R + L = J v.167

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, corbon said:

Indeed. But we have no context on the first conversation. The only thing we know about the first conversation is that Ned said the name Wylla and Robert connected that name to his bastard's mother (and that Robert never met Wylla). Exactly as we saw in the second conversation. There is no evidence at all that Ned made the connection for Robert. What evidence we do have is contained in the example of the second conversation - Robert makes assumptions or statements, Ned answers precisely the question asked and only that, not confirming or denying anything else, and thus Robert continues with his false assumptions.

No, you just assumed that. We don't know how that first conversation went at all. You literally use the exact same sloppy thinking as Robert uses to make a statement of fact out of an unknown.

This is just crackpot territory. While it is possible that Ned never actually told Robert the name of the mother of his bastard, there is no reason to assume that (1) Ned didn't tell certainly crucial people who the mother of his bastard was or that he had a mistress/affair who ended up pregnant afterwards, or (2) only used misdirection and people concluding their own shit to obscure the parentage of his bastard.

Robert, for instance, also thinks he knows that Ned fathered Jon Snow after his marriage and not before - say, on that fisherman's daughter as is believed on the Three Sisters - but he couldn't *know* that if Ned *never* gave him context on the time he was actually straying outside the marriage bed with some wench (named Wylla).

The idea that we have to seriously consider the notion that Ned didn't tell Robert when he himself thinks he told him and we have no good reason to assume Ned wouldn't have told him (after all, this is a lie he and Wylla may have been able to back up) is beyond me.

[corbon]

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This is just crackpot territory. While it is possible that Ned never actually told Robert the name of the mother of his bastard, there is no reason to assume that (1) Ned didn't tell certainly crucial people who the mother of his bastard was or that he had a mistress/affair who ended up pregnant afterwards, or (2) only used misdirection and people concluding their own shit to obscure the parentage of his bastard.

Yeah, right. No reason, just thats what we literally see him doing. 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert, for instance, also thinks he knows that Ned fathered Jon Snow after his marriage and not before - say, on that fisherman's daughter as is believed on the Three Sisters - but he couldn't *know* that if Ned *never* gave him context on the time he was actually straying outside the marriage bed with some wench (named Wylla).

Quote

"Nor will I. Leave it be, Robert, for the love you say you bear me. I dishonored myself and I dishonored Catelyn, in the sight of gods and men."

As always, you are right, the text is wrong. "Clearly" there is no way Robert could know Ned fathered Jon Snow after he married Cat without Ned telling him various important contextual details, like who the mother really was. 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that we have to seriously consider the notion that Ned didn't tell Robert when he himself thinks he told him

Told him what, exactly?
Show the passage.

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

and we have no good reason to assume Ned wouldn't have told him (after all, this is a lie he and Wylla may have been able to back up) is beyond me.

Riiight. Lets tell him a provable lie. 
Wylla almost certainly wasn't with Ned around the time of Jon's conception, having been brought into the picture only as a wetnurse when one was needed down south (either by Ned after he found Jon, or by Lyanna or her captors/protectors before Ned found her).
Its unlikely she was in isolation either. 
Which means its almost certain that someone else can show Wylla being not-with-Ned until close to Jon's birth date. Someone out of Ned's ken and out of Ned's control.

Ned can't back up that Wylla was his squeeze unless she really was, and there's no reasonable evidence of that. 

The same goes for any important detail Ned told Robert. If its not the truth, then its likely to be verifiably a lie, if someone digs hard enough.

The simplest, best, and most of all safest way to deceive people is to tell them a limited truth and let them make their own false conclusions. I don't even think Ned does this as a deliberate policy, its just who he is. But he does it admirably well, as we see in several conversations. 
With Robert we see Robert making assumptions, and Ned giving out the minimal information (<whats the name of the woman I'm thinking of> "her name is Wylla and I'd sooner not speak of her" - a second time) which is truthful yet leads Robert to confirm his own false beliefs.
With Cat we see Ned being exactly truthful with minimal information given ("he is my blood and that is all you need to know") and yet Cat comes away from the conversation stronger in her mistaken suspicion that Ashara is Jon's mother.

[frenin]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The example about Cersei fearing that Robert would set her aside and Renly planning to do that while nobody ever thought about/feared/expected that Robert would take a second wife in Margaery Tyrell in addition to Cersei Lannister (which could have been a compromise if he didn't want to set her aside) is another of those things that's odd if you think royal polygamy were a thing.

I suppose that because polygamy thing was only supposed to do by Targs.

 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Up until FaB it was unclear whether 'annulling a marriage' and 'setting aside a marriage/wife' are the same thing, but it seems FaB confirms they are used interchangably after all:

I don't really see if they are used interchangeably but that both terms are used, but yes i think that it's obvious that absolut kings can and have the power of annulling the marriages of their children and kin.

 

 

8 hours ago, Mithras said:

Yeah, Rhaegar should have brought Lyanna directly to the court when they eloped. Then he would tell Aerys that he is setting aside Elia and marrying Lyanna. Brilliant plan. Or maybe Rhaegar would prefer to set aside Elia after he returned from Tower of Joy to take the leadership of the royal army, which had Lewyn Martell and lots of Dornishmen in it. That too would be a brilliant moment.

Idon't really know why it would be a bad move, Aerys is against Rhaegar regardless of his move, the Martells are against Rhaegar regardless of his moves.

The only reason the Martells sent men is because Elia and the children were hostages, had that not happened, the Martells wouldn't have sent any men to die for the Targ cause.

 

 

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Thanks for shooting yourself in the leg

When someone uses that phrase, more often than not, they are without arguments and grasping straws.

 

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

- if examples from the ancient times of the Andal invasion count as valid, so does polygamy

Exhibit one.

No, polygamy does not count, there is a very very simple reason for that polygamy stopped being practiced in the mainland and is a sin in the Faith eyes. The custom of setting aside one's wife is Westerosi tradition. 

Hell not even only Westerosi tradition.

Quote

He might be handsome, but for that silly hair. Reznak and the Green Grace had been urging Dany to take a Meereenese noble for her husband, to reconcile the city to her rule. Hizdahr zo Loraq might be worth a careful look. Sooner him than Skahaz. The Shavepate had offered to set aside his wife for her, but the notion made her shudder. Hizdahr at least knew how to smile.

 

From the first First men kings and lords to Tommen Baratheon, setting aside one's wife is custom and law in Westeros, that's simply not the case with polygamy.

 

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

- if examples of people wanting their marriages set aside count as valid, so do wishes for polygamy

 What wishes?? Seems like you're trying to make the rules.

There are no wish for polygamy, at the very best, there is a rumour that says that Daemon may have wanted to practice polygamy and his father, the one who didn't do polygamy although he had clear motives means and opportunity, may have considered to indulge him.

Yeah. the very same.

 

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

- examples of people who did not consummate their marriage hardly count

Who?? All the people quoted consumated the marriage and most if not all of them had children, even in Aerys 1 case the notion that he didn't consumate the marriage is a rumour.

 

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Cersei could easily have been set aside due to her incest,

Cersei would not have been set aside due her incest, Cersei would have lost her head due her incest, not only Cersei honestly, a lot of Lannisters, including Tywin, were losing their heads because of the twincest.

 

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

which Renly (and Pycelle) knew about.

Pycelle knew about but he himself makes no mention of it but he does mention the incest when he talks about Jon Arryn, Renly didn't know about the incest.

