R+L=J v.165

[Alexis-something-Rose]

5 minutes ago, Faera said:

Remind me, what did Mawyn say? I really can't remember... 

Gorghan of Old Ghis once wrote that a prophecy is like a treacherous woman. She takes your member in her mouth, and you with the pleasure of it and think, how sweet, how fine, how good this is . . . and then her teeth snap shut and your moans turn to screams. That is the nature of prophecy, said Gorghan. Prophecy will bite your prick off every time. (Sam V, AFFC)

[divica]

2 minutes ago, Widow's Watch said:

Gorghan of Old Ghis once wrote that a prophecy is like a treacherous woman. She takes your member in her mouth, and you with the pleasure of it and think, how sweet, how fine, how good this is . . . and then her teeth snap shut and your moans turn to screams. That is the nature of prophecy, said Gorghan. Prophecy will bite your prick off every time. (Sam V, AFFC)

The interpretation I take of all the people that criticize prophecies is that prophecies are mostly useless.

Not because they are wrong, but because you will only understand them after they come to pass and you will never know if a profecy is really refering to someone until it is completed. So what is the use of profecy besides tomenting people? What has to happen will happen wether people know about profecy or not...

[Faera]

3 minutes ago, divica said:

Or do you think that jon wouldn t do anything after finding what happened to his familly?

I think exactly that. What could he do? He has no connection to Rhaegar or even Lyanna outside of their DNA and being their son was about the worst thing to be at the time he was born, hence what happened to his half-siblings and their mother. There really is not reason Jon would go out of his way to seek revenge for a load of people who were already dead before he was born or died soon after.

 

[IronBars]

18 minutes ago, Faera said:

Remind me, what did Mawyn say? I really can't remember... 

I didn't forget, I just don't see how Ned telling Jon would have altered his circumstances all that much.

 

If R+L=J, and ned tells him it alters everything for jon........hence why he should of been told when said he was joining the NW, and hence why the fact he didnt is a reason to question R+L=J.

As i said above the reason for not telling jon cant be to protect jon from the knowledge itself or what jon might do, because he was willing to tell robert (who was a brother to him) that his children were really jamies and that would cause everything jon being told he was a targaryen would cause ie civil war if jon wanted revenge/his birthright

[Alexis-something-Rose]

9 minutes ago, divica said:

The interpretation I take of all the people that criticize prophecies is that prophecies are mostly useless.

Not because they are wrong, but because you will only understand them after they come to pass and you will never know if a profecy is really refering to someone until it is completed. So what is the use of profecy besides tomenting people? What has to happen will happen wether people know about profecy or not...

I think Marwyn's quote is about being careful with the way you interpret the prophecy. Look at Mel's several blunders with prophecies. Would Mel even be around Stannis if she knew that Dany hatched herself three dragons?

When Tyrion encounters Moqorro, he tells himself that it's best he doesn't tell him there's another Targaryen out there because that will only confuse the red priests. 

I think this is what his line is about, imo.

[Faera]

1 minute ago, IronBars said:

If R+L=J, and ned tells him it alters everything for jon

How exactly? I'm not playing dumb or anything -- I'm seriously asking how learning he is Rhaegar and Lyanna's son would alter his prospects that much. He couldn't really tell anyone and would still have to live as a bastard. He might be a bastard anyway. There is no way of knowing or proving at this point his parents were married even if he was legitimate.

5 minutes ago, IronBars said:

As i said above the reason for not telling jon cant be to protect jon from the knowledge itself or what jon might do, because he was willing to tell robert (who was a brother to him) that his children were really jamies and that would cause everything jon being told he was a targaryen would cause ie civil war if jon wanted revenge/his birthright

Robert was the lawful king and Renly seems to have already making plans to tempt his brother into putting Cersei aside in favour Margaery Tyrell so I'd say a shift in power from Lannister to Tyrell was on the books with or without Ned's help. Heck, even Cersei thought she was on the ropes...

