Jump to content
manchester_babe

Why do book readers hate R+L=J?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, SirArthur said:

I don't really see a point in the question who his parents have been. There are different classes of bastards in Westeros which pretty much define the social standing of the bastard. 

There are aknowledged bastards like Edric Storm or Ramsay Snow. There are unknown bastards like Gendry. And there is Jon Snow, an aknowledged bastard of Ned. 

The entire idea of RLJ requires an impact to the story. To the point where the question is how will it advance the story with all the problems we have by simply aknowledging Jon as Lyanna's son or bastard. Will Ned be publicly known as a liar ? Will he, once again, loose his honor over Jon ? How is an item, be it Blackfyre or Rhaegar's harp proof for anything ? 

It is far more logical to put the bastard of anyone under the guardianship of the specific house, if he/she should be an aknowledged as member of that house. Why is Edric Storm under the guardianship of Renly ? We have an entire story around him and how Stannis has problems with Robert. Edric Storm is not seen as a Florent, he is seen as a Baratheon. It matters not who the real father and mother of Edric Storm were. As long as they are from house Florent/Baratheon. And even if the parents were Estermont/Hightower. He is an aknowledged son of Robert. I doubt it would be accepted if Edric Storm should suddenly be a Hightower bastard. How should that impact the story ? 

There is really not much reason why Jon's parents will ever be revealed to the reader. As long as mysteries like the tower of joy are explained in an sufficient way. 

This may be a bit tinfoil, but I believe that part of the purpose of R+L=J is controlling dragons. If you think this is ridiculous, you can skip the rest.

One of the greatest elements of ASoIaF is the juxtaposition of different types of magic: blood/sacrificial magic, earth/nature magic, basic magic with little cost, etc.

With regards to R+L=J, I think Jon's abilities as a warg might come into play- especially if he can get some time with the dragons to form a bond.

At present (in the books/fuck the show) Dany's greatest issue is that she has no control over her children. They can sometimes act in her best interest, but they do what they want.

One of the defining characteristics of a skinchanger is that they're animals seem to be obedient, even when not being used.

This could be useful for someone wishing to control a living weapon of mass destruction.

That's my tinfoil theory/greatest wish.

I also hope Mel will resurrect Jon (if he's actually dead), Thoros of Myr style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Sunland Lord said:

I often think this was a good idea.

I don't mind, although I didn't really find aFFC worth deviating from the original plan for. But aSoS was so good!

There are a few points that I'm hoping never come to fruition from his original plan, such as Arya and Jon falling in love.

His letter with the outline, with what I assume is still the canonical ending redacted, was posted online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Yukle said:

I don't mind, although I didn't really find aFFC worth deviating from the original plan for. But aSoS was so good!

There are a few points that I'm hoping never come to fruition from his original plan, such as Arya and Jon falling in love.

His letter with the outline, with what I assume is still the canonical ending redacted, was posted online.

No, the now infamous outline is not canon! Martin has spoken about it. The outline was a requirement from his editors? Or whoever, and he said he was just "making shit up" (paraphrasing). @The Fattest Leech has the details, since she heard it directly from Martin. 

Jonrya is actually a perfect example of "making stuff up". :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, the now infamous outline is not canon! Martin has spoken about it.

Thank goodness. The redacted part maybe, though, or there would be no issue in showing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Thank goodness. The redacted part maybe, though, or there would be no issue in showing it.

Indeed! :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, the now infamous outline is not canon! Martin has spoken about it. The outline was a requirement from his editors? Or whoever, and he said he was just "making shit up" (paraphrasing). @The Fattest Leech has the details, since she heard it directly from Martin. 

Jonrya is actually a perfect example of "making stuff up". :D

 

 

4 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Thank goodness. The redacted part maybe, though, or there would be no issue in showing it.

Oh yes, yes, yes. That outline is indeed GRRM “just making shit up” in order to sell a book. The third or fourth line in the outline says this, as well as his very clear comments at Balticon (I can link to later as I am making dinner at the mo). And on top of it, it did not give away the ending, as many posters assume- the blacked out part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Thank goodness. The redacted part maybe, though, or there would be no issue in showing it.

