Jump to content
manchester_babe

Why do book readers hate R+L=J?

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, SirArthur said:

That is the entire point. Do your own research regarding the crown prince, regarding the dornish forces and Elia as a hostage and regarding the moment when Cersei wants to kill Jon.

That makes no sense to me at all.  Elia is Doran's sister and his nephew, Aegon, is Rhaegar's heir,  Doran has no reason at all to encourage or support Rhaegar in knocking up as many Dornish maidens he can be persauded to on the off chance that if poor Aegon and Rhaenys die at least there is a Dornish candidate for the throne somewhere.

What he did was send a force of soldiers to fight at the Trident under Lewyn in order to try and defeat the rebellion and ensure that Elia and her children remained safe and Aegon remained likley to be King one day.  That is what he did and it makes fairly obvious sense to me.

Cersei wants to kill Jon because she, like the rest of the realm, considers him to be Ned Stark's bastard and she is a cruel woman, suspicious that Jon will use his position to support Stannis and undermine the Lannister's stooge Roose Bolton.  The suspicions are pretty well borne out as it happens.  But It's Stannis she wants out of the way, it is his claim as Robert's heir she fears and Jon is merely a nuisance she intends to remove.

Are you really using that passage to argue Jon as Robert's bastard?

Share this post


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

IMO it doesn't suggest nothing of the sort. For this to be possible, Jon has to be much older than Robb than he actually is. It's impossible to hide a difference of many months in babies and toddlers. I'd say 2 months is the most you can go either way w/ Jon and Robb.

I mean Jon is able to switch Aemon Steelsong with Gilly's baby. Gilly's babe is probably several months older than Mance's son and Sam never notices until a blind guy tells him. 

In my experience it pretty hard to tell the difference between baby and toddlers when your only dealing with a half dozen months or so.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, House Beaudreau said:

I mean Jon is able to switch Aemon Steelsong with Gilly's baby. Gilly's babe is probably several months older than Mance's son and Sam never notices until a blind guy tells him. 

In my experience it pretty hard to tell the difference between baby and toddlers when your only dealing with a half dozen months or so.  

I'm not sure why you assume Gilly's baby and Mance's are several months apart in age? Mind you, I'm not saying they aren't because I don't remember anything specific. But I never thought of it that way, for whatever reason. 

I disagree on babies/toddlers ages... you can pass a 3mo old for a 5mo old, maybe. But no way you'd get away w/ it if the ages are, say, 3mo and 9mo (and that's only 6 months difference). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Are you really using that passage to argue Jon as Robert's bastard?

No. I'm pointing out that Cersei is interested in Ned's bastard and that she may recognize a bastard of Rhaegar and that she would not kill him. That is the Aurane Waters connection. 

Edited by SirArthur

Share this post


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

I'm not sure why you assume Gilly's baby and Mance's are several months apart in age? Mind you, I'm not saying they aren't because I don't remember anything specific. But I never thought of it that way, for whatever reason. 

I disagree on babies/toddlers ages... you can pass a 3mo old for a 5mo old, maybe. But no way you'd get away w/ it if the ages are, say, 3mo and 9mo (and that's only 6 months difference). 

You might be able to pull that with Gilly's and Mance's babies in a castle full of men, who may not have been around babies much. With Jon and Robb, in a castle with womenfolk, in the eyes of a mother of five, not a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

You might be able to pull that with Gilly's and Mance's babies in a castle full of men, who may not have been around babies much. With Jon and Robb, in a castle with womenfolk, in the eyes of a mother of five, not a chance.

Well, I'd argue that in a castle full of men there's bound to be a few who would notice! :D

But yeah, I get what you're saying. But in regards to Jon and Robb? No way Jose. Especially because Cat would have been paying very close attention to everything, given the circumstances. 