And Jon's desire for revenge (again, as I said in another post I don't see why) or birthright (which cannot be proven easily) wouldn't go anywhere, even if he found out. He'd need support, armies and for people to believe the claim in the first place. That is highly unlikely.

[divica]

22 minutes ago, Faera said:

I think exactly that. What could he do? He has no connection to Rhaegar or even Lyanna outside of their DNA and being their son was about the worst thing to be at the time he was born, hence what happened to his half-siblings and their mother. There really is not reason Jon would go out of his way to seek revenge for a load of people who were already dead before he was born or died soon after.

 

He doesn t have a conection because robert killed his father and his suposed father lied to him his intire life. Even if he doesn t want a new civil war I think he would want justice and he would want to meet his aunt and uncle. And he would probably want to protect them (they always have assassins after them) instead of joining the NW. 

[Ygrain]

10 hours ago, IronBars said:

Ok, you arent assuming anything ? Yet everything you say assumes R+L=J.

I was referring to the assumptions you assumed me to have concerning Jon's legitimacy and Ned's knowledge.

10 hours ago, IronBars said:

Hes heritage isnt void, where you come from and who you are is of vast importance.

Only on a theoretical level. I'm with @Faera on this - the knowledge would bring no good to Jon.

10 hours ago, IronBars said:

If R+L=J then the burdan you speak of its Jons not Neds, and jon has a right to know before gives everything up,  Ned doesnt have the right to do that,

That's what I was referring to in the ETA of my previous post - it may not be morally right but it is the pragmatic thing to do. " Some secrets are safer kept hidden. Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust ". That basically tells you the main motive for what Ned does, or doesn't do. Time and again, he chooses the wellbeing of those he loves, over doing "the right thing". If the knowledge of his true parentage puts Jon at risk, then Ned doesn't tell, and this is his call to make. He pays the ultimate price for his silence.

10 hours ago, IronBars said:

unless R+L=J isnt true and there is nothing to tell......

This cuts both ways, though. Jon has the right to know in every case, even if his mother was a fisherman's daughter. Yet, Ned doesn't tell  - why? With RLJ, you have this explanation of a dangerous secret. What explanation, what justification is there for FMD or Wylla? Some perhaps can be found for Ashara, though I wholedeartedly disagree with such reasoning. But if you claim that not telling is a point against RLJ, what does it say about the various propositions for Jon's mother?

10 hours ago, IronBars said:

Yes jon might not of been protected yet, would it of changed his mind about joining the NW ? Who knows, no one knows if he is or isnt rhaegar and lyannas son yet let alone if he is legitimate or a bastard.

Which is exactly the issue - there is no telling what Jon might do when he learns.

10 hours ago, IronBars said:

In the 14 years ? I think jon is 14 years old at start of the first book, your saying ned never trusted cat enough to tell her jon was lyannas via rhaegar ? Seriously ?? When she treated jon terribly ? 

See the quote about secrets above. And see also Ned's thoughts when he confronts Cersei about the attempt on Bran:

"If it came to that, the life of some child I did not know, against Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon, what would I do? Even more so, what would Catelyn do, if it were Jon’s life, against the children of her body?" He did not know. He prayed he never would.

(Note that he doesn't list Jon among his children)

So, it's not a matter of not trusting Catelyn per se, but to entrust her with a secret the keeping of which might go against the interest of her own children.

BTW, GRRM made clear that most of the time, Cat was not treating Jon terribly. That one moment at Bran's bed was not typical. She was distanced, she wasn't motherly towards him and she saw him as encroaching on her children's rights as well as a potential threat,  which, by the standards of the Westerosi society, he was.

10 hours ago, IronBars said:

Meera was mentioned because she doesnt look like a crannigman same as jon wouldnt

As others have pointed out: she does.

10 hours ago, IronBars said:

Again i didnt say people were asking questions, i said if he had let howland take the baby there would of been no questions, also saying there is a question of his parentage and saying people asked questions are very different things, you have been mixing them up.