Here ya go. (Don’t ask how I found it so quickly ^_^)

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/137820-what-would-you-ask-the-grrm-updated/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Here ya go. (Don’t ask how I found it so quickly ^_^)

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/137820-what-would-you-ask-the-grrm-updated/

 

"And in the process, I pretty much disregarded the outline. The characters took me off in entirely different directions. So, for 20 years I had forgotten that that two-page thing even existed."

[question if he knows Arya's and Jon's fates]

"Tyrion, Arya, Jon, Sansa, you know, all of the Stark kids, and the major Lannisters, yeah."

OH NOES! HE KNOWS HOW ALL THE STARKS WILL DIE! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Again no, it really isn't and honestly that had more  to do with the story "I" thought i was reading based on who "I" thought the author was.You brought up a point earlier about readers expectations on what the author would do and you are right.I got caught in that trap and that's how I came out RLJ initially.

@JNR@The Snowfyre Chorus

 

I am merely quoting what you posted yourself in this very thread ;).  If you want to refine or amend your comments to explain that you meant something different then that's fair enough but your statements have changed substantively over the last few posts so it does look a little bit like you are arguing with yourself! 

I'm not really interested in the 999th debate over R+L=J(=/=J) and you are entirely welcome to your opinions and the evolution of your belief or disbelief in the theory no doubt explains where you stand.  I understand how passionately some people feel on this and all things ASOIAF related so you will have your opinions confirmed or refuted when the novels come out and no sooner.  I just thought (and still do) that your comment answered the OP's question very succinctly.

4 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

But drapping a common characterization over a man who himself said he wanted to present something his grandmother wouldn't really figure out kinda makes my point.Even his own wife said he doesn't do obvious.

Or consider other statements as wanting to suprise fans.Its not as simple as saying we are dismissing RLJ because its obvious. Based on other works and projects by the author i can say it is.Therefore,to say  GRRM doesn't do obvious is stating a fact.So,who am i to believe on this matter? I take the author's statements and his wife's word also for a bonus. 

@JNR
@The Snowfyre Chorus

 

And you see the problem?  You are straight back into saying it's too obvious.  Without batting an eyelid you launch straight back into repeating the argument that it's obvious and the author doesn't do obvious despite arguing with me that you don't!  Maybe this is just a joke at my expense?

You also have any number of posts in this very thread from readers who have said they did not find R+L=J to be obvious but you are disregarding all of them and insisting it is.  Why?  Is it so hard to accept that you really did pick up on the clues and / or instinctively realise something that other people didn't?

4 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Au contraire,I didn't second guess myself.I was content eventhough there was always things about the RLJ theory i couldn't reconcile .Those problems that just wouldn't go away you know?@JNR @The Snowfyre Chorus

 

< SNIP >

I had to admit after rereading ,RLJ wasn't the most logical, or probable answer.In the end,I didn't dismiss RLJ  because it was to obvious.I dismissed it because i found an answer that made more sense overall.

 

This seems a bit of a muddle to me.  You are saying R+L=J is the most logical or probable answer from reading the books so what are you basing your answer "that made more sense overall" on?  GRRM is an author, the answers are meant to be in the books. 

And purely out of curiosity what answer makes more sense to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JNR said:

The evidence doesn't measure up to the claim that R+L=J is all the things it's cracked up to be: unwritten canon, for instance, or 100% probable, or "not even a theory."   There are so many gaps, so many shortfalls of critically important information, it's nowhere close to any of those things.

There was a Vox article last year that presented a lot of "authorities" on this mystery discussing how it was now established and the mystery was entirely over.  I had to chuckle, reading it; it reminded me quite a bit of the universal belief among geologists, in the middle of the 20th century, that continents can't possibly move, they don't, they never have, it was a settled matter beyond any rational debate, etc.

As you say, correctly, the mystery of Jon's parentage is far from settled.

You can say the mystery of Jon's parentage is far from settled- and I'm tempted to agree with you- but is it really far from settled. It's not conclusive, but it's not baseless either.