Share this post


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

I'd argue that in a castle full of men there's bound to be a few who would notice! :D

Well, Aemon did :D

But I think the circumstance of Castle Black made the swap easier because Gilly hardly hung out with the men, nor were they inclined to pay much attention to her or the little wildlings, so they really wouldn't know what each baby looked like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Well, Aemon did :D

But I think the circumstance of Castle Black made the swap easier because Gilly hardly hung out with the men, nor were they inclined to pay much attention to her or the little wildlings, so they really wouldn't know what each baby looked like.

Absolutely, agree completely. And of course, the situation w/ Jon, Robb, and Cat is the opposite! 

Share this post


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

I'm not sure why you assume Gilly's baby and Mance's are several months apart in age? Mind you, I'm not saying they aren't because I don't remember anything specific. But I never thought of it that way, for whatever reason. 

I disagree on babies/toddlers ages... you can pass a 3mo old for a 5mo old, maybe. But no way you'd get away w/ it if the ages are, say, 3mo and 9mo (and that's only 6 months difference). 

There's that spreadsheet, which would place the births of Mance's son and the Monster some six weeks apart.

Although it's probably more detailed and meticulous than GRRM himself cared to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

There's that spreadsheet, which would place the births of Mance's son and the Monster some six weeks apart.

Although it's probably more detailed and meticulous than GRRM himself cared to be.

Cheers. That's more or less what I thought in terms of their difference in age. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

It's impossible to hide a difference of many months in babies and toddlers. I'd say 2 months is the most you can go either way w/ Jon and Robb. 

May I interject with a disagreement.The argument of anyone noticing a difference between Jon and Robb as children has always been very strange to me for a few reasons.

It seems based on a few assumptions.

The only reason Cat could find something strange about Jon's age compared to Robb's is if she knows when Jon was born.

There is no indication Cat knows this or more importantly that Ned told her when Jon was born.

Without this info Cat is in no position to think anything other than what she thinks she already knows.

That Ashara or some girl Ned met on campaign may be Jon's mom.

Jon could have been two years when he showed up at Winterfell and it wouldn't be strange.As long as Ned said he was the father.

So why are we saying Cat would have notice the difference in age when there is no basis for which she would notice.

Edited by wolfmaid7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

The only reason Cat could find something strange about Jon's age compared to Robb's is if she knows when Jon was born.

Well, she knows (or thinks she knows) that he was born after Robb, otherwise Ned wouldn't have cheated on her. So baby Jon couldn't look noticeably older than his (supposed?) brother.

Share this post


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

No. I'm pointing out that Cersei is interested in Ned's bastard and that she may recognize a bastard of Rhaegar and that she would not kill him. That is the Aurane Waters connection. 

And?  It is Robet who will want to kill "dragonspawn".  I'm sorry but I don't see what the relevance of this supposition about Cersei is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Geddus said:

Well, she knows (or thinks she knows) that he was born after Robb, otherwise Ned wouldn't have cheated on her. So baby Jon couldn't look noticeably older than his (supposed?) brother.

What does Ned cheating on her have to do with this.

Where is it shown that

1. She believes this.

2. More importantly that Ned told her that Jon was born after Robb.

If we are asserting Ned isn't Jon's father.Nothing he did with any other woman has any bearing on when Jon was conceived or born.

What I am trying to  get at is what Cat believes and why.Lastly,what is the basis for her belief.Is it because she knows this which could only happen from Ned( you have to show that he told her) or was Jon's age eventually decided for reasons having to do with Robb?

I will put the texts later to show what I mean.

Edited by wolfmaid7

Share this post


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

No. I'm pointing out that Cersei is interested in Ned's bastard and that she may recognize a bastard of Rhaegar and that she would not kill him. That is the Aurane Waters connection. 

I think you should re-read that chapter of Cersei's. It just doesn't stand up to this interpretation.

