have been the end of his short term as king.

I don't know where you get these assumptions. Ned had no such power after Robert was crowned. Far from it. If he was so foolish as to try this it would have placed Ned in opposition to all the new oaths of fealty given to Robert as the new king. That includes from Jon Arryn, Hoster Tully, Tywin Lannister, Mace Tyrell, and Robert's own Stormlanders. Whatever in the text gives you the idea all these High Lords would put a bastard child, or a trueborn one, ahead of their own oaths is beyond me. Some might not have liked Robert taking such a cruel action, but to threaten war over it? Never.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And if nobody ingratiated himself with him by killing the Targaryens in exile - who were threats to his dynasty - then it is even less likely that somebody would have done so by trying to kill a bastard living at Winterfell.

Nobody but Cersei ever targeted royal bastards - and she did this only because her own children had no claim to the throne and those bastards could, perhaps, be seen as proof that this was the case.

A legitimate child is another matter - but a bastard child could be treated the way Aegon II and Aegon III treated Gaemon Palehair. If we talk about a legitimate child then both Robert and many of his advisers and family might see its very existence as a threat to House Baratheon, making it much more likely that they would conclude that something had to be done. But a bastard could at best a stain on Robert's personal honor - something he would have to suffer if he wanted no war with Winterfell, Riverrun, and perhaps even the Vale.

Kings don't have to suffer stains on their personal honor. I think you mistake Robert for Henry II of House Plantagenet. Robert Baratheon, the first of his name, never would have allowed a son of "Rhaegar the Rapist" to live.

[Ygrain]

11 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I don't believe Ned thinks Jon is Rhaegar's legitimate son. Why would the dying Lyanna, so frantic to save her son from Rhaenys and Aegon's fate, spend her dying breath to discuss her martial status with the dead Rhaegar? She made Ned promise to do somethings, that he tries to do and pays a price for doing, but I don't think putting Jon on the throne or pushing his claim has anything to do with it. My guess is these promises are about Jon's survival by keeping his parent's identity secret. She asks Ned to raise Jon as his own son and never let the world know who he really is.

We don't know how much time preceded Lyanna's dying scene, so she might have had the time to divulge some details.

From the top of my head, there are three clue that might be pointing to Ned knowing (in no way conclusive, but allowing for the option):

- Ned's thoughts about the promise when Robert bashes Rhaegar's honour (could merely point to the relationship being consensual but that would still be dishonoring Lyanna)

- Ned's shame when he suddenly wishes to talk to Jon in the black cells (could merely reflect Ned lying)

- the ToJ scene with the KG insisting that they have a duty at ToJ (not going into the whole clusterguck of a debate here)

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

You are kidding my friend, right? We are not talking about a bastard child Rhaegar had with a tavern wench here. We are talking about a child Rhaegar has with Lyanna Stark, Robert's betrothed and Ned's sister. The man Robert dreams of killing every night. The man Robert accuses of raping Lyanna "hundreds of times." 

LV, this is no "minor affair" as you well know. It is THE central event of the backstory and casts a shadow across all the story in the present. 

But this is just Rhaegar, not Lyanna's child. It wouldn't be just dragonspawn like Rhaegar's other children or Aerys' children, it would also be the child of Robert's beloved and the nephew of his best friend.

Sure, if Ned didn't give a fig about such a bastard they could quietly smother him and discard of the body, but this is not an option here. The Starks went to war over the deaths of Rickard and Brandon, and they went to war over the imprisonment and death of Eddard. Ned would also have gone to war over the murder of his sister's son, be it legitimate or illegitimate.

In the legitimate case Robert's other followers might side with the king in light of the fact that a legitimate son of Rhaegar's was truly a threat to his claim to the throne. But a bastard would have just been an innocent child. Supporting this would have been supporting child murder, and I don't see Hoster and Jon Arryn and many others going along with this. Not to mention that Ned could have drawn all the Targaryen loyalists in this, his uprising against the tyrant and false king that was his former friend.

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

You don't know this. We know Jon Arryn talks Robert out of assassinating Viserys and Daenerys while he is alive, but we don't know if that is after Robert has tried to make this happen. We do know he may have tried to get his hands on them before he orders the assassination of Dany. We know because Ned says to Robert:

We have no indication that Robert Baratheon ever commanded the murder of any child, and until such a time as this is given by the author I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Robert's overall personality is not one of cruelty. He can close the eyes to a lot of things, but he is not the guy to command the murder of young children.