There aren't really any gaps that would contradict the theory. If you take all that we've been told from all of the characters and look at it objectively when asked, Who is Jon Snow's mother? chances are you'll get something similar to I don't know or Lyanna Stark.

It explains why the Kingsguard were at the Tower of Joy, why Wylla is said to have (at the very least) nursed Jon, why Ned Stark- who is seen by others to be laughably honorable- brought home a bastard, why Dany dream of a Blue flower growing from a wall of Ice she's never seen (which denotes information she shouldn't know), why Ned refuses to tell Jon or Catelyn of his mother (and only tells Robert at his insistence (Bobby B. don't care about propriety) and even why Ned never has a cruel thought or word about Rhaegar/the guy who supposedly raped and murdered his sister.

There's no other theory that checks all of those boxes. There are some that check many of them.

1 hour ago, Olorin81 said:

If Jon was truely Rhaegar and Lyanna's Ned would have one reason and one reason only on his mind to keep Jon out of King's Landing, and that would be Robert. This thought doesn't seem to be anywhere near his mind. 

I'm not a true believer either way be it R+L=J or some other combination because in my mind doesn't add to the story in the same way that a lot of other plot developments do. But GRRM defiantly leaves the door open for debate on Jon Snow's parentage. In my long experience with this debate over the years, i have found that believers of R+L=J  believe in this theory mostly because its convenient and they really want it to be true, because in there mind it ties everything up in a nice neat little bow. in there mind the story ends with Jon's Lineage being revealed and everyone going "oh, great! he's the rightful king, he's gonna marry Dany and they will live happy ever after."  and they are very quick to dismiss evidence like Edric Dayne basically telling us who Jon's Mother is, or the testimony given to Davos about Jon's mother in the SIsters, etc.  

Two things:

  • We don't actually know what Ned is thinking in this conversation, because it's a Catelyn chapter (which, in and of itself is interesting/in keeping with keeping the mystery). All we know is what he says.
  • I doubt Dany would welcome Jon with open arms. He's a contender for her throne, and the Seven Kings. Though the books are showing her to be an ineffectual leader, so maybe. I have my doubts though. Dany has a specific type, which Jon doesn't really fit (her first husband was a rapist and murderer, and her second lover is a sociopath)
  • Lord Borrell and Edric can't both be right (unless the fisherman's daughter is Wylla)

  • It's not a dismissal. Ned having a bastard with a woman right before the war fits up with the timeline pretty well. There's just more evidence for R+L=J

2 hours ago, House Beaudreau said:

But this doesn't address that if Jon is even alive, he's still a Bastard, He's still in the Nights watch, Jon most likely wouldn't care about the Iron Throne because he knows of the real enemy. He passed on Winterfell and being named a Stark which is all he ever wanted because of his vow. Him marrying Dany would be a perpetuation of Targaryan/feudal incest which GRRM has taken a pretty strong stance on.  

And lastly Jon's Bastardness matters, it matters, in terms of the story, and in the character's own mind. suddenly turning Jon into the rightful Targaryen heir seems to go against the way GRRM tells his stories. GRRM is more likely to step up his readers to think Jon is Rhaegar's son only to turn it around on us, and find out he is actually Ned's real Bastard fathered on Wylla a starfall serving wench or some fish wife from the Sisters. I know its a literary faux pas to analyze a work of fiction based on other works the author has written but its undeniable that GRRM presents his stories in a certain way and borrowed a lot of language/character models/ themes from his previous work.    

Jon hasn't actually been confirmed as dead, and if he is, it has already been shown that Red Priests (sometimes) have healing and resurrection power. It also doesn't seem to rely on sacrifices.

Also, we don't know if Jon is truly a bastard. It should be noted that GRRM isn't particularly wasteful. As such, including a detail like Aegon's double marriage to his sister-wives and Maegor's multi marriage to his myriad wives would be fairly wasteful if it never came into play. Perhaps Jon is the son of Rhaegar's {second wife}. Also, Rhaegar could have silently set Elia aside, due to her barrenness.