At the beginning of the council meeting (actually before it properly begins), Cersei looks at Aurane Waters and thinks very briefly of Rhaegar; it's really no more than a name-check. But she doesn't think about either of them for the rest of the chapter, not even when the subject of Jon Snow comes up at the end of the meeting. 

There is no "Aurane Waters connection" there.

It's clear in the chapter that Cersei is "interested in Ned's bastard" only because of Jon's elevation of Lord Commander and because of his aid and assistance to Stannis. She refers to him as "Ned's bastard" because that's how she knows him.

I don't know where you got the idea that she would not kill him; she absolutely wants him to be killed. When she thinks about Jon Snow's bastardy, she remembers her own anger at Robert over his bastards and how she once threatened Robert that she would kill them if he showed any interest in them. She thinks that Catelyn was a wimp for not having Jon smothered in his cradle and that now she has to do Catelyn's dirty work for her. She pictures the knife sliding into him.

She agrees with Qyburn's plan to send assassins to kill Jon at the Wall and later in the chapter recruits Ser Osney Kettleblack to do the deed.

There's no "she would not kill him" there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

There's no "she would not kill him" there.

Of course it is not. That is the entire point. 

Share this post


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

Again, it is an opinion.....( In this case yours) that what "people" put together over the years are "the clues" and interpreted correctly.I never once made any such claim that other readers followed the same process as me to discover something.

 Not only is that incorrect,it has nothing to do with the argument. I also made no assertion on anyone's behalf. I am simply repeating what other posters themselves have stated.

Wow :shocked:.  You said

23 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:
  On 13/03/2018 at 9:43 PM, wolfmaid7 said:

I already did,and to reiterate it is 100% better whether than your reasoning which is have Jon be Targ first and then fit everything else in.this is what RLJ is.

Again, your words.  "this is what RLJ is".  Getting it backwards.  You are expressly stating that this is what people do.  And when I reply that the people who believe R+L=J follow the clues you flat out state you "made no assertion on anyone's behalf".......while proceeding to do exactly that by summarising your belief that this is what people do!

You're unbelievable :lol:

I understand you want it to be true that R+L=J only works as a backwards argument, I understand you want to be able to point to your highly subjective "analysis" of the forum to prove that people get it backwards but this doesn't make it so.  Maybe it does in some cases but you are ignoring all the voices that tell you something different.

That's bias and denial of what you find inconvenient.  It's silly.  How about all these people who did what you said pop up in this thread and tell us it's what they did rather than you claim it's so.  Let people speak for themsleves.

15 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

There is no way ,absolutely no way after having lossed Lyanna would Robert Baratheon let Ned take his son to be raised at WF.That would never happen, are you forgetting who we are talking about? Robert " I am the king" Robert?

This is what Robert would do,he would make Jon his heir. He would still marry Cersie under Jon Arryn's advice ( to keep Tywin in check). And Jon would never make it to his third baby because Cersie would have had him killed.We don't have to guess what hee choice would be.We know what she would do.

Pure conjecture.  What interest has Robert ever shown in any of his children?  He was hardly the doting father you know.....  Robert was not yet king.  The fact that he was about to be crowned and that he later married Cersei Lannister in a political alliance to cement that kingship makes it absolutely absurd to suggest that he would make Jon his heir and destroy that alliance.  Why would Tywin marry Cersei to Robert when Robert has an heir?  Why would Robert marry Cersei when he has an heir? Even if we do take that absurdity as a possible course of action, proclaiming Jon the son of King Robert I and Lyanna Stark and legitimising him makes Jon the safest child in Westeros, all the power of Arryn, Stark, Tully and Barratheon is fully behind him.  And you think Ned would have taken Jon to WF in utmost secrecy rather than see him raised as Crown Prince by his own father.  It's far more likely that Jon Arryn and Ned persuade Robert to marry Cersei while Ned takes Jon to WF and he lives a safe life like Edric Storm.

15 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

"She saw at once that Ned had reached a very different conclusion. "The only truths I know are here. The south is a nest of adders I would do better to avoid."