Excuse me, how is "there would have been no questions" different from "people wouldn't be asking questions"?

10 hours ago, IronBars said:

You assume R+L=J, so thats what i was pointing out, not sure if you think Jon is TPWWP and AA?

He might be (as a Stark-Targ he is practically an embodiment of a union of Ice and Fire), but I am not convinced it is a good, or desirable, thing for him to be. We don't know where the prophecies come from, on whose agenda, and who the "good guys" in the story are, if there even are any, so the trope of the prophesized one can be subverted in quite a couple of ways when it won't be what people think it is.

10 hours ago, IronBars said:

And i disagree, ned not telling jon he was really the son of rhaegar and lyanna before he made the biggest choice of his life is a counter arguement to it, because makes more sense ned said nothing because hes mother was no one in particular so he would still be who he thinks he is........

See above. Ned has reneged on sticking to the "right" choice more than once, so I am not really surprised at one more instance, and he should have done it in any case, anyway.

9 hours ago, IronBars said:

If howland had taken the baby to the neck, he could of went to winterfell at age 7/8/9 as a ward of winterfell, accomplishing the same thing and it being less of an issue and more hidden.

I don't think you have thought this through enough. Imagine the situation - a boy from the Neck turns up and he looks exactly like Ned. That's bound to raise way more curiosity than having a baby brought home right after the war and Ned simply stating "that's my son" and behaving like it's the most natural thing in the world - and to people, it is natural that he found some comfort at a difficult time. Heck, even Cat herself would be fine with that if not for Jon's presence.

 

7 hours ago, divica said:

 If jon finds out the thruth I don t think he will ever forgive Ned.

The contrary, I believe. He has been through quite a couple of pragmatic but morally dubious choices himself, so he will be able to see Ned's reasoning.

7 hours ago, divica said:

A true father doesn t send his son to the Wall without telling him the truth so that he could know all his options. Robert killed jon's father and didn t punish tywin for kiling his baby siblings. He has a aunt and uncle out there... Even if jon could get over being treated as ned's bastard his intire life (which 14 year old jon would find very dificult) Ned robbed him of too many things. And I don t think we can say it was out of love.

It was basically fear of jon wanting revenge against robert or that he would embrace his targ side and everybody finding out about his lie. We don t know about Ned's promises but if ned told jon the truth it was possible that Ned would end up as an enemy of his one true love (aka robert). Or do you think that jon wouldn t do anything after finding what happened to his familly?

Ned robbed him of things that had a high potential of getting Jon killed. Instead, he gave Jon a safe childhood with a loving father figure. I definitely would call this acting out of love. Moreover, it wasn't only about Jon but about the safety of Ned's own family and the wellbeing of the people of Westeros who definitely could do without another conflict in the realm. What's one boy's right compared to that?

[IronBars]

9 hours ago, Faera said:

How exactly? I'm not playing dumb or anything -- I'm seriously asking how learning he is Rhaegar and Lyanna's son would alter his prospects that much. He couldn't really tell anyone and would still have to live as a bastard. He might be a bastard anyway. There is no way of knowing or proving at this point his parents were married even if he was legitimate.

There are a few options here:

Option 1: Ned thinks he is still a bastard

If this is the case mentally for jon he must just reconcile not being neds child but lyannas via rhaegar, he has to deal with being lied to for his entire life, hes connection to the starks changes etc then he needs to deal with the fact his fathers best friend killed his own father. This changes jons mental state etc does he still join the nights watch ? Most likely because he would feel even more like this would be only place for him.

Option 2: Ned knows Jon is a legitimate targaryen

Jon learns he isn't a bastard but (supposedly) the rightful heir to the iron throne, he needs to reconcile being lied to his entire life, realises roberts rebellion was built on a lie, he true father was murdered, finds out has targaryen relatives ie dany/viserys, does he seek them out? Does he want vengence ? Maybe, does he join the NW ? In my opinion no because he is only going there because he is a bastard with no place in the world.