I agree that his bastardry is important and shapes the character, but it doesn't mean he can't be trueborn. It just means that he would have a hard time adjusting to the lime-light. There is also a lot of precedent: Sansa is made into a bastard to keep her safe from the Lannisters, Young Griff is hidden as a sellsword's son. People hiding themselves or others as people of lower birth is fairly common. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

I dismissed it because i found an answer that made more sense overall.

7 hours ago, JNR said:

The evidence doesn't measure up to the claim that R+L=J is all the things it's cracked up to be: unwritten canon, for instance, or 100% probable, or "not even a theory."   There are so many gaps, so many shortfalls of critically important information, it's nowhere close to any of those things.

There was a Vox article last year that presented a lot of "authorities" on this mystery discussing how it was now established and the mystery was entirely over.  I had to chuckle, reading it; it reminded me quite a bit of the universal belief among geologists, in the middle of the 20th century, that continents can't possibly move, they don't, they never have, it was a settled matter beyond any rational debate, etc.

As you say, correctly, the mystery of Jon's parentage is far from settled.

You can say the mystery of Jon's parentage is far from settled- and I'm tempted to agree with you- but is it really far from settled. It's not conclusive, but it's not baseless either.

There aren't really any gaps that would contradict the theory. If you take all that we've been told from all of the characters and look at it objectively when asked, Who is Jon Snow's mother? chances are you'll get something similar to I don't know or Lyanna Stark.

It explains why the Kingsguard were at the Tower of Joy, why Wylla is said to have (at the very least) nursed Jon, why Ned Stark- who is seen by others to be laughably honorable- brought home a bastard, why Dany dream of a Blue flower growing from a wall of Ice she's never seen (which denotes information she shouldn't know), why Ned refuses to tell Jon or Catelyn of his mother (and only tells Robert at his insistence (Bobby B. don't care about propriety) and even why Ned never has a cruel thought or word about Rhaegar/the guy who supposedly raped and murdered his sister.

There's no other theory that checks all of those boxes. There are some that check many of them.

2 hours ago, Olorin81 said:

If Jon was truely Rhaegar and Lyanna's Ned would have one reason and one reason only on his mind to keep Jon out of King's Landing, and that would be Robert. This thought doesn't seem to be anywhere near his mind. 

I'm not a true believer either way be it R+L=J or some other combination because in my mind doesn't add to the story in the same way that a lot of other plot developments do. But GRRM defiantly leaves the door open for debate on Jon Snow's parentage. In my long experience with this debate over the years, i have found that believers of R+L=J  believe in this theory mostly because its convenient and they really want it to be true, because in there mind it ties everything up in a nice neat little bow. in there mind the story ends with Jon's Lineage being revealed and everyone going "oh, great! he's the rightful king, he's gonna marry Dany and they will live happy ever after."  and they are very quick to dismiss evidence like Edric Dayne basically telling us who Jon's Mother is, or the testimony given to Davos about Jon's mother in the SIsters, etc.  

Two things:

  • We don't actually know what Ned is thinking in this conversation, because it's a Catelyn chapter (which, in and of itself is interesting/in keeping with keeping the mystery). All we know is what he says.
  • I doubt Dany would welcome Jon with open arms. He's a contender for her throne, and the Seven Kings. Though the books are showing her to be an ineffectual leader, so maybe. I have my doubts though. Dany has a specific type, which Jon doesn't really fit (her first husband was a rapist and murderer, and her second lover is a sociopath)
  • Lord Borrell and Edric can't both be right (unless the fisherman's daughter is Wylla)

  • It's not a dismissal. Ned having a bastard with a woman right before the war fits up with the timeline pretty well. There's just more evidence for R+L=J

2 hours ago, House Beaudreau said:

But this doesn't address that if Jon is even alive, he's still a Bastard, He's still in the Nights watch, Jon most likely wouldn't care about the Iron Throne because he knows of the real enemy. He passed on Winterfell and being named a Stark which is all he ever wanted because of his vow. Him marrying Dany would be a perpetuation of Targaryan/feudal incest which GRRM has taken a pretty strong stance on.  