The above is what Ned felt about court,why would he have wanted Jon in that

I feel you are completely ignoring the fact that Jon is not Ned's son (in your scenario he is Robert's) and he has no right to make these choices.  You are also ignoring the fact that Ned is Robert's best friend.  It's an unforgivable betrayal.  I'll say it again: raising Robert's son at WF the way Penrose raised Edric Storm at SE is a far simpler and obvious solution to this problem you are creating and finding such a drastic and completely unnecesary solution to.

The nest of adders he took Sansa to?  And Arya?  And you realise he would have taken Bran but for his fall? Seems your argument falls pretty flat after some basic scrutiny of what Ned actually does compared to what he says here.  He expects to be able to protect all of them.....:dunno: 

He does not hide him away when the royal party arrive or send him to Castle Cerwyn or Deepwood Motte, he just moves him off the top table to avoid putting a bastard on the same footing as the royals.  It's like he does not fear Jon being seen here and by them.

15 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

E.g. The part i bolded and underlined is a prime example. RLJ believes that Lyanna extracted a promise from Ned to protect Jon "from Robert".So obviously, to you the promise has to be something specifically along those lines.

I don't believe Lyanna went into such specifics , a general plea when it comes to that would suffice.

1. I wan't to lie nex to Brandon and father. ( That alone tells us that she wanted to be buried at home.Short simple and you get the point.She is on her way out.

I wan't to show you a parallel:

So what does this have to do with what Lyanna may have asked Ned? There is no need to invent and create a boogey man from which Jon needs to be saved,especially if nothing is pointing to that except fan speculation.

A simple " Ned watch over my son." To which Ned would be the one who decided how best to " watch over Jon."

Enter "his" reasoning for never wanting Jon to be raised with Robert.

We do not know what the promise is.  RLJ does not assume that Ned promised Lyanna to protect Jon from Robert, it attempt to fit "the promise" into a series of events and thoughts from Ned that explains his behaviour, his regrets and the damage he was prepared to do to his own reputation and his marriage to Catelyn to keep it.  Burying Lyanna in the crypts at WF does not in any way, shape or form provide a reasonable explanation for what the promise was.  The promise may indeed have been very specific or very vague and the how of fulfilling it left to Ned and it is for everyone to construct the best explanation of it they can.  To me the best answer is "promise to keep him safe and keep his identity secret".  Ironically this works for your theory as well as R+L=J but that is because the promise is simply part of the argument and by no means all of it.

15 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

No no no, i went back and looked at my post i  said " the author has written it whereby it is Robert's children that were and still are in danger from Mad Cersie.This is the current story...She laments that Cat has left her to deal with Jon Snow,and we have a true statement from Tyrion on how Cersie hated Robert so much she would kill anything that was his.How much now would she hate Jon Snow.The son of her husband by a woman whose name he would call out in bed. A woman who Cersie affirmed that Robert was still in love with.

You are doing it again. We can't look at what we might have done or what Ned should have done.I am telling you what Ned thought and believed that is not ever going to change.You can't get around that.

That's precisely the point.  After the sack of KL Ned went to Storms End and later to the ToJ with his 6 most trusted companions.  At this stage there is no reason to believe Robert will marry Cersei or to believe that Cersei is the murderous person she later proves to be.  Clearly Ned does not understand the extent of the danger Cersei represents 15 years later when he forewarns her that the incest has been discovered and allows her to spring a trap on him.  You can't have it both ways: Ned saw the danger she represented 15 years earlier but ignores it 15 years later?  Ned has no reason to consider the threat that Cersei poses before deciding whether Robert can be allowed to raise his own son who you variously and arbitrarily decide will be a royal bastard raised at Court or even made his heir.  These are strawmen arguments.  There is no danger to Jon if he is Robert's son (from Cersei), there is if he is Rhaegar's (from a guy with a warhammer known to say about the dead children of Rhaegar Targaryen "I see Dragonspawn").  That is on Ned's mind a hell of a lot more than the possible reaction of Robert's future and unknown marriage partner.