And those children that were killed in his name where killed so that Robert see Lord Tywin and House Lannister have forever broken their bond with the Targaryens. It had a very specific purpose being the first step in the Robert-Cersei match - if Robert hadn't had a very good reason to think that Tywin wasn't secretly still a Targaryen loyalist or tempted to side with Viserys in the future, he would have never considered making Cersei his queen.

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

How does Robert know he can't get assassins into Illyrio's estate? He obviously knows something about the obstacles to doing so. That tells me he has at least considered it, if not found out it was impossible by trying. In short, you have no evidence he never commanded such a murder, only that Jon Arryn tried to stop any such attempts, especially in the later years of his life.

Most likely because Varys told him this was so. Robert never checked that by himself or via independent sources. Robert cannot even have put a price on Viserys and Dany's heads, in fact, considering we do know what happens when you do that - just look at all the dead dwarfs. Unless Viserys/Dany were protected by strong bodyguards wherever they went before they became Illyrio's guests they would have fallen prey to the same people that killed the dwarfs. And we have ample textual evidence that the young Dany hung out on the streets and was playing with normal children in this or that Free City.

It is still odd that no exile/ambitious guy from Westeros took Viserys and Dany's heads and made them a gift to Robert but that's how it is.

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

As to what I base this "far-flung speculation," I can only say I base it on Robert's continuing obsession or "madness" as Ned calls it in not only reliving the killing of Rhaegar every night, but in his stated aim of killing all Targaryens. Not all trueborn Targaryens, but all Targaryens. The evidence of this starts in almost every chapter in which Robert appears starting with his visit to the Winterfell crypts and up to his repentance on his deathbed. If you want me to repeat all the quotes, I can.

Illegitimate children are not Targaryens. Robert makes no attempt to find and kill any bastards Aerys II may have fathered on his many mistresses, nor is he searching for any surviving offspring of Duncan and Jenny or any other obscure cadet branches of House Targaryen (like the Tarths, Penroses, etc.). He also doesn't kill himself or his brothers, now that I think of it ;-).

To make a case Robert actually hated Targaryen bastard children the way he resented the trueborn children of Rhaegar (he doesn't express the same amount of hatred for Viserys and Dany) you would actually need him talking about such children once. 

The whole 'madness quote' only works when we talk about an actual Targaryen child - and there is no question in my opinion that Ned knew that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and who the father of the child was. In fact, even Robert may have known Lyanna and Rhaegar were married. This is not something any of the people involved would have felt a need to keep secret back during the war. Especially not Rhaegar himself.

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

That he is Ned's nephew isn't the point. He is likely Rhaegar's son and a Targaryen. The focus of Robert's madness. Those are the facts that drive Robert's obsession, and would fuel the danger from Robert towards Jon. The fact he is likely Lyanna's child only furthers that danger in that Robert has convinced himself Lyanna was with Rhaegar against her choice, and any child would be the child of rape and Rhaegar's evil ways. None of which changes if Jon is a bastard or trueborn.

No, that's really important. You cannot see this whole thing just from this 'Targaryen point of view'. The child was also the nephew of a great lord, a great lord who would likely do everything to protect this child of his sister. Perhaps Robert could beat Ned into submission, perhaps not. But there is no reason to believe he would even entertain the thought of going to war against his best friend - or even kill him in battle - over the life of a mere bastard. This makes absolutely no sense.

He would also get no support for such a madness whatsoever. What kind of war/action is that, to demand the death of an innocent child which doesn't even have a claim to anything? Which cannot be a danger even after it has grown up?

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I don't know where you get these assumptions. Ned had no such power after Robert was crowned. Far from it. If he was so foolish as to try this it would have placed Ned in opposition to all the new oaths of fealty given to Robert as the new king. That includes from Jon Arryn, Hoster Tully, Tywin Lannister, Mace Tyrell, and Robert's own Stormlanders. Whatever in the text gives you the idea all these High Lords would put a bastard child, or a trueborn one, ahead of their own oaths is beyond me. Some might not have liked Robert taking such a cruel action, but to threaten war over it? Never.

But this kind of thing was what caused the Rebellion in the first place, no? King Aerys II command to kill Robert Baratheon and Eddard Stark. How could such men take an even worse command from this Robert fellow they just helped to save from such an unjust act?