9 hours ago, Faera said:

 

Robert was the lawful king and Renly seems to have already making plans to tempt his brother into putting Cersei aside in favour Margaery Tyrell so I'd say a shift in power from Lannister to Tyrell was on the books with or without Ned's help. Heck, even Cersei thought she was on the ropes...

 

Thats not really relevent, my point was Ned was willing to put hes best friend through hell, and cause civil war, because he deserved to know.

Yet didnt tell jon because why? He loved robert like a brother so its the same even tho its different

9 hours ago, Faera said:

 

And Jon's desire for revenge (again, as I said in another post I don't see why) or birthright (which cannot be proven easily) wouldn't go anywhere, even if he found out. He'd need support, armies and for people to believe the claim in the first place. That is highly unlikely.

Jon could of joined dany, thats easiest answer to that, again depends on whether option 1 or 2 is the case above, 

[IronBars]

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I was referring to the assumptions you assumed me to have concerning Jon's legitimacy and Ned's knowledge.

Well you seem to assume ned knows he is a legitimate targ, if you don't sorry but thats how what you say comes across

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

 

That's what I was referring to in the ETA of my previous post - it may not be morally right but it is the pragmatic thing to do. " Some secrets are safer kept hidden. Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust ". That basically tells you the main motive for what Ned does, or doesn't do. Time and again, he chooses the wellbeing of those he loves, over doing "the right thing". If the knowledge of his true parentage puts Jon at risk, then Ned doesn't tell, and this is his call to make. He pays the ultimate price for his silence.

See Jons life is going to be at risk at the NW anyway, probably more at risk then anyone finding out he is the son of rhaegar and lyanna after 14yr years of no one finding out, 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

 

This cuts both ways, though. Jon has the right to know in every case, even if his mother was a fisherman's daughter. Yet, Ned doesn't tell  - why? With RLJ, you have this explanation of a dangerous secret. What explanation, what justification is there for FMD or Wylla? Some perhaps can be found for Ashara, though I wholedeartedly disagree with such reasoning. But if you claim that not telling is a point against RLJ, what does it say about the various propositions for Jon's mother?

Which is exactly the issue - there is no telling what Jon might do when he learns.

See the quote about secrets above. And see also Ned's thoughts when he confronts Cersei about the attempt on Bran:

Jon has a right to know either way yes, but if it was a fisherwomans daughter and Ned isnt telling him out of his own shame it fits better then not telling him he is a targ before gives everything up (assuming hes legimate there)

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

 

So, it's not a matter of not trusting Catelyn per se, but to entrust her with a secret the keeping of which might go against the interest of her own children.

BTW, GRRM made clear that most of the time, Cat was not treating Jon terribly. That one moment at Bran's bed was not typical. She was distanced, she wasn't motherly towards him and she saw him as encroaching on her children's rights as well as a potential threat,  which, by the standards of the Westerosi society, he was.

It is not trusting cat.

And oft times being held at a distance and apart is more damaging to a person then if was horrible 24/7

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

 

Excuse me, how is "there would have been no questions" different from "people wouldn't be asking questions"?

There is questions around who jons mother is, no one knows, saying there is a question about something and saying people are asking questions are entirely different. 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

 

He might be (as a Stark-Targ he is practically an embodiment of a union of Ice and Fire), but I am not convinced it is a good, or desirable, thing for him to be. We don't know where the prophecies come from, on whose agenda, and who the "good guys" in the story are, if there even are any, so the trope of the prophesized one can be subverted in quite a couple of ways when it won't be what people think it is.

See above. Ned has reneged on sticking to the "right" choice more than once, so I am not really surprised at one more instance, and he should have done it in any case, anyway.