 

• Re

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Show me that Robert would have been able to set her aside for no reason

Already done that, you're refusing to read what you don't like. But just for you.

 

Quote

However, marriages in the Seven Kingdoms can be ended in several ways. A king is able to put his queen aside – even if she has given birth to his children – and marry another.^[56][57] In the Faith of the Seven, a marriage that has not been consummated can be set aside by the High Septon or a Council of Faith.^[58][59][60] Even a marriage that has been consummated can be set aside,^{[61][62][63][21][64][65][37][66]} even a marriage of many years with children.^[67][68] Neither bride nor groom needs to be present for an annulment; however, it must be requested by at least one of the wedded pair.^[69] The role and procedure of a Council of Faith has not yet been stated.

 

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

or that Tywin would be cool with it,

He wouldn't, so what, what is he going to do?? 

His grandchildren are going to inherit regardless so that's cool and he doesn't have more option than sulking, he can't rebe, he is going to be slaughtered,  so... 

 

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

just like you claim that Starks absolutely wouldn't approve of Lyanna's polygamy.

You don't really read what i'm posting.

 

 

Quote

What's in it for the Starks if people treat Lyanna as a whore?? Nothing.  

 

 

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Either way, this is the last post I am adressing, I don't have time for disingenuous claims and double standards.

Ah, the coded words and the smoke bomb i missed them, i wondered what you were lasting so much, you were clearly at the end of your wits. Whatever.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, corbon said:

Indeed. But we have no context on the first conversation. The only thing we know about the first conversation is that Ned said the name Wylla and Robert connected that name to his bastard's mother (and that Robert never met Wylla). Exactly as we saw in the second conversation. There is no evidence at all that Ned made the connection for Robert. What evidence we do have is contained in the example of the second conversation - Robert makes assumptions or statements, Ned answers precisely the question asked and only that, not confirming or denying anything else, and thus Robert continues with his false assumptions.

Hmm no, we know that Robert knows Wylla is the name of the mother of Ned's bastard because Ned told him that, there is no logic jump from Wylla to Jon's mother without Ned's aid. 

Robert makes no assumption but demands the name of the mother of Ned's bastards, mother that Ned explicitly had already given him before.

 

4 hours ago, corbon said:

No, you just assumed that. We don't know how that first conversation went at all. You literally use the exact same sloppy thinking as Robert uses to make a statement of fact out of an unknown..

The most and logical assumption?? You don't know what Robert and Ned talked the first time, Robert does, if Robert demands the mother of his bastard and Ned says Wylla, is that Wylla is the name Ned gave him the first time regarding the mother of his bastard.

Edited July 3, 2020 by frenin

[corbon]

1 minute ago, frenin said:

Hmm no, we know that Robert knows Wylla is the name of the mother of Ned's bastard because Ned told him that, there is no logic jump from Wylla to Jon's mother without Ned's aid. 

There are multiple ways to make that logic jump without Ned's aid. I've detailed several many times before, ones with a high probability.

1 minute ago, frenin said:

Robert makes no assumption but demands the name of the mother of Ned's bastards, mother that Ned explicitly had already given him before.

You assume that Ned told Robert more than we know, and therefore, Robert is not making assumptions.

The only thing we know Ned told Robert is the woman's name. Everything else is an assumption. And not a very sensible one.

1 minute ago, frenin said:

The most and logical assumption?? You don't know what Robert and Ned talked the first time, Robert does, if Robert demands the mother of his bastard and Ned says Wylla, is that Wylla is the name Ned gave him the first time regarding the mother of his bastard.

Thats false logic.
Agreed, neither of us know for sure what the contents of the first conversation were.
But the correct logical construct is not that "Ned must have told Robert that Wylla is the mother", but that "Robert came away from the conversation believing Wylla is the mother".

Given that
(i) Ned lying that Wylla is the mother is a foolish and dangerous move for it is almost certainly verifiably false
(ii) Ned has demonstrated even explicitly to Robert's face, with anger at the king, that he does not like talking about Jon's mother and will not do so
(iii) we have witnessed a conversation where Ned doesn't actually tell Robert Wylla was Jon's mother but it seems to a casual observer that he did
it simply is not 'the most logical assumption' that Ned told Robert that Wylla was Jon's mother in the first conversation.

The most logical assumption is that (i) Ned was careful not to tell Robert verifiable lies, (ii) Ned did not talk freely about Jon;s mother and (iii) that the first conversation followed a similar pattern as GRRM showed us in  the second.
 

[frenin]

Just now, corbon said:

There are multiple ways to make that logic jump without Ned's aid. I've detailed several many times before, ones with a high probability.

There really aren't, i know you've made the arguments several times, several people, me among them, have also disagreed with you several times before.

 

2 minutes ago, corbon said:

You assume that Ned told Robert more than we know, and therefore, Robert is not making assumptions.

No, i know Ned told Robert more than we know because Robert knows more than we know and he does know Jon's mother according to Ned's info.

 

4 minutes ago, corbon said:

You assume that Ned told Robert more than we know, and therefore, Robert is not making assumptions.

The thing we know Ned told Robert is the mother of his bastard's name.

 

5 minutes ago, corbon said:

Agreed, neither of us know for sure what the contents of the first conversation were.
But the correct logical construct is not that "Ned must have told Robert that Wylla is the mother", but that "Robert came away from the conversation believing Wylla is the mother".

That's not the correct logical construct, not now not ever. Robert would ask directly who the mother was and Ned would give him a name.

 

6 minutes ago, corbon said:

(i) Ned lying that Wylla is the mother is a foolish and dangerous move for it is almost certainly verifiably false

We already had this chat, Ned told him that the name of Jon's mother was Wylla, not that Wylla, wetnurse in Starfall was Jon's mother.  There are likely  thousands Wyllas in Westeros, besides Ned has no reason to suspect that that info he is sharing with Robert is not going to stay between Robert and him.

 

9 minutes ago, corbon said:

(ii) Ned has demonstrated even explicitly to Robert's face, with anger at the king, that he does not like talking about Jon's mother and will not do so

But he has also demonstrated that he is more than capable of giving him a name.

 

 

10 minutes ago, corbon said:

(iii) we have witnessed a conversation where Ned doesn't actually tell Robert Wylla was Jon's mother but it seems to a casual observer that he did

Ditto, is what you want to believe, but we have no reason to believe otherwise. Robert asks for Jon's mother, Ned says Wylla.

 

 

11 minutes ago, corbon said:

The most logical assumption is that (i) Ned was careful not to tell Robert verifiable lies, (ii) Ned did not talk freely about Jon;s mother and (iii) that the first conversation followed a similar pattern as GRRM showed us in  the second.

At all, the most logical assumption is that Ned told Robert some bs that he knew that could be verified if someone was curious enough.  Since looking for other bastards is impolite, he knew that the mater would rest soon.

[Lord Varys]

26 minutes ago, corbon said:

Yeah, right. No reason, just thats what we literally see him doing. 

As always, you are right, the text is wrong. "Clearly" there is no way Robert could know Ned fathered Jon Snow after he married Cat without Ned telling him various important contextual details, like who the mother really was. 

LOL, yes, Ned also mentions he dishonored Cat in that scene, but Robert is the one who tells Ned that he 'barely knew' Catelyn when said affair allegedly took place.

Quote

Told him what, exactly?
Show the passage.