16 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

The same reason he wouldn't tell her if Rhaegar was Jon's father is the same reason he wouldn't tell her if Robert was his father.Either way it has nothing to do with anything regarding Jon's protection.

It comes down to this,for what possible reason would Ned have to tell Cat be it Rhaegar or Robert. He would be telling her for????

The lie that Jon is Ned's bastard and Ned's refusal to talk about it hurts Cat tremendously over the course of their marriage.  They are arguing over Jon remaining at WF in the early chapters of AGOT.  It also leads to an ugly scene between Robb and Cat over Robb naming Jon as his heir.  There has to be a good reason for Ned's secrecy.  You feel the idea that Robert was Jon's father is something Ned would risk pisoning his marriage and muddying the succession right of his own children over because of the shadow of a threat.  That's a lot of damage over a secret that never needed to be kept.  That's the things about lies and secrets, they lead to other lies and problems down the line.  Protecting Jon's life is a good reason to keep a secret (dragonspawn), not being sure who Roebrt might marry and how things might turn out for his bastard son later down the line is a poor one.

16 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Also,Robert was seconds away from death, telling him about Joffrey when he was about to die would have accomplished nothing except  pulled Percy from "Green mile" on Robert. .

In fact Ned outright  stated:"

It is your reasoning that is flawed my friend.Why would Ned be sorry about NOT telling his friend something that would obviously hurt him?

What are you trying to say?  It'a a sad scene, the dying king realising he was a shitty king and saying as much. Honest Ned can't find any compliments or little white lies even at this stage and has to settle for agreeing with Robert that he was "not as bad as Aerys"!  The scene has further pathos as Robert specifically names Joffrey as his heir and honest Ned has to bite back his impulse towards honesty , i.e. syaing Joffrey is not his son, because it really would be the ultimate kick to the man who is already down and out.  It's the truth but a truth that does not need to be told.  He then goes off and writes a letter to Stannis telling him he is Robert's heir.  Simple enough.

16 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

You didn't want to hear. There is nothing muddled or incoherent about saying something being obvious a point of view. If posters say RLJ is obvious it offends many. it is a matter of opnion based on individual factors.None of which matters in the end because it all comes down to what GRRM says.

His goals about constructing a mystery re: His nana.

His wife's own statements on this mystery tells me.

1.If RLJ is the answer GRRM's nana would have figured it out in no time and that can't be reconciled.

2. Parris says her hubby doesn't do obvious and what point of view she is speaking from. She thinks its obvious.

How hard is that to grasp? Not hard, you want to hear something and you aren't so you are grasping.

Right, right.  "It's too obvious".  You are priceless :D

16 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Again and i am repeating myself. I didn't reject it because it was obvious. I told you flat out there were things about the theory that bothered me. I wouldn't reconcile it and just swept those things under the carpet

Super, that is entirely your pregative.  No doubt you will stop making the "it's too obvious" argument in the same posts then.  Then you will have a train of reasoning that explains why you think Robert is Jon's father that in no way starts off by saying that R+L=J is too obvious.  And people like me won't pick up on posts that say it's too obvious to chip in and answer the OP's question.  Then we'll both not waste hours of our lives on this.....

16 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Lastly, you have failed,failed to counter my texts with anything remotely feasible

I don't intend to bite on that.  Simply enough to say I have offered a coherent explanation for everything that I feel merited it (actions of the KG at ToJ, actions of Ned).  If you don't feel this is "remotely feasible" that's up to you.  I don't really care.

16 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Every rebutal you have had has been thrown down by text because "your" reasoning is flawed.It is flawed because you think the fundamentals of RLJ is a one fit all that needs to be answered for you to see merit.