And it is that Hoster Tully is bound by marriage to Eddard Stark, not Robert Baratheon. And I don't see Jon favoring one of his adoptive sons over the other in this, too. He would not want to serve a king who murdered the nephew of Eddard Stark - especially not if there was no point to that at all.

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Kings don't have to suffer stains on their personal honor. I think you mistake Robert for Henry II of House Plantagenet. Robert Baratheon, the first of his name, never would have allowed a son of "Rhaegar the Rapist" to live.

There is no proof to this claim of yours at this point. Robert Baratheon never even commanded the murder of a son of 'Rhaegar the Rapist' to begin with. I'm pretty sure 'the dragonspawn' Tywin killed would have not been killed if Ned had taken KL. Even if Robert himself had been with him at that point - they wouldn't have killed the children.

[Alexis-something-Rose]

It's not just Robert and what he might have done if he'd found out about Jon that's at issue. It's also the Lannisters, namely Tywin. Robert may not have commanded the murders of Aegon and Rhaenys, but he didn't have a much of a problem with it. He and Ned even fought over it. Tywin had no problem having the children of a man he had known since he was a boy assassinated. It doesn't matter whether Jon is a bastard or not. His existence is a problem because of his blood. Cersei had Robert's bastards killed, even the youngest one to protect her children's false claim to the throne. 

[Frey family reunion]

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I think we have discussed that a couple of times already, but I really don't think that Lyanna's child would have been in any real danger from Robert if the child had been just Lyanna's bastard - and Lyanna herself would have known that just as well as Ned.

Ned would not have soiled his honor to disguise his sister's bastard as his own if he didn't have a very good reason to do this. He either knew Rhaegar and Lyanna were married - and I think many people actually knew and still know that - or he suspected that they were. 

How do you reconcile this theory with this:

Quote

She had smiled then, a smile so tremulous and sweet that it cut the heart out of him.  Riding through the rainy night, Ned saw Jon Snow's face in front of him, so like a younger version of his own.  If the gods frowned so on bastards, he thought dully, why did they fill men with such lusts?

 

[Bael's Bastard]

7 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

How do you reconcile this theory with this:

You should explain what you think needs to be reconciled, because it isn't apparent from what you quoted.

[Frey family reunion]

9 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

You should explain what you think needs to be reconciled, because it isn't apparent from what you quoted.

It seems fairly self-explanatory, Ned associates Jon with being a bastard and being the product of lust,

[Corvo the Crow]

23 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Jon's legitimacy was irrelevant, because a legitimate Jon is still only an heir to a house Ned just rebelled against and overthrew and replaced with a new house on the Iron Throne. Ned wasn't a Targaryen loyalist. The Targaryen succession meant nothing to him by the time he discovered Jon. Jon turning out to be his nephew, and his nephew turning out to be a legitimate son of Rhaegar wouldn't have changed that. He had renounced Aerys and the Targaryens as his king. Robert was his king.

Targaryens are not yet overthrown at this point, they are still clinging on to DS and likely lords who are now Stannis' bannermen still supporting them. Dorne as well. 

Also it was never the intention to Replace targs, especially with Robert. 

[Corvo the Crow]

21 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Except, he cannot do it immediately because by the time Ned reaches ToJ (not to mention the time it would take to get back), Robert is already on the throne.

Also, I doubt there would be much support among the Northmen to push the claim of a Targaryen infant after they spent a year fighting against the Targaryens.

Even Stannis has chosen duty to family when faced with a hard choice. If Jon wasn't a bastard Ned could easily have overthrown Robert if it came to blows. He still had his army at his back, fighting the war's last few battles in the south. Hoster would support him, loyalists as well. It doesn't need to be a war either, he can convince Robert to stepdown and claim it for himself and reveal Jon's parentage sometime after and proclaim him to be the king and become hand.

He did nothing to place Jon on throne means Jon really was a bastard, or at least Ned believed so.

[Ygrain]

Just now, Corvo the Crow said:

Even Stannis has chosen duty to family when faced with a hard choice. If Jon wasn't a bastard Ned could easily have overthrown Robert if it came to blows. He still had his army behind his back, fighting the war's last few battles in the south. Hoster would support him, loyalists as well. It doesn't need to be a war either, he can convince Robert to stepdown and claim it for himself and reveal Jon's parentage sometime after and proclaim him to be the king and become hand.