As i said in previous post he had no problem telling robert about cerseis children not being his and plunging the 7 kingdoms into civil war

While not the same as not telling jon it is similiar

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

 

I don't think you have thought this through enough. Imagine the situation - a boy from the Neck turns up and he looks exactly like Ned. That's bound to raise way more curiosity than having a baby brought home right after the war and Ned simply stating "that's my son" and behaving like it's the most natural thing in the world - and to people, it is natural that he found some comfort at a difficult time. Heck, even Cat herself would be fine with that if not for Jon's presence.

 

Sending him to the neck was an example, he could of sent him to the vale where he himself was fostered etc, the point was there was easier ways to hide him without jon growing up feeling how he did etc

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

The contrary, I believe. He has been through quite a couple of pragmatic but morally dubious choices himself, so he will be able to see Ned's reasoning.

 

Not at the point where he is joinng the NW

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Ned robbed him of things that had a high potential of getting Jon killed. Instead, he gave Jon a safe childhood with a loving father figure. I definitely would call this acting out of love. Moreover, it wasn't only about Jon but about the safety of Ned's own family and the wellbeing of the people of Westeros who definitely could do without another conflict in the realm. What's one boy's right compared to that?

As i said above he was willing to do it for robert to know the truth.....while not the same there is strong parallels

[Ygrain]

4 minutes ago, IronBars said:

See Jons life is going to be at risk at the NW anyway, probably more at risk then anyone finding out he is the son of rhaegar and lyanna after 14yr years of no one finding out, 

Sadly, Westeros has quite different views on what is a suitable occupation for fourteen-year-olds. If you add to it that Ned's own brother was there, NW doesn't come across as so bad, for a Westerosi.

4 minutes ago, IronBars said:

Jon has a right to know either way yes, but if it was a fisherwomans daughter and Ned isnt telling him out of his own shame it fits better then not telling him he is a targ before gives everything up (assuming hes legimate there)

Except, there is nothing in Ned's PoVs to indicate that he would withhold such a thing to spare himself the embarrassment, is there?

4 minutes ago, IronBars said:

And oft times being held at a distance and apart is more damaging to a person then if was horrible 24/7

That certainly is but by the norms of her society, Cat is not expected to fulfill a motherly role to Jon - in fact, everyone would be shocked if she did. Jon certainly didn't feel comfortable in her presence but I don't think we can claim he suffered any serious emotional damage.

4 minutes ago, IronBars said:

As i said in previous post he had no problem telling robert about cerseis children not being his and plunging the 7 kingdoms into civil war

While not the same as not telling jon it is similiar

...

As i said above he was willing to do it for robert to know the truth.....while not the same there is strong parallels

There is a crucial difference - if Ned doesn't tell Robert, the kingdom gets a king who has absolutely no right to the throne. And misguided as his effort was, Ned tried to prevent the war by giving Cersei a chance to escape, instead of letting Robert kill them all, to which Tywin would really have no other choice but retaliate.

4 minutes ago, IronBars said:

Not at the point where he is joinng the NW

Most likely. But I was referring to Jon learning in the future.

 

[IronBars]

21 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Sadly, Westeros has quite different views on what is a suitable occupation for fourteen-year-olds. If you add to it that Ned's own brother was there, NW doesn't come across as so bad, for a Westerosi.

 

Hes life is still in more danger there then it is from someone finding out he is rhaegars son.

So the point stands.

23 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Except, there is nothing in Ned's PoVs to indicate that he would withhold such a thing to spare himself the embarrassment, is there?

No, but jon is rarely thought of in his povs in general anyway

25 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

That certainly is but by the norms of her society, Cat is not expected to fulfill a motherly role to Jon - in fact, everyone would be shocked if she did. Jon certainly didn't feel comfortable in her presence but I don't think we can claim he suffered any serious emotional damage.

Cat wouldnt of had to treat him like a son, could of treated him like a ward rather then a threat if she new. Also he joined the NW because he was a bastard and had no place in the world so you could say hes treatment led to that.

 

27 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

There is a crucial difference - if Ned doesn't tell Robert, the kingdom gets a king who has absolutely no right to the throne. And misguided as his effort was, Ned tried to prevent the war by giving Cersei a chance to escape, instead of letting Robert kill them all, to which Tywin would really have no other choice but retaliate.