I don't care what Ned actually told Robert - I merely assume with good cause he had some story in place to explain his bastard to powerful people. A smokescreen to hide Lya's child. And his wife was not important in this regard since she would have to submit to his authority and obey his will.

Quote

Riiight. Lets tell him a provable lie. 
Wylla almost certainly wasn't with Ned around the time of Jon's conception, having been brought into the picture only as a wetnurse when one was needed down south (either by Ned after he found Jon, or by Lyanna or her captors/protectors before Ned found her).
Its unlikely she was in isolation either.
Which means its almost certain that someone else can show Wylla being not-with-Ned until close to Jon's birth date. Someone out of Ned's ken and out of Ned's control.

Nothing of that is 'likely'. We don't know who Wylla was or with whom she spent the Rebellion. She could have been with Ned before she became Jon's and eventually Edric Dayne's wetnurse.

And it is not necessary for Ned to have been with this Wylla woman longer than a single short fuck. She could have contacted Ned like Ramsay's mother contacted Roose after his bastard's birth (or this could be the story) - with the child's looks giving the Stark bastard away.

Do you want to tell us Ned and Robert hung out the entire Rebellion when we know they didn't? Or that Ned had some kind of shadow watching whatever he may have done while drunk in a brothel in the Riverlands or at any other place in Westeros during the Rebellion?

The idea that anybody is watching this Wylla woman prior to her hookup with Ned also makes no sense. Who should watch a common woman?

The clue for Ned - who wants to obscure things and present a woman as his bastard's mother - would be to pick a woman for that job who actually was with him earlier and thus could be Jon Snow's mother if she, Wylla, were his mother.

While we don't know where Wylla was during the war, you are not going to tell us that she wasn't with Ned.

And we know that Edric Dayne also thinks she is Jon's mother, meaning somebody must have told him.

Quote

Ned can't back up that Wylla was his squeeze unless she really was, and there's no reasonable evidence of that. 

LOL, right, and next you are telling us 'Yaya fucked Tyrion.

Quote

The same goes for any important detail Ned told Robert. If its not the truth, then its likely to be verifiably a lie, if someone digs hard enough.

And what gives you the right to assume Ned as written cared about subtle shit like that? The guy wasn't exactly a master plotter. Why should he even expect people would investigate his affairs and by-blows? Who does that, and for what reason? We know that people don't investigate noble or royal bastards. Littlefinger can pass Sansa as a completely fictional bastard daughter. If that works, then Ned could actually have invented Wylla and nobody would have ever bothered to figure that out.

Even when you look at the Cat confrontation then the impression I get is not that Ned is afraid that his wife inquires about him, but rather that it is painful for him to talk about him, that this is a chapter he wants to bury deep within himself. If he were constantly afraid for Jon's life because of Robert he would keep the man at arm's length and not feel the kind of deep affection he has for him.

But it makes no sense to assume he had no mother in place in case he would be pushed about this thing. Not having a story in place means you have to improvise when pushed ... and then you make mistakes very easily.

Quote

The simplest, best, and most of all safest way to deceive people is to tell them a limited truth and let them make their own false conclusions. I don't even think Ned does this as a deliberate policy, its just who he is. But he does it admirably well, as we see in several conversations. 
With Robert we see Robert making assumptions, and Ned giving out the minimal information (<whats the name of the woman I'm thinking of> "her name is Wylla and I'd sooner not speak of her" - a second time) which is truthful yet leads Robert to confirm his own false beliefs.
With Cat we see Ned being exactly truthful with minimal information given ("he is my blood and that is all you need to know") and yet Cat comes away from the conversation stronger in her mistaken suspicion that Ashara is Jon's mother.

This makes only sense if you assume Ned is a complete moron who thought he would never be asked about his bastard ... or rather: nobody would ever connect the dots before he said anything at all. Ned has to establish the boy as his child before people start suspecting it might by Lya's.

I agree that a great way to lie is to lead people around by the nose but if you want people to draw a false conclusion you better establish that there is a conclusion to be drawn. People don't inquire about bastards usually, as we know, but Robert and Ned are close friends, and we know Ned talked to Robert about Wylla ... but Robert's words do not imply that he, Robert, asked Ned about his bastard but rather that Ned told him about Wylla once. Ned could have just broached this topic all by himself.

If I were Ned I'd deliberately talk to Robert about that to plant the seed, and the way to do that is to specifically mention that I have a bastard from this woman, not wait until Robert, perhaps, asks me about my bastard after having never mentioned him before - something that is improper for a man to ask another man, and something Robert himself clearly also doesn't like to talk about openly (he is embarrassed when Ned talks about Barra).

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, frenin said:

I suppose that because polygamy thing was only supposed to do by Targs.

The Baratheons are Targaryen descendants themselves, Robert sits the Iron Throne and could insist that he has the same right to bang sisters or marry multiple women (if the latter was part of 'the Targaryen tradition') as the Targaryens had.

His powers are not legally more limited than those of Aerys II or his other predecessors on the Iron Throne. Or rather: If we should believe this then this would have to be mentioned in the text. We cannot make it up and assume it.

Quote

I don't really see if they are used interchangeably but that both terms are used, but yes i think that it's obvious that absolut kings can and have the power of annulling the marriages of their children and kin.

Well, they are in one of the quotes I gave.

The vexing thing still is that all this talk of how kings can deal with marriages is not mentioned when Littlefinger and Sansa discuss how marriages can be annulled in ASoS. That seemed pretty thorough, but clearly did not touch upon on royal powers in the matter.

To Rogar Baratheon setting aside the marriage of Alysanne and Jaehaerys is the same thing as annulling it. And while Rogar got the king's word that Jaehaerys hadn't consummated the match when he confronted them on Dragonstone, he couldn't know they hadn't consummated it immediately afterwards or secretly while they were residing on Dragonstone outside his control.

And the Baela-Alyn match confirms that the regents could have petitioned to set aside this consummated marriage of adult members of the royal family against their expressed will.

This is actually huge if you consider many other problematic marriages, most notably those of Egg's children. They stood, because the king was merciful and a nice dad, basically, not because he had not other choice but to accept them.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Lord Varys

[Lord Varys]

For the Cersei case:

Renly plots to have Robert set aside Cersei for Margaery, and Cersei herself fears that Robert might set aside her for 'another Lyanna' back in Winterfell during the conversation Bran overhears.

This was a real possibility, and is confirmed by quotes both in AGoT and ACoK.

It has nothing to do with the twincest or another crime/disgrace of Cersei's ... merely the possibility that King Robert fell in love with another woman and wanted her to make his queen instead of Cersei.

The people in Westeros do not delude themselves into believing Robert Baratheon is stuck in his loveless marriage until either Cersei or he die. He could have legally set this marriage aside.

What this would have done to the legal status of Robert's children by Cersei we don't know. This is a very interesting question somebody should ask George.

[Bael's Bastard]

Yeah, I don't get the impression that Renly knew about the twincest before Stannis' letter, and I'm not sure he believed it even then.

[corbon]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

There really aren't, i know you've made the arguments several times, several people, me among them, have also disagreed with you several times before.

Just because you don't like an idea, doesn't make it impossible or even unreasonable. People have disagreed, no one has shown the ideas to be untrue or even unlikely.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

No, i know Ned told Robert more than we know because Robert knows more than we know and he does know Jon's mother according to Ned's info.

Thats simply not true, but if all you've got is a clear lie as an argument, anyone can see it.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

The thing we know Ned told Robert is the mother of his bastard's name.