And lastly Jon's Bastardness matters, it matters, in terms of the story, and in the character's own mind. suddenly turning Jon into the rightful Targaryen heir seems to go against the way GRRM tells his stories. GRRM is more likely to step up his readers to think Jon is Rhaegar's son only to turn it around on us, and find out he is actually Ned's real Bastard fathered on Wylla a starfall serving wench or some fish wife from the Sisters. I know its a literary faux pas to analyze a work of fiction based on other works the author has written but its undeniable that GRRM presents his stories in a certain way and borrowed a lot of language/character models/ themes from his previous work.    

Jon hasn't actually been confirmed as dead, and if he is, it has already been shown that Red Priests (sometimes) have healing and resurrection power. It also doesn't seem to rely on sacrifices.

Also, we don't know if Jon is truly a bastard. It should be noted that GRRM isn't particularly wasteful. As such, including a detail like Aegon's double marriage to his sister-wives and Maegor's multi marriage to his myriad wives would be fairly wasteful if it never came into play. Perhaps Jon is the son of Rhaegar's {second wife}. Also, Rhaegar could have silently set Elia aside, due to her barrenness.

I agree that his bastardry is important and shapes the character, but it doesn't mean he can't be trueborn. It just means that he would have a hard time adjusting to the lime-light. There is also a lot of precedent: Sansa is made into a bastard to keep her safe from the Lannisters, Young Griff is hidden as a sellsword's son. People hiding themselves or others as people of lower birth is fairly common. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

That said, I do acknowledge the possibility of being wrong. There are a few posters here who I think are super smart and very articulate that I really enjoy reading - I'm looking at you, @LynnS! -  that do not believe in R+L=J, and to be perfectly fair, so what if the majority [here]  believe in something? We could all be wrong. (We're not, but we could be... :P )

 

LOL!  God, you always make me laugh. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olorin81 said:

Careful you don't end up eating your words and you seem to have many of them. How are you gonna feel when Jon does turn out to be Rhaegar and Lyanna's child?

How am I going to feel? probably awesome because that means i will have read the next two novels haha. 

But I'm not really worried about this issue particular like the die hards on either side of the argument and there's evidence on both sides . Its fun to discuss but no matter the outcome of Jon Snow's parents I don't think it's going to have a huge effect on the final plots of the story. Maybe when these novels were planned to be a trilogy, Jon Snow being Rhaegars would have been the biggest possible reveal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jon_Stargaryen said:

Lord Borrell and Edric can't both be right (unless the fisherman's daughter is Wylla)

wouldn't this just be a crazy!!!!!! 

Edric's story to Arya is some of the most interesting information about Jon in the story.  More questions than answers tho. 

  • Wylla is wet nurse to Jon years before Edric is born. So who was Wylla's child to have milk to share with Jon?
  • The story at Starfall is that Jon Snow is Wylla's child, and she departs with Ned and Jon, only to return without Jon to nurse Edric years later. Was anyone in Starfall like "hey, where's Jon?"
  • Robert believes Wylla is Jon's mother, Which means Ned would have told robert that Wylla is the mother. The only reason for this is to protect who Jon's real mother is, which totally points to Lyanna and Rhaegar, and the lie is to protect Jon.
  • Here's the real kicker though, when Cat shows up and Winterfell with baby Rob, Ned and Wylla have changed there story and Wylla is not Jon's mother and only his wet nurse and after he's done nursing she will return to Dorne. Why change the story? Why tell everyone in Starfall and to Robert one thing and Cat another. 

Cat doesn't suspect Wylla at all. but somehow the is spread in Winterfell that Ashara Dayne is Jon's Mother. Ned said "don't ask me about Jon's mother" But was Cat asking about Jon's Mother or Ashara Dayne? He then goes around the castle and makes sure no one talks about Ashara Dayne. 

I think Edric's Story points mostly likely to Ashara Dayne being Jon's mother. the story in Starfall is Wylla is the mother to protect Ashara's honor. But the story in Winterfell is a big mystery with only rumors of Ashara. Ned getting Ashara pregnant at Harrenhal, and Ned takes his bastard home after the war, Depressed Ashara kills herself or long shot goes into hiding and is Quiathe or some other crazy theory. If Jon was Lyanna's or Brandon's why wouldn't he tell Cat that he is claiming Jon to protect him from Robert or any Targaryen Loyalist that would seek him out to put him on the throne? It seems like the biggest reason not to tell Cat is that Ashara is Jon's mother.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, House Beaudreau said:

Its a interpretation of the vague language that GRRM uses very tactfully when Robert and Ned are talking about Rhaegar, Dany, the Targaryens and Jon. 