 

There is a difference but the effective outcome of both decisions to tell robert and jon are similar so there is a parallel, and when was willing to risk it all to tell his best friend, why wasnt he willing to tell jon before made the biggest decision of his life ? 

[Faera]

7 hours ago, IronBars said:

There are a few options here:

Option 1: Ned thinks he is still a bastard

If this is the case mentally for jon he must just reconcile not being neds child but lyannas via rhaegar, he has to deal with being lied to for his entire life, hes connection to the starks changes etc then he needs to deal with the fact his fathers best friend killed his own father. This changes jons mental state etc does he still join the nights watch ? Most likely because he would feel even more like this would be only place for him.

Option 2: Ned knows Jon is a legitimate targaryen

Jon learns he isn't a bastard but (supposedly) the rightful heir to the iron throne, he needs to reconcile being lied to his entire life, realises roberts rebellion was built on a lie, he true father was murdered, finds out has targaryen relatives ie dany/viserys, does he seek them out? Does he want vengence ? Maybe, does he join the NW ? In my opinion no because he is only going there because he is a bastard with no place in the world.

Thats not really relevent, my point was Ned was willing to put hes best friend through hell, and cause civil war, because he deserved to know.

Yet didnt tell jon because why? He loved robert like a brother so its the same even tho its different

Jon could of joined dany, thats easiest answer to that, again depends on whether option 1 or 2 is the case above, 

I don't really have much more to add that I haven't said already so, I won't repeat myself. In general, I agree with a lot of what @Ygrain has already said. Whether you think Jon had "a right to know" before "making the life altering decision" is pretty irrelevant. Since knowing the truth would bring no benefit to Jon, there was no point in telling him.

The only thing I will add is that everything you just said pretty much provides good reasons for why Ned would probably not want to tell Jon. None of that sounds like it would leads to a good place for Jon or anyone else. A man can rise high in the Night's Watch but this idea of him randomly running off to go join up with relatives he never met, has no real connection to and might not believe who he is anyway (and have good reason to want him dead)... yep, if I were Ned I'd probably do exactly what he did -- take that knowledge to my grave.

(Additionally, I wouldn't say Robert's Rebellion was far from built on a lie -- it started because Aerys called for Ned and Robert's heads after executing Rickard and Brandon in a most barbaric manner.)

[IronBars]

11 minutes ago, Faera said:

I don't really have much more to add that I haven't said already in either my responses to your posts or @divica (you both made very similar points) so, I won't repeat myself. In general, I agree with a lot of what @Ygrain has already said. Whether you think Jon had "a right to know" before "making the life altering decision" is pretty irrelevant. Since knowing the truth would bring no benefit to Jon, there was no point in telling him.

The only thing I will add is that everything you just said pretty much explains why Ned would probably not want to tell Jon. None of that sounds like it would leads to a good place for Jon or anyone else. A man can rise high in the Night's Watch but this idea of him randomly running off to go join up with relatives he never met, has no real connection to and might not believe who he is anyway (and have good reason to want him dead)... yep, if I were Ned I'd probably do exactly what he did -- take that knowledge to my grave.

(Also, Robert's Rebellion was far from built on a lie -- it started because Aerys called for Ned and Robert's heads after executing Rickard and Brandon in a most barbaric manner.)

There all reasons ned should of told jon in my opinion, it isnt and wasnt neds place to deny jons his heritage, 

The rebellion only started when rhaegar supposedly abducted lyanna, if they eloped the rebellion was built on a lie.

 

[Ygrain]

10 minutes ago, Faera said:

if I were Ned I'd probably do exactly what he did -- take that knowledge to my grave.

I wouldn't tell him, either  Jon definitely didn't seem very mature at the beginning of AGOT, I can't see him coping well with such a revelation.