1. You like so many others have conclusions, and you make that RLJ instead of just not contorting text.

2. You somehow think Ned could see through glass candles or something and so you answer in terms of what you think  should have or could instead of just simply looking at what was and is.

To quote The Matrix " One cannot see pass the choices one already made.

Oh, has it now?  You are once again arguing that everyone has it backwards.  Sigh.  And for someone who said that R+L=J was often accompanied by self-inflated egotism you have a droll habit of putting in sweeping statements like "your reasoning is flawed" or sententious quotes - first, Syrio and now The Matrix.  Gosh :wub: 

Incidentally your argument above is flawed as you are consitently ignoring that people work out the clues and reach the asnwer rather than get it backwards like you allege.  That makes your quote hugely ironic.  But don't let that bother you.

Time will tell over the theories.

Share this post


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

What does Ned cheating on her have to do with this.

Where is it shown that

1. She believes this.

2. More importantly that Ned told her that Jon was born after Robb.

If we are asserting Ned isn't Jon's father.Nothing he did with any other woman has any bearing on when Jon was conceived or born.

What I am trying to  get at is what Cat believes and why.Lastly,what is the basis for her belief.Is it because she knows this which could only happen from Ned( you have to show that he told her) or was Jon's age eventually decided for reasons having to do with Robb?

I will put the texts later to show what I mean.

What do you mean "what does Ned cheating have to do with this"? Catelyn can't stand Jon because he's the symbol of the fact that Ned slept with another woman after they got married.

"A Game of Thrones", Catelyn II:

"Many men fathered bastards. Catelyn had grown up with that knowledge. It came as no surprise to her, in the first year of her marriage, to learn that Ned had fathered a child on some girl chance met on campaign. He had a man’s needs, after all, and they had spent that year apart, Ned off at war in the south while she remained safe in her father’s castle at Riverrun."

Catelyn thinks Ned married her, got her pregnant, went off to war and fathered Jon with some woman so in her eyes the bastard must be younger than Robb. Which doesn't make it true, obviously, but it means that even if Jon was in fact the oldest of the two it must have been by a close margin in order for Ned to be able to pass him as younger instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SirArthur said:

Of course it is not. That is the entire point. 

Okay, this makes no sense.

First, you say Cersei "would not kill him" because she would somehow recognize Jon as Rhaegar's son by looking at Aurane Waters, then I point out that she thinks Jon should have been killed long ago and that now she has to take care of that and she agrees with the council to have him assassinated and she pictures him being stabbed and then she personally recruits the assassin to kill him. And somehow "she would not kill him" is proved by her planning to kill him?

I honestly don't see what is the point you are trying to make.

 

Share this post


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

May I interject with a disagreement.The argument of anyone noticing a difference between Jon and Robb as children has always been very strange to me for a few reasons.

It seems based on a few assumptions.

The only reason Cat could find something strange about Jon's age compared to Robb's is if she knows when Jon was born.

Nope. Cat knows when Robb was conceived, on her wedding night. She and Ned got married early on in the war. As far as Cat knows, Ned fathered Jon during the war, which lasted "close to a year". She also thinks about not having a problem w/ "Ned's betrayal", but rather w/ the fact that he brought his bastard home to raise. That means she assumes Ned fathered Jon after her marriage. But even if she considered the possibility of Jon having been conceived before her marriage to Ned, there's only a couple of months for this to happen, of that much. And all of this means Robb and Jon have to be close in age, regardless of who is older and who is younger.

5 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

There is no indication Cat knows this or more importantly that Ned told her when Jon was born.

Without this info Cat is in no position to think anything other than what she thinks she already knows.

That Ashara or some girl Ned met on campaign may be Jon's mom.

Jon could have been two years when he showed up at Winterfell and it wouldn't be strange.As long as Ned said he was the father.

So why are we saying Cat would have notice the difference in age when there is no basis for which she would notice.

What? How on earth would that be possible?

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

×