He is indeed very vague and subtle - for example, what is the promise flashing through his mind here:

"Go down into your crypt and ask Lyanna about the dragon's honor!"

"You avenged Lyanna at the Trident," Ned said halting beside the king. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered.

 

Ned had no qualms sharing with Robert the promise to bury Lyanna at Winterfell, but this is clearly not the promise he is referring here to, so there is another promise that he doesn't want to share with Robert for some reason.

 

8 hours ago, House Beaudreau said:

When Jon is brought up, Ned mind doesn't go to Rhagar, and Vice Versa.

Lol, really? You need to re-read Ned's musings on the way back from the brothel. There's Lyanna, the promises he made her, her misgivings about Robert, there is Jon, and Rhaegar.

8 hours ago, House Beaudreau said:

When Robert talks of killing All Targaryens, Ned doesn't think of Jon and having to protect him from this wrath.

Yet Ned is clearly worried by Robert's blind hatred, right?

8 hours ago, House Beaudreau said:

In Fact, in the conversation with Luwin, Cat and Ned about what to do with Jon once Ned goes to King's Landing. Ned seems more concerned about Cersei not suffering a bastard at court rather than Robert killing Jon, should his Targaryen blood ever be revealed. 

Sorry but this is Cat chapter, not Ned, so what he says is not necessarily the same as what is on his mind. And we see later with Aurane Waters that being a bastard at the court is not the problem that Ned claimed it to be.

8 hours ago, House Beaudreau said:

If Jon was truely Rhaegar and Lyanna's Ned would have one reason and one reason only on his mind to keep Jon out of King's Landing, and that would be Robert. This thought doesn't seem to be anywhere near his mind. 

That's  where you're wrong. It wasn't Robert who killed Rhaegar's children, it was the Lannisters whose powergrab would be endangered by the existence of Rhaegar's heir. It's Robert and the Lannisters that poise the danger for Jon, and it is not a coincidence that in his mind, Sansa pleading for Lady's life is connected to Lyanna pleading. 

8 hours ago, House Beaudreau said:

 in there mind the story ends with Jon's Lineage being revealed and everyone going "oh, great! he's the rightful king, he's gonna marry Dany and they will live happy ever after." 

Dunno who you heard or where but it is not the case around here, sorry. Most of the fans' ideas about Jon's future are much bleaker.

8 hours ago, House Beaudreau said:

and they are very quick to dismiss evidence like Edric Dayne basically telling us who Jon's Mother is, or the testimony given to Davos about Jon's mother in the SIsters, etc.  

What evidence? What testimony? Edric Dayne was born several years after the Rebellion, and Lord Godric wasn't there to see Ned shag the fisherman's daughter, either. That's hearsay, not fact, of the same level as the Ashara rumour that Cat hears, or the commonborn rumour that Sansa hears, or the combination of Ashara/Dornish peasant that Cersei throws in Ned's face. None of them was there. 

Besides, the fisherman's daughter is ruled out by Ned himself, when he claims that he dishonoured Cat by his infidelity when she was pregnant, but the transport with FMD was before his marriage to Cat.

All we have is Wylla claiming to be Jon's mother, same as Ned claiming to be Jon's father, which then begs question what the hell is so secret about Wylla that Ned refuses to tell Cat or Jon.

8 hours ago, House Beaudreau said:

But this doesn't address that if Jon is even alive, he's still a Bastard, He's still in the Nights watch, Jon most likely wouldn't care about the Iron Throne because he knows of the real enemy. He passed on Winterfell and being named a Stark which is all he ever wanted because of his vow. Him marrying Dany would be a perpetuation of Targaryan/feudal incest which GRRM has taken a pretty strong stance on. 