Only,  don't think that Ned intended never to tell Jon - that urgent desire to talk to Jon that arises when Ned can well expect to be beheaded, IMHO, suggests that he did mean to tell, at some point. Even that dream that Bran has, about Ned in the crypts telling him something important about Jon, seems to be pointing this way.

[Ygrain]

4 minutes ago, IronBars said:

There all reasons ned should of told jon in my opinion, it isnt and wasnt neds place to deny jons his heritage, 

You're arguing this from a moral standpoint, as I have said before. But more often than not, moral and pragmatic are not the same. 

4 minutes ago, IronBars said:

The rebellion only started when rhaegar supposedly abducted lyanna, if they eloped the rebellion was built on a lie.

Sorry but this is a misconception. The rebellion only started after Aerys ordered Robert and Ned executed, and Jon Arryn refused. No-one called their banners right after Rhaegar made off with Lyanna.

[Faera]

4 hours ago, IronBars said:

There all reasons ned should of told jon in my opinion, 

Just because he "should" have told Jon doesn't mean he would choose or want to. They are different things.

Quote

it isnt and wasnt neds place to deny jons his heritage,

I respectfully disagree. He's Jon's father, regardless of his heritage, which is still half-Stark, and it was his knowledge to tell. He wouldn't be the first person to withhold details from a relevant party for fear of the consequences.

4 hours ago, IronBars said:

The rebellion only started when rhaegar supposedly abducted lyanna, if they eloped the rebellion was built on a lie.

Even if they eloped, Rhaegar's actions would still have likely lead to conflict. You can't just nick other people's betrothed/maiden daughters/sisters. 

4 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Only,  don't think that Ned intended never to tell Jon - that urgent desire to talk to Jon that arises when Ned can well expect to be beheaded, IMHO, suggests that he did mean to tell, at some point. Even that dream that Bran has, about Ned in the crypts telling him something important about Jon, seems to be pointing this way.

That's a fair point and it goes into what you were saying about morality and pragmatism. Death-bed confession, almost.

Those are both great moments that are filled with foreboding that had completely slipped my mind until now. 'The thought of Jon filled Ned with a sense of shame, and a sorrow too deep for words. If only he could see the boy again, sit and talk with him … pain shot through his broken leg, beneath the filthy grey plaster of his cast. He winced, his fingers opening and closing helplessly.' He had plenty of reasons not to tell Jon before but being so close to death - or good as death - sitting in a cell with only his thoughts for company, I understand him feeling a sense of regret that he might never get to tell Jon the truth

Barring a non-death scenario, if Ned could have lived to know "ASoS-ish"/"ADwD" Jon then that might also have made him feel more comfortable telling Jon the truth. With Robert dead and Jon having matured a great deal, Ned might have felt it was safe enough to tell him. All the practical reasons for keeping it secret aside though, I wouldn't be surprised if the fear of Jon hating him for the lie might have loomed in Ned's mind too.

[IronBars]

4 hours ago, Ygrain said:

You're arguing this from a moral standpoint, as I have said before. But more often than not, moral and pragmatic are not the same. 

 

Morally he should of told him yes, but regardless of everything jon should of been told he was rhaegar and lyannas son (if that is the case) before in joined the nightwatch and gave up everything he didnt know he could (possibly have)

4 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Sorry but this is a misconception. The rebellion only started after Aerys ordered Robert and Ned executed, and Jon Arryn refused. No-one called their banners right after Rhaegar made off with Lyanna.

Thats not accurate, rhaegar "abducted" lyanna, brandon stark went to kings landing, was arrested with others, there fathers summoned, then killed, regardless whether jon refused aerys when asked to hand over ned and robert the seeds of the rebellion had started, if aerys had not asked for ned and roberts heads they still would of called there banners and jon arryn would of followed them, as proven by his refusal to hand them over. 

So the reason for the rebellion is the "abduction" of lyanna

27 minutes ago, Faera said:

Just because he "should" have told Jon doesn't mean he would choose or want to. They are different things.