The words are there in black and white. I happy to leave this exposed as a flat lie.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

That's not the correct logical construct, not now not ever. Robert would ask directly who the mother was and Ned would give him a name.

Ahh, so logical constructs are defined by 'would', according to your opinion.
ok. I can see why we reach different conclusions.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

But he has also demonstrated that he is more than capable of giving him a name.

And did again, with nothing more, while angry and refusing to talk about it. Evidence that he said X while refusing to talk about Y is not evidence he said more than X while previously talking about Y.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Ditto, is what you want to believe, but we have no reason to believe otherwise. Robert asks for Jon's mother, Ned says Wylla.

Except, Robert does not ask for Jon's mother. He asks "what was her name" and clarifies who he means by several additional statements.  Wylla is in fact 'her' name, whether she was Ned's common girl for real, Jon's mother for real, or nothing but a wetnurse that Robert believes to be more.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

At all, the most logical assumption is that Ned told Robert some bs that he knew that could be verified if someone was curious enough.  Since looking for other bastards is impolite, he knew that the mater would rest soon.

The most logical assumption is that Ned refused to talk about it the same as he does when we see him. But gave Robert minimal safe information the same as he does when we see him.
Even more so in literature than real life. The author gives us clues by his characterizations as to how those characters would react in similar circumstances.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't care what Ned actually told Robert - I merely assume with good cause he had some story in place to explain his bastard to powerful people. A smokescreen to hide Lya's child. And his wife was not important in this regard since she would have to submit to his authority and obey his will.

So you make definitive statements of fact about what Ned told Robert and then refuse to back them up. Your 'assumption' is good enough and defines fact. Understood. We know where we stand.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Nothing of that is 'likely'. We don't know who Wylla was or with whom she spent the Rebellion. She could have been with Ned before she became Jon's and eventually Edric Dayne's wetnurse.

Thats possible. Its not very likely. There is no indication Ned had more people along with him than his companions when he left Storms End or when he rode up to ToJ. Nor that he knew of a child before leaving on his very private trip south after the war and therefore brought with him a potential wetnurse.

There is indication that Wylla was with him nursing Jon by the time he got to Starfall. 
It is also known that after nursing Jon Wylla returned to Starfall.

The apparent and most likely answer is that Wylla was a Dornish native who had nothing to do with Ned and was nowhere near him, until his trip to Dorne after the war ended. And if thats true, then claiming Wylla as Jon's mother, when she was in Dorne when he was conceived, is a very very foolish thing indeed.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And it is not necessary for Ned to have been with this Wylla woman longer than a single short fuck. She could have contacted Ned like Ramsay's mother contacted Roose after his bastard's birth (or this could be the story) - with the child's looks giving the Stark bastard away.

Yep, sure. Thats possible.  He could have told such a story.

It rather fails the sniff test though. In that case why is Ned hiding it from Cat? Why is he so aggressively defensive about talking about Jon's mother. If thats true, there is nothing to it really. Catelyn tells us as much.
Never mind all the actual R+J=L evidence which  points to a conclusion that also tells us exactly why Ned is hiding the story and refuses to discuss it to the point of anger and scaring his wife (the only time he ever does so) and being rude to his king.

The fact is that is not what Ned's story is. We don't even have a story from Ned, because he gets icily angry and shuts down any conversation discussing it.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Do you want to tell us Ned and Robert hung out the entire Rebellion when we know they didn't? Or that Ned had some kind of shadow watching whatever he may have done while drunk in a brothel in the Riverlands or at any other place in Westeros during the Rebellion?

No, I don't need to make stupid shit up.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that anybody is watching this Wylla woman prior to her hookup with Ned also makes no sense. Who should watch a common woman?

The other common people around her? They don;t need to 'watch her', just confirm, if asked, the truth that she was at X place through Y months during the rebellion.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The clue for Ned - who wants to obscure things and present a woman as his bastard's mother - would be to pick a woman for that job who actually was with him earlier and thus could be Jon Snow's mother if she, Wylla, were his mother.

Except he doesn't do that. He doesn't have anyone he 'tells people' was the mother. If he did, why would Cat think it was Ashara? Yet Cat has no thought to Wylla/the wetnurse. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

While we don't know where Wylla was during the war, you are not going to tell us that she wasn't with Ned.

I know there is no evidence she was with Ned, while he was fighting in central westeros after his marriage and its certainly unlikely given what we do know of her, and Ned, that she was.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And we know that Edric Dayne also thinks she is Jon's mother, meaning somebody must have told him.

Indeed. He wasn't even born at the time. But someone told him. And it wasn't Ned. It also wasn't Robert. I don't know for certain but I think its a very safe bet that it wasn't Ned or Robert who told Edric's source either.
But apparently its impossible that that other someone, directly or indirectly, also told Robert. Only Ned could have done that according to Frenin.

That in fact is partly the scenario I think most likely, out of several possibilities. 
That Ned rode in to Starfall with Wylla nursing Jon, and people at Starfall made assumptions (after all, they know Ashara wasn't the mother and choosing the mother as a wetnurse for a bastard (thus giving her a reward both economic and relational, for her troubles) is an age-old, even biblical, story for dealing with a bastard baby). A report of Ned's trip to Starfall (including the bastard kid and its mother, the giving back of Dawn, the apparent death of Arthur Dayne, possible the suicide of Ashara Dayne) makes its way to King Robert (Varys perhaps trying to demonstrate his competency and value to his new master) and thus Robert goes into his first conversation with Ned pre-armed with assumptions just as in the second conversation.

Its not the only possibility, but its a very reasonable and probable one as a general idea. And its one that fits Ned saying almost nothing and staying in character then and 'now'.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And what gives you the right to assume Ned as written cared about subtle shit like that?

You are allowed to make assumptions but apparently I'm not?
Truth is, I don't even assume that.
I note that Ned is very careful about lies and avoids telling them where he can.  I don't care whether that is deliberate and subtle, or accidental and merely the by-product of his character.
What I do care is that its consistent, and fits the rest of his characterization by GRRM. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The guy wasn't exactly a master plotter. Why should he even expect people would investigate his affairs and by-blows? Who does that, and for what reason?

Really?  
As it happens, I mostly agree. I doubt he 'expected' investigation, and I doubt he carefully planned what to say to give the best impression. But he did have to be aware that he, and Jon, could be investigated, and therefore making up silly lies that he can't control is unwise. His answer is not to make up anything, but to shut down any conversations and only tell the truth, small safe truths, when he can't escape them.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We know that people don't investigate noble or royal bastards.

Sure. No plot points there at any time!

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Littlefinger can pass Sansa as a completely fictional bastard daughter.

Littlefinger was an unremarkable nothing nobody to those in power. He still is to a large extent. Sansa as his bastard daughter even now has very little relevance, which is why nobody cares. 
Ned Stark's male bastard, close enough in age to be his firstborn, is another thing entirely.
Even more so if you throw in the circumstances of the bastard's appearance.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If that works, then Ned could actually have invented Wylla and nobody would have ever bothered to figure that out.

Aside from your whole argument here being farcical, its irrelevant. He didn't, did he.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Even when you look at the Cat confrontation then the impression I get is not that Ned is afraid that his wife inquires about him, but rather that it is painful for him to talk about him, that this is a chapter he wants to bury deep within himself.