If Jon is still bastard, the Targaryen polygamy falls pretty flat. NW vows go "until I die", which is a convenient loop for someone who might come back from the dead. Not caring about the IT doesn't equal not taking the throne e.g. to unite the defence against the Others (BTW, did Jon care about becoming Lord Commander?), not to mention that this reason becomes void once they are defeated. Or Jon takes the throne and sacrifices himself for the realm, the most kingly act one can do - see? A variety of scenarios which substantially deviate from the trope. A relationship with Dany might end up like Kalevala or Húrin's children, with a disaster once the person involved finds out who they are.

In other words, you put up a strawman and then gloriously shoot it down. R+L=J is one thing, and what GRRM is going to do with it is something completely different.

 

8 hours ago, House Beaudreau said:

And lastly Jon's Bastardness matters, it matters, in terms of the story, and in the character's own mind. suddenly turning Jon into the rightful Targaryen heir seems to go against the way GRRM tells his stories. GRRM is more likely to step up his readers to think Jon is Rhaegar's son only to turn it around on us, and find out he is actually Ned's real Bastard fathered on Wylla a starfall serving wench or some fish wife from the Sisters. I know its a literary faux pas to analyze a work of fiction based on other works the author has written but its undeniable that GRRM presents his stories in a certain way and borrowed a lot of language/character models/ themes from his previous work.    

You do realise that being Ned's son matters to Jon very much, right ("he will be my father, no matter how many swords they give me")? He is not happy being a bastard and he also dreams about his mother being highborn. And now he gets his wish fulfilled - his mother was highborn (and he may not be a bastard), but the cost of this reveal is losing Ned as his father. Do you think Jon will be happy with the deal? And if he does fall for Dany before he learns who he is, isn't he going to curse is "true identity"?

1 hour ago, House Beaudreau said:

wouldn't this just be a crazy!!!!!! 

If you add Ashara into the mix, he would definitely trump Dany on "child of three" :D

1 hour ago, House Beaudreau said:

Edric's story to Arya is some of the most interesting information about Jon in the story.  More questions than answers tho. 

  • Wylla is wet nurse to Jon years before Edric is born. So who was Wylla's child to have milk to share with Jon?

That is a good question. It would depend when Wylla became a wetnurse - all it takes is one baby to start nursing, and then you can go on for years, as long as there are children to be nursed. It is possible that Wylla's own baby died and she latched on Jon as a substitute, and that's why she's willing to participate in the coverup.

 

1 hour ago, House Beaudreau said:
  • The story at Starfall is that Jon Snow is Wylla's child, and she departs with Ned and Jon, only to return without Jon to nurse Edric years later. Was anyone in Starfall like "hey, where's Jon?"

Wait a sec, no such story is written on-page. It is not stated anywhere, not can be surmised, that Wylla is the same person who nursed Jon at Winterfell. We don't know who his wetnurse at Winterfell was. And even if it was Wylla, well, what's there to wonder? She had a baby by a lord who was so kind as to take care of his bastard and she would be against her child's wellbeing if she protested.

1 hour ago, House Beaudreau said:
  • Robert believes Wylla is Jon's mother, Which means Ned would have told robert that Wylla is the mother. The only reason for this is to protect who Jon's real mother is, which totally points to Lyanna and Rhaegar, and the lie is to protect Jon.

BTW, it is funny that Ned only tells Robert and doesn't use the same lie for everyone else because there is really, really no reason why the identity of some nobody Wylla requires such secrecy. It makes sense e.g. if there is some hole in the story, like his men knowing that there was absolutely no Wylla around during the Rebellion (especially if Wylla was indeed the nurse at Winterfell, which, however, would be unwise, IMHO), or it may simply mean that Ned doesn't want to lie more than he absolutely has to and Robert is the only person who can really demand an answer.

1 hour ago, House Beaudreau said:
  • Here's the real kicker though, when Cat shows up and Winterfell with baby Rob, Ned and Wylla have changed there story and Wylla is not Jon's mother and only his wet nurse and after he's done nursing she will return to Dorne. Why change the story? Why tell everyone in Starfall and to Robert one thing and Cat another. 

This comes from the premise that Wylla and the Winterfell nurse are one and the same person, which may be true but has no basis in the text.