I respectfully disagree. He's Jon's father, regardless of his heritage, which is still half-Stark, and it was his knowledge to tell. He wouldn't be the first person to withhold details from a relevant party for fear of the consequences.

 

If lyanna made ned promise to raise jon, protect him etc, i doubt part of that promise was "never tell him who he is, even if he is joining the NW where hes life will be in mortal danger and let him die thinking hes mother cared nothing for him"

Implicit in neds promise to lyanna is the revealing of jons true identity to jon in my opinion, and while i understand why he didnt tell jon when he was young makes no sense to not tell him when joining the NW and ned doesnt knlw when or if he will ever see him again.

32 minutes ago, Faera said:

.Even if they eloped, Rhaegar's actions would still have likely lead to conflict. You can't just nick other people's betrothed/maiden daughters/sisters. 

Very true but likely to not of been a full scale civil war.

 

[Black Crow]

17 hours ago, Ygrain said:

You're arguing this from a moral standpoint, as I have said before. But more often than not, moral and pragmatic are not the same. 

Very true.

What's important from Lord Eddard's point of view is not just the "danger" to Jon, but the danger represented by Jon.

The danger to Jon himself is two-fold if R+L=J is true, or at least believed to be true. The first and most obvious danger is that someone discovers that secret and decides to eliminate the potential threat to the Baratheon/Lannister throne. 

Conversely, however, there is the danger represented by Jon in the potential to raise Targaryen banners in his name, thus plunging Westeros into another civil war with an uncertain outcome; both scenarios are equally viable, as we've been with King Robert's reaction to the perceived threat represented Danaerys the Dragonlord and her late and unlamented brother.

Move further along in time and the possibility cannot be discounted that an older Jon himself might not raise Targaryen banners in his own name.

How likely these various scenarios might be is an open question, but unless Jon is carried off silently and quickly, any of them would plunge Westeros into war once again - as it turns out this happens anyway in the wake of Robert's assisted demise, but the fear it would happen is pragmatic enough reason for Lord Eddard to remain silent and let sleeping dogs lie.

 

 

[IronBars]

51 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Very true.

What's important from Lord Eddard's point of view is not just the "danger" to Jon, but the danger represented by Jon.

The danger to Jon himself is two-fold if R+L=J is true, or at least believed to be true. The first and most obvious danger is that someone discovers that secret and decides to eliminate the potential threat to the Baratheon/Lannister throne. 

Conversely, however, there is the danger represented by Jon in the potential to raise Targaryen banners in his name, thus plunging Westeros into another civil war with an uncertain outcome; both scenarios are equally viable, as we've been with King Robert's reaction to the perceived threat represented Danaerys the Dragonlord and her late and unlamented brother.

Move further along in time and the possibility cannot be discounted that an older Jon himself might not raise Targaryen banners in his own name.

How likely these various scenarios might be is an open question, but unless Jon is carried off silently and quickly, any of them would plunge Westeros into war once again - as it turns out this happens anyway in the wake of Robert's assisted demise, but the fear it would happen is pragmatic enough reason for Lord Eddard to remain silent and let sleeping dogs lie.

 

 

The fact later in the book ned has no qualms telling robert the children he thinks are his are infact jamie lannisters (which would have the near the exact same result ie a civil war ) makes the arguement he didnt tell jon for the fear of starting a civil war a false idea because he was willing to do just that so robert new the truth.

The argument he didnt tell jon for jons own safety is valid only up until jon is joinng the NW - because jons life is in mortal danger at the wall and ned let him take the black with not so much as an attempt to stop him. So at this poimt the argument he didnt tell jon for jons safety also becomes a false idea. Because 1. Hes going to be in danger anyway and 2. Once takes the black he renounces all claims (he may have).

In my opinion the only valid reason to not tell jon at that point is 1. R+L = J isn't true, or 2. ned is so ashamed of lying to jon and fears him hating him for lying all his life.

The most likely one of them to be true is R+L=J isnt true.

People believe R+L=J so much they can't see anything else.