I don't see pain and hurt and inward emotion, I see anger and protectiveness, outward emotions. He's icily cold, icily explicit. Its not about the mother, or Ned's relationship with her, its about Jon. And Ned wants to know the source of the rumour so he can squash it, which he does, at least within Winterfell.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If he were constantly afraid for Jon's life because of Robert he would keep the man at arm's length and not feel the kind of deep affection he has for him.

You might. Ned isn't you.
Ned can't do that. His love for Robert is deep and real and predates Jon's arrival. He's also much less afraid for Jon's life now as he was back then. He still won't talk about it, because that increase the danger, but we see how he responds when Robert brings it up.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

But it makes no sense to assume he had no mother in place in case he would be pushed about this thing. Not having a story in place means you have to improvise when pushed ... and then you make mistakes very easily.

Except when we see him pushed his answer isn't a 'story' but to shut down the conversation. 
Deciding he must have a story because he must, when we see him not actually use one but instead shut down such conversations, more than once and with more than one person and with more than one other option.

If he had a story, why is he never telling it?

The answer is that your 'sense' is flawed. It may make no sense to you, but its how Ned operates and in his circumstances with his character it works, at least as GRRM writes it.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

This makes only sense if you assume Ned is a complete moron who thought he would never be asked about his bastard ... or rather: nobody would ever connect the dots before he said anything at all. Ned has to establish the boy as his child before people start suspecting it might by Lya's.

Its funny how I can apparently assume Ned is a master plotter and a complete moron at the same time. 
Or maybe thats just the silly lengths you need to go to try and counter my arguments.

Rather than assume anything, rather than put myself in his place and think what I would do, I look at his words and behaviour and build my thoughts from that.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I agree that a great way to lie is to lead people around by the nose

Thats not what Ned does. He simply puts up a wall and they find their own 'path' around it.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

but if you want people to draw a false conclusion you better establish that there is a conclusion to be drawn.

Perhaps we can assume that there is no conclusion - Jon never had a mother? The male equivalent of the virgin birth?
Or perhaps we can see that there are multiple conclusions that are drawn by different people, quite possible none of which are actually right!

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

People don't inquire about bastards usually, as we know,

 Well, you 'know' it. The rest of us have read the books and actually followed whats in them.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

but Robert and Ned are close friends, and we know Ned talked to Robert about Wylla

We know that Ned told Robert her name. We don't know that he 'talked about her' - ie said anything more than that.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

... but Robert's words do not imply that he, Robert, asked Ned about his bastard but rather that Ned told him about Wylla once.

Robert's words don't imply anything other than that they once had a conversation in which Ned told him the name Wylla and afterthat conversation (possible also before) Robert believed her to be Ned's 'one time', his 'common girl', the mother of his bastard.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Ned could have just broached this topic all by himself.

Its possible. Lots of things are possible. Its possible Ramsey is yet another of Robert's bastards that everyone missed. Or that there are ICBMs under Winterfell.

But given Ned is on record as shutting down such topics with icy anger every time they are broached, and going further to kill them when he has power to, its not very likely he broached it himself. If he did, GRRM is pulling a very dirty trick in his writing.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If I were Ned

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd deliberately talk to Robert about that to plant the seed, and the way to do that is to specifically mention that I have a bastard from this woman, not wait until Robert, perhaps, asks me about my bastard after having never mentioned him before - something that is improper for a man to ask another man, and something Robert himself clearly also doesn't like to talk about openly (he is embarrassed when Ned talks about Barra).

Well, I guess you are the .master plotter' that Ned isn't exactly. 

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

For the Cersei case:

Renly plots to have Robert set aside Cersei for Margaery, and Cersei herself fears that Robert might set aside her for 'another Lyanna' back in Winterfell during the conversation Bran overhears.

This was a real possibility, and is confirmed by quotes both in AGoT and ACoK.

It has nothing to do with the twincest or another crime/disgrace of Cersei's ... merely the possibility that King Robert fell in love with another woman and wanted her to make his queen instead of Cersei.

The people in Westeros do not delude themselves into believing Robert Baratheon is stuck in his loveless marriage until either Cersei or he die. He could have legally set this marriage aside.

What this would have done to the legal status of Robert's children by Cersei we don't know. This is a very interesting question somebody should ask George.

I don't disagree LV that Robert could have set aside his marriage to Cersei if he decided to do so. That doesn't mean the Faith's laws against annulling a marriage would not clearly be violated by doing so. Kings get to do those things in Westeros if they want to do so badly enough.

I just find it ironic you are arguing the opposite side of the same question around the power of the king vs. the Faith when it comes to Rhaegar. Rhaegar did not attempt to set aside Elia, or disavow his children with her, and any attempt by him to have a second wife had clear precedent, and had been accepted by the Faith with the Conqueror and his sisters. If Rhaegar wins the Iron Throne, he gets to do as he wishes, even if there are those among the Faith who may not agree.

The reality is that the power struggle between the Faith and the Crown was won long before either Rhaegar or Robert were alive. The Faith in their times was toothless to object, much less impose, anything against the actions of the King. That is most clearly true when it comes to questions of royal marriages.

Now what Tywin Lannister might have done if Robert had tried to set aside Cersei, or disown their children, is another question entirely. How much would Tywin pay a Faceless Man to kill Robert? I can't say what the going rate would be, but is sounds like something Tywin might do.

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, corbon said:

I note that Ned is very careful about lies and avoids telling them where he can

The same here. It was one of the clues that brought me to RLJ - why doesn't he speak about Jon's mother? Because he cannot tell the truth but doesn't want to lie, and his status allows him simply not to tell anything, fullstop. So why can't he tell the truth and why is Jon "his blood", instead of "son"? Because he's not and Ned lies about it - so whose and why? Ned lies to protect his family, but why would he protect Benjen or Brandon - oh shit, Lyanna. That's what "promise me" means.

GRRM has my admiration forever for this masterful characterisation.

[frenin]

3 hours ago, corbon said:

Just because you don't like an idea, doesn't make it impossible or even unreasonable. People have disagreed, no one has shown the ideas to be untrue or even unlikely.

Fair enough.

The other way it's true too, just because you believe them logic doesn't mean they really are.

They are untrue because the construct of the very sentence makes clear it's unlikely.

 

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

Thats simply not true, but if all you've got is a clear lie as an argument, anyone can see it.

Suit yourself.

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

The words are there in black and white. I happy to leave this exposed as a flat lie.

Ditto. I'll spare you the trouble.

 

Quote

Yours was … Aleena? No. You told me once. Was it Merryl? You know the one I mean, your bastard’s mother?” “Her name was Wylla,” Ned replied with cool courtesy, “and I would sooner not speak of her.” “Wylla. Yes.” The king grinned. “She must have been a rare wench if she could make Lord Eddard Stark forget his honor, even for an hour. You never told me what she looked like …”

 

Ned already told Robert the name of the mother of his bastard but Robert forgot her and now he is demanding again said name.

 

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

Ahh, so logical constructs are defined by 'would', according to your opinion.
ok. I can see why we reach different conclusions.

Indeed.

 

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

And did again, with nothing more, while angry and refusing to talk about it. Evidence that he said X while refusing to talk about Y is not evidence he said more than X while previously talking about Y.

The previous time Ned didn't do more than telling a name. "You never told me what she looked like". 

This time Ned also does nothing more that telling a name.

 

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

Except, Robert does not ask for Jon's mother. He asks "what was her name" and clarifies who he means by several additional statements.  Wylla is in fact 'her' name, whether she was Ned's common girl for real, Jon's mother for real, or nothing but a wetnurse that Robert believes to be more.