1 hour ago, House Beaudreau said:

Cat doesn't suspect Wylla at all. but somehow the is spread in Winterfell that Ashara Dayne is Jon's Mother. Ned said "don't ask me about Jon's mother" But was Cat asking about Jon's Mother or Ashara Dayne? He then goes around the castle and makes sure no one talks about Ashara Dayne. 

Don't forget that there is another version circulating Winterfell, that Jon's mother was commonborn. It's in one of Sansa's first chapters, as a fleeting mention.

1 hour ago, House Beaudreau said:

I think Edric's Story points mostly likely to Ashara Dayne being Jon's mother. the story in Starfall is Wylla is the mother to protect Ashara's honor.

Eh, no use bolting the stable when the horses are already out. Ashara was dishonored, and it seems to be a relatively common knowledge outside Starfall, so there is no use trying to maintain her honor at Starfall. I mean, if the Winterfellians are whispering it and Cersei names Ashara as a candidate, then Cersei must have heard that Ashara had a baby at some point, or else why throw her name specifically?

1 hour ago, House Beaudreau said:

But the story in Winterfell is a big mystery with only rumors of Ashara. Ned getting Ashara pregnant at Harrenhal, and Ned takes his bastard home after the war,

That timeline would make Jon considerably older than Robb, which would make it impossible for Ned to claim that he fathered Jon after he married Cat.

Also, it doesn't fit with GRRM's statement that Jon was born 8-9 months before Dany "or thereabouts", by which he narrows down a reader's estimate about one year's age difference. Dany was born 9 months after the Sack, which makes Jon's birth shortly after the Sack and his conception several months into the Rebellion (lasted one year), and that's long after Harrenhal. You would have to subscribe to Dany not being the real Dany to meddle with the timeline.

1 hour ago, House Beaudreau said:

Depressed Ashara kills herself or long shot goes into hiding and is Quiathe or some other crazy theory. If Jon was Lyanna's or Brandon's why wouldn't he tell Cat that he is claiming Jon to protect him from Robert or any Targaryen Loyalist that would seek him out to put him on the throne? It seems like the biggest reason not to tell Cat is that Ashara is Jon's mother.     

Ned says it himself - some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with ones you love and trust. Out of the alternative parentage theories, R+L means that Ned is committing treason by hiding Jon. After his fatal talk to Cersei, he wonder what Cat would do if it was her children against Jon, and this is exactly the situation she would be in if she knew about R+L - Jon's safety puts her own children in danger. 

In order for Ashara to fit the category of danger, people come up with a secret marriage, with either Ned or Brandon, which then makes Jon trueborn and thus the true heir before Cat's children. I find this to be absolutely out of character for Ned, not to mention that this requires Ned to fret about his promises to Lyanna (kept promises, mind you) while letting her child (Dany, Young Griff or whoever) completely out of his sight and mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Geddus said:

I'm not sure what's more unbelievable, Ned being a bigamist or Ned usurping his nephew.

Ned not paying a SINGLE guilty thought to either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a book reader, I dont hate R+L=J. I still think it will be the end conclusion and is the most logical one. But I'm willing to wait and see, I find it hilarious how people from both sides are trying so hard to convince the next person why their theory and belief is more accurate or set in stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ygrain said:

That's  where you're wrong. It wasn't Robert who killed Rhaegar's children, it was the Lannisters whose powergrab would be endangered by the existence of Rhaegar's heir. It's Robert and the Lannisters that poise the danger for Jon, and it is not a coincidence that in his mind, Sansa pleading for Lady's life is connected to Lyanna pleading.

What nailed it for me on the first read was Ned's brothel adventure. Second read was this scene and Ned's thought process.

It starts with Ned remembering Rhaegar's infant son and the red ruin of his skull, to Robert's behavior both in the throne room and at Darry, to Sansa pleading (and we know she was pleading for Lady's life) to Lyanna pleading for ???

While Ned was worried about what Robert might do, I think he feared the Lannisters more with good reason. The bastard excuse was a lame one. 

Are there book gods we can pray to?

Edited by Widow's Watch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×