He did nothing to place Jon on throne means Jon really was a bastard, or at least Ned believed so.

Everything that you propose Ned should have done would be a betrayal of everything Ned ever stood for. 

[Lord Varys]

57 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

How do you reconcile this theory with this:

The context makes it clear. It is not a confirmation that Jon Snow is Rhaegar Targaryen's bastard - and we don't know why he thinks about Jon there, or whether he thinks Rhaegar lusted after Lyanna producing Jon. He could just as well have that idea because lust led to the conception of Barra. Ned's visit with her mother apparently brought back memories of Lyanna in her tower - another young woman with another young child fathered by another royal.

[SirArthur]

48 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

It seems fairly self-explanatory, Ned associates Jon with being a bastard and being the product of lust,

But the question is more against which version of R+L you are arguing. It's starts as low as "Jon is Rhaegars unacknowledged bastard" up to "the legitimate baby king Jon whos father even had enough power to annull a marriage". There are world between these versions or R+L. 

[Bael's Bastard]

11 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

It seems fairly self-explanatory, Ned associates Jon with being a bastard and being the product of lust,

If it were self-explanatory it wouldn't require your interpretation.

As far as I can recall, Ned never calls Jon a bastard, or thinks of Jon as a bastard. We don't know whether Ned believed Jon to be a bastard, or knew him to be legitimate. It is certainly possible that Ned believed Jon to be a bastard, but we don't know, and this quote doesn't tell us.

What we do know is that Ned's wondering about the gods frowning on bastards despite filling men with such lusts occurs in the context of a visit to the mother of one of Robert's bastards, and occurs right before he asks Littlefinger what he knows about Robert's bastards.

IMO, a more likely trigger for Ned's thought about Jon is revealed by the full context of what you selectively quoted from:

"Robert will never keep to one bed," Lyanna had told him at Winterfell, on the night long ago when their father had promised her hand to the young Lord of Storm's End. "I hear he has gotten a child on some girl in the Vale." Ned had held the babe in his arms; he could scarcely deny her, nor would he lie to his sister, but he had assured her that what Robert did before their betrothal was of no matter, that he was a good man and true who would love her with all his heart. Lyanna had only smiled.

"Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man's nature."

The girl had been so young Ned had not dared to ask her age. No doubt she'd been a virgin; the better brothels could always find a virgin, if the purse was fat enough. She had light red hair and a powdering of freckles across the bridge of her nose, and when she slipped free a breast to give her nipple to the babe, he saw that her bosom was freckled as well. "I named her Barra," she said as the child nursed. "She looks so like him, does she not, milord? She has his nose, and his hair …"

"She does." Eddard Stark had touched the baby's fine, dark hair. It flowed through his fingers like black silk. Robert's firstborn had had the same fine hair, he seemed to recall.

"Tell him that when you see him, milord, as it … as it please you. Tell him how beautiful she is."

"I will," Ned had promised her. That was his curse. Robert would swear undying love and forget them before evenfall, but Ned Stark kept his vows. He thought of the promises he'd made Lyanna as she lay dying, and the price he'd paid to keep them.

"And tell him I've not been with no one else. I swear it, milord, by the old gods and new. Chataya said I could have half a year, for the baby, and for hoping he'd come back. So you'll tell him I'm waiting, won't you? I don't want no jewels or nothing, just him. He was always good to me, truly."

Good to you, Ned thought hollowly. "I will tell him, child, and I promise you, Barra shall not go wanting."

She had smiled then, a smile so tremulous and sweet that it cut the heart out of him. Riding through the rainy night, Ned saw Jon Snow's face in front of him, so like a younger version of his own. If the gods frowned so on bastards, he thought dully, why did they fill men with such lusts? "Lord Baelish, what do you know of Robert's bastards?" (AGOT: Eddard IV)

[Alexis-something-Rose]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

It seems fairly self-explanatory, Ned associates Jon with being a bastard and being the product of lust,

Ned also wonders if Rhaegar frequented brothels and he comes up with the answer no.

Quote

For the first time in years, he found himself remembering Rhaegar Targaryen. He wondered if Rhaegar had frequented brothels, somehow he thought not. (Eddard IX, AGOT 35)

It's not really in terms of Jon's supposed bastardy that he is thinking. He just left the brothel where met yet another one of Robert's bastard's. If he thinks that Rhaegar frequented brothels, then yes, the quote works.