He asks for Jon's mother. "The mother of your bastard", has only one meaning. Robert was remembering the name given and associated with Jon's mother but he couldn't do it.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, corbon said:

The most logical assumption is that Ned refused to talk about it the same as he does when we see him. But gave Robert minimal safe information the same as he does when we see him.
Even more so in literature than real life. The author gives us clues by his characterizations as to how those characters would react in similar circumstances.

It's not a logical assumption that Ned denied his best friend of a random name that wouldn't make a difference whether he told it or not. And Ned does tell Robert a name 15 years later so it makes zero sense that he wouldn't in the past.

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I don't disagree LV that Robert could have set aside his marriage to Cersei if he decided to do so. That doesn't mean the Faith's laws against annulling a marriage would not clearly be violated by doing so. Kings get to do those things in Westeros if they want to do so badly enough.

If you read all the other stuff you would have stumbled on the quotes from FaB that make it clear that marriages can be set aside by the king or the king's government with the approval of the High Septon even if they were consummated - that is what the regents desire to set aside the Alyn-Baela marriage is about. The marriage of two adults who consummated their marriage and wanted to remain married.

This means there are no laws against setting aside a consummated marriage if the king and his government want it. And to be sure ... it might even that you can annul a marriage for other reasons than just non-consummation. Non-consummation might simply be the easiest way to do it. Just as the king would be the person best equipped to make a strong case.

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I just find it ironic you are arguing the opposite side of the same question around the power of the king vs. the Faith when it comes to Rhaegar. Rhaegar did not attempt to set aside Elia, or disavow his children with her, and any attempt by him to have a second wife had clear precedent, and had been accepted by the Faith with the Conqueror and his sisters. If Rhaegar wins the Iron Throne, he gets to do as he wishes, even if there are those among the Faith who may not agree.

Rhaegar never had the throne nor do we know whether he would have successfully taken over the royal powers (the Mad King could have burned himself and the city to the ground rather than handing power to Rhaegar, no?) - but what we do know is that he was neither king nor regent nor Hand back when he ran away with Lya.

The king could have set aside his marriage with Elia via the High Septon, just as the king could have supported him on the polygamy thing ... but we don't know whether he did either.

Hence the controversial issue here.

And one has to consider the fact that setting aside the Elia-Rhaegar marriage is actually a viable scenario - if and only if we assume Rhaegar had his father's support in the Lyanna marriage department. If he had that, then his father could, perhaps after Rhaegar's return and their reconciliation have agreed that his heir can have a new wife.

Or, perhaps, that he can have two wives at the same time.

But without royal permission this marriage is, insofar as the people are concerned, a nonexisting thing.

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The reality is that the power struggle between the Faith and the Crown was won long before either Rhaegar or Robert were alive. The Faith in their times was toothless to object, much less impose, anything against the actions of the King. That is most clearly true when it comes to questions of royal marriages.

I'm not really considering the Faith as an independent agent there - or rather: I see the Faith and House Targaryen (that branch that counts, the king himself and the queen, Aerys and Rhaella) on the same page on the matter of polygamy - just as all the kings and queens from the past were. From Jaehaerys and Alysanne to Aerys and Rhalla no Targaryen royal couple favored polygamy. And even King Aenys and Queen Alyssa didn't favor, no matter what Aegon I and Maegor did.

I'm very sure that without the king's knowledge and permission Rhaegar taking a second wife would be seen by court and council, High Septon and Faith and the Realm at large the same way the king would have seen - as a grievous sin, a violation of trust, a perversion that would not stand. Nobody would stand with Rhaegar if he was going against the king and the entire Realm with that.

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Now what Tywin Lannister might have done if Robert had tried to set aside Cersei, or disown their children, is another question entirely. How much would Tywin pay a Faceless Man to kill Robert? I can't say what the going rate would be, but is sounds like something Tywin might do.

That is basically irrelevant to the legal question at hand ... especially since Tywin himself also had power enough to dissolve a consummated marriage just because he was Tywin Lannister, Lord of Casterly Rock.

[Lord Varys]

To elaborate on the setting aside/polygamy question in the Lyanna-Rhaegar case:

There are more precedents for marriages being set aside post-Maegor than there are polygamy cases - especially if you also count the numbers of cases where the setting aside of a marriage was considered but ultimately not done.

Baelor the Blessed set aside his marriage to his sister Daena, but it was considered for Jaehaerys-Alysanne, Daemon-Rhea, Baela-Alyn, Viserys-Larra, Aerys I-Aelinor, Duncan-Jenny, Jaehaerys-Shaera, and Robert-Cersei.

There just are more precedents for the setting aside scenario than the idea Rhaegar wanted to have two wives at the same time. And with Elia being, well, done as a wife, being unable to carry more children, and Rhaegar never loving her (and she perhaps never loving him, either), there is really no reason aside from weird harem fan fiction that Rhaegar and Lyanna wanted to have Elia as a second spouse in their marriage. This isn't some kind of weird love triangle - it is an arranged marriage without love on Rhaegar's part against a relationship that may have been a deep romance.

The only reason why Rhaegar may have wanted Lyanna merely as a second wife and to keep Elia as his lawful wife I can think of is that the legitimacy of his children could be called into question if Elia would be set aside. But we don't know that this would happen ... in fact, if you get a Catholic annulment then the children from the marriage are not declared bastards. And since we don't know what would have happened to Cersei's children in a scenario where Robert would have set her aside without knowing about the twincest we cannot pretend it would have ended with them being declared bastards.

If one takes the two scenarios and looks at them then impartially Rhaegar certainly could have had a better chance setting aside Elia in favor of Lyanna, especially if he had his father's support in this eventually. Aerys II didn't exactly like that Dornish marriage, did he?

Without his father's support Rhaegar couldn't have done either a polygamous marriage nor replaced Elia with Lyanna as his only wife. He would have to go through the king to do this.

Whatever Rhaegar planned to do after the Trident is irrelevant if you just consider the legal situation prior to Rhaegar's death.

On 7/3/2020 at 5:56 AM, corbon said:

So you make definitive statements of fact about what Ned told Robert and then refuse to back them up. Your 'assumption' is good enough and defines fact. Understood. We know where we stand.

We have confirmation that at least one person in addition to Robert believes Wylla is Jon Snow's mother. A person where you would have to actually establish how and why Ned 'tricked them' into believing Wylla is the mother without actually saying it.

Quote

Thats possible. Its not very likely. There is no indication Ned had more people along with him than his companions when he left Storms End or when he rode up to ToJ. Nor that he knew of a child before leaving on his very private trip south after the war and therefore brought with him a potential wetnurse.

There is indication that Wylla was with him nursing Jon by the time he got to Starfall. 
It is also known that after nursing Jon Wylla returned to Starfall.

This is all irrelevant while you cannot tell me who Wylla actually is and where she was.

Quote

The apparent and most likely answer is that Wylla was a Dornish native who had nothing to do with Ned and was nowhere near him, until his trip to Dorne after the war ended. And if thats true, then claiming Wylla as Jon's mother, when she was in Dorne when he was conceived, is a very very foolish thing indeed.

That is neither 'the apparent' nor the 'most likely answer' - it is just something you pulled out of your ass. All we know about Wylla is that she ended up the wetnurse of Edric Dayne at Starfall. We don't know whether she was 'a Dornish native' nor that she lived at Starfall before she was Edric Dayne's wetnurse.

In fact, Ned would have to be an utter moron - especially in your weird scenario where everybody and their grandmother try to sniff out the truth behind lordly bastards - to make the Wylla woman his bastard's mother in any scenario if he only met her at Starfall. Because then Ned would have arrived there with a child that was clearly motherless and, more importantly, could not possibly be Wylla's child. The entire castle would know that she wasn't Jon Snow's mother and it would make no sense that anyone would ever tell Edric Dayne that nonsensical story.

None of the Daynes but, perhaps, Ashara had any reason to be complicit in some sort of weird 'protect Jon Snow scheme' - and Ashara Dayne died shortly thereafter, and was never the ruler of Starfall, anyway - especially since this Eddard Stark fellow actually slew Ser Arthur Dayne, Ashara's brother and the brother of the Lord of Starfall, Edric's father. Most people would have better things to do than to help this guy to obscure the identity of a child.

Quote

It rather fails the sniff test though. In that case why is Ned hiding it from Cat? Why is he so aggressively defensive about talking about Jon's mother. If thats true, there is nothing to it really. Catelyn tells us as much.
Never mind all the actual R+J=L evidence which  points to a conclusion that also tells us exactly why Ned is hiding the story and refuses to discuss it to the point of anger and scaring his wife (the only time he ever does so) and being rude to his king.

Ned just shows who is boss in Winterfell and their marriage. He is the lord husband, and he calls the shots. He doesn't want to talk about Jon Snow, period. Especially not back then when the wounds were still fresh. I mean, if he wanted to do some more misdirection while not react less harshly and sort of allow Cat 'to conclude' that Ashara was Jon's mother? Why not allow that rumor to thrive instead of shutting it down? That would fit much better with the idea that Ned didn't actually tell Robert Wylla was Jon's mother.

Instead, Ned actually does something very stupid there - if Cat hadn't been in love with him she could have taken that freak outburst as pretext to dig deeper and uncover the mystery of Jon Snow's unknown mother.

Quote

The fact is that is not what Ned's story is. We don't even have a story from Ned, because he gets icily angry and shuts down any conversation discussing it.

We have one - the Wylla story as told to us by Robert.

Quote

The other common people around her? They don;t need to 'watch her', just confirm, if asked, the truth that she was at X place through Y months during the rebellion.

LOL, right. As if anyone ever even suggested that Eddard Stark should or would have to tell anyone who the hell that Wylla was or where exactly he met her or who her buddies were.

I mean, seriously, how can you even invent stuff like that?

All we are talking about here is that Ned gave Robert the given name of a common woman - not her address, profession, or biography. How do you think anyone could track down a woman named Wylla who Eddard Stark met and fucked at some point during the war?

I mean, when the hell do you think Ned talked to Robert about Wylla and his bastard the first time? Or when exactly do you think Ned mentioned to anyone he had a bastard? Do you think he informed Robert about that after his return from the south? That he wrote letters to court to mention he, a great lord, had fathered some bastard? He wouldn't do anything of this sort.

Ned would have told Robert what he could about Lya and the tower and stuff, but he wouldn't have taken the child nor talked about 'a bastard of his' while spending time with Robert ... especially not if Cat was around there for the coronation and wedding and whatever the hell they were doing together after the war.

The Winterfell folk and Cat eventually realized that Jon Snow was a thing. But they lived at Winterfell, with Ned. Eventually, possibly even years later, news about the Bastard of Winterfell would have reached the court. And then Robert may have wondered who the hell the woman was who could seduce Eddard Stark. In fact, he could have first asked Ned about his bastard's mother - if he actually did that - as late as the Greyjoy Rebellion.

But guess what - Robert would have no idea how old Jon Snow was, nor when exactly he was born according Ned's story (the guy may not even know when his own children - bastards and Cersei's - were born) - so unless Ned actually told him that he fathered this Jon Snow child after he had married Catelyn at Riverrun Robert Baratheon would have no way of knowing when exactly Ned had his little fling.

Since Ned can only be the source for Ned actually being an adulterer when allegedly fathering Jon Snow, we can be reasonably sure that Ned actually specifically told Robert that he fucked Wylla after marrying Cat - just as he does again in AGoT when Robert asks him about her.

I think that is Ned's deliberate excuse/pretext to have a reason not to talk about Wylla/Jon. It shamed him that he broke his marriage vows and he uses that as a shield to be able to not talk about the entire thing - which would be different if he had said he fathered Jon Snow before he married Catelyn at Riverrun - or even before he had agreed with Hoster Tully to marry Catelyn.

Quote

Indeed. He wasn't even born at the time. But someone told him. And it wasn't Ned. It also wasn't Robert. I don't know for certain but I think its a very safe bet that it wasn't Ned or Robert who told Edric's source either.

This would be a very unsafe bet considering only Ned is the only good source of information for all things Jon Snow at Starfall we have so far. Especially if you believe Jon Snow was born at the tower of joy.

Quote

That in fact is partly the scenario I think most likely, out of several possibilities. 
That Ned rode in to Starfall with Wylla nursing Jon, and people at Starfall made assumptions (after all, they know Ashara wasn't the mother and choosing the mother as a wetnurse for a bastard (thus giving her a reward both economic and relational, for her troubles) is an age-old, even biblical, story for dealing with a bastard baby). A report of Ned's trip to Starfall (including the bastard kid and its mother, the giving back of Dawn, the apparent death of Arthur Dayne, possible the suicide of Ashara Dayne) makes its way to King Robert (Varys perhaps trying to demonstrate his competency and value to his new master) and thus Robert goes into his first conversation with Ned pre-armed with assumptions just as in the second conversation.

I'm with you with the idea that Ned may have arrived with Wylla at Starfall. But I see no reason why he should have just allowed people to conclude that Wylla was the mother of his bastard - after all, he would have told the Daynes and Starfallians and eventually the world as such that this child there was Jon Snow, Eddard Stark's natural son. Or are you telling us now Jon Snow got that Snow name branding him a noble bastard for all his life also just because Eddard Stark 'allowed people to draw the conclusion that Jon was his child'? That he never formally and publicly acknowledged him as his child? I don't think so.

For the people of Starfall to conclude that the child with Ned and Wylla - if we got by the idea of them arriving there together - was actually Eddard Stark's son (and not, you know, the late Lyanna's child) Eddard Stark would actually have to tell them at least that. The idea that he wouldn't do this - or rather: George would be as stupid as to write it that way - doesn't convince me.

As for the other stuff:

You are thinking about this too much. Varys reporting about - what? Starfall kitchen gossip? And Robert in need of 'armor' to ask his old buddy about his bastard son and the flame who must have born the boy? Those are all additional assumptions nobody needs.

Ned himself would have told Robert about his visit at Starfall. If anybody talked to Robert about that at all. Robert's information about Ned's bastard could have come from pretty much anywhere - especially since there is no reason for us to believe Robert and Ned talked about Jon's mother in the immediate aftermath of the Rebellion. The existence of Jon Snow was not a secret.

Quote

You are allowed to make assumptions but apparently I'm not?
Truth is, I don't even assume that.
I note that Ned is very careful about lies and avoids telling them where he can.  I don't care whether that is deliberate and subtle, or accidental and merely the by-product of his character.
What I do care is that its consistent, and fits the rest of his characterization by GRRM. 

Him actually having a brain also fits with his character.

Quote

Really?  
As it happens, I mostly agree. I doubt he 'expected' investigation, and I doubt he carefully planned what to say to give the best impression. But he did have to be aware that he, and Jon, could be investigated, and therefore making up silly lies that he can't control is unwise. His answer is not to make up anything, but to shut down any conversations and only tell the truth, small safe truths, when he can't escape them.

LOL, you don't seem to get it that Ned 'misdirecting Robert' about the mother of his bastard is exactly the same as him telling it outright if there is a situation where the king actually investigates Wylla, right? Robert wouldn't remember that he had been 'misdirected', he would, correctly, assume that Eddard Stark told him a lie.

Quote

Littlefinger was an unremarkable nothing nobody to those in power. He still is to a large extent. Sansa as his bastard daughter even now has very little relevance, which is why nobody cares. 
Ned Stark's male bastard, close enough in age to be his firstborn, is another thing entirely.
Even more so if you throw in the circumstances of the bastard's appearance.

What can I say? That just makes no sense at all. Littlefinger's 'bastard' is Sansa Stark (who stands accused of regicide and is on the most wanted list of the two richest houses in Westeros), wearing literally no disguise but dye in her hair, yet nobody seems to notice her or care about her because she poses as a bastard.

Why on earth do you assume that in light of all that anyone (Ned included) would ever, ever think to investigate the parentage of Ned's bastard. That is just ridiculous.

The important thing for Ned was to make Lya's child his bastard - which he simply did by claiming that the boy was his bastard. That was all. There is no indication he ever feared or even thought anyone would ever 'investigate' this child once it was a bastard. Even if they did - it would be his word, the word of one of the most powerful men in Westeros against whoever would want to doubt that.

Even if a man like Stannis wrote a bunch of letters spilling out 'the true Jon Snow story' - the political fallout would be, most likely, nonexistent. Because Jon Snow doesn't look like a Targaryen, and no self-respecting lord in Westeros would want his prince or king to be a baseborn, motherless bastard - especially not while there was still proper royalty living in Essos.

Have you any evidence whatsoever that Jon Snow 'appeared' under strange 'circumstances'? There is nothing of this sort in the books at all. Nobody wonders how/why/that Ned Stark got himself a bastard during the war.

Quote

Ned can't do that. His love for Robert is deep and real and predates Jon's arrival. He's also much less afraid for Jon's life now as he was back then. He still won't talk about it, because that increase the danger, but we see how he responds when Robert brings it up.

Ned's love for Robert shouldn't have survived Jon's arrival if Ned had actually been afraid that Robert, specifically, would harm to Jon. The fact that he still loves Robert in AGoT - and is not wary that Robert is going to come to Winterfell where he would see and interact with Jon Snow - is all the proof we need to conclude that Ned wasn't afraid for Jon's life because of Robert.

Quote

Except when we see him pushed his answer isn't a 'story' but to shut down the conversation. 
Deciding he must have a story because he must, when we see him not actually use one but instead shut down such conversations, more than once and with more than one person and with more than one other option.

Again, you are contradicting your own case there - Ashara was a 'misdirecting story' Ned could have used with Cat. He didn't. Because he knew he could do as he pleased with Cat, unlike Robert or other important people. Why do you think he shut down that story? If I had to guess it had much more to do with Ashara Dayne's memory than Jon Snow.

This whole silly little story that Ned never told Cat or his children or Jon the truth is also a bunch of crap. The Reed children most likely know who Jon Snow actually is - just as they know the story about the mystery knight they expected Bran to know. Ned doesn't talk about Lya and stuff because it is too hurtful/he doesn't want to talk about, not because it is something he has to do to protect his family or Jon. We are talking about a man who has seven-year-old children of his watch him behead people, and three-year-olds remember that 'winter is coming'. He is not one to protect people from the truth if they have to face it.

And there might be also another side to the entire thing - to protect himself and his family and his buddy Robert from Jon Snow and the Targaryen loyalists. Because if Ned successfully steals the identity of Rhaegar's son he can ensure that the boy never becomes a danger to Robert and his family, nor draw Robb and Bran into another civil war on the wrong side. Ned may have stood with Robert against Viserys III even if Jon Snow knew who he his paternal uncle was ... but what a Lord Robb Stark would do in such a scenario, a Robb Stark who feels as close as a brother to Viserys III's nephew, is an altogether different matter.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Lord Varys

[lehutin]

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Since Ned can only be the source for Ned actually being an adulterer when allegedly fathering Jon Snow,

Why?

[Lord Varys]

30 minutes ago, lehutin said:

Why?

Because Ned is the guy who claimed he had a child with some woman who wasn't his wife. He is also the guy who had a child he named Jon Snow and told the world was his bastard.

[lehutin]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Because Ned is the guy who claimed he had a child with some woman who wasn't his wife. He is also the guy who had a child he named Jon Snow and told the world was his bastard.

Argh, that was silly of me. Yes, you are right; ultimately Ned is the original in-universe source of being Jon's father.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, lehutin said:

Argh, that was silly of me. Yes, you are right; ultimately Ned is the original in-universe source of being Jon's father.

Yeah, and the context here was that people like @corbon get too mixed up in the text - they project their knowledge about dates and ages and stuff on the characters when in fact the moment to consider that Robert or anyone would know or suspect when exactly Jon Snow was born or conceived is when we have clear indications that said people actually show any interest or knowledge in dates surrounding Jon Snow's birth, conception, and age.

This is why the Alayne Stone comparison is so striking - here both a teenage bastard girl as well as her mother are invented out of thin air and nobody double-checks this, nor do the people doing it (Littlefinger and Sansa) actually expect it would be double-checked by any of the many enemies they have in the Vale.

Once Ned had Jon Snow in his care, he would never announce to anyone day of birth or conception or age. He was under no pressure to tell Robert when exactly he allegedly fucked the Wylla woman. He did this because he wanted to - he could have just as well claimed he fathered Jon Snow before his marriage to Catelyn.

In fact, he perhaps could have gone as far as claiming he did that 1-2 years prior to Rebellion if he felt that way, especially if he first talked with Robert about Jon and Wylla years after the Rebellion. At that point it would be remarkably easy to pin down Jon Snow's exact age if, say, the first reports about him at court circulated only years after the Rebellion, too.

Some readers are obsessed with bastards here - but for decent people in Westeros bastards are not proper subjects. Nobody investigates them, instead people overlook them.

The one reason people could have investigating Jon Snow would be if they had reason to believe Rhaegar and Lyanna had produced living offspring and had concluded that Ned Stark's bastard might be said offspring in disguise.

But nobody would arrive at that point by investigating Jon Snow but by investigating Lyanna Stark's last months and untimely death.

The interesting question thus is whether anyone actually believed that Lya was pregnant before her death and, if people knew or suspected that, what Ned told them after his return to convince them that no child of Rhaegar and Lyanna yet lived.

But this is a questioned intimately connected to the Rhaegar-Lyanna relationship and is likely only going to be answered when the books actually establish that they had sex and/or a relationship/marriage.

[QhorinQuarterhand]

Is there an actual statement directly from GRRM that Lyanna is Jon's book mother? 

Or is the best "evidence" that video where George nodded along with the interviewer to indicate he knew what she was referencing? If the interviewer had said any other name than Lyanna, the Faith Militant would never even mention it. Except to come out of the wood works to chastise someone for trying to use it to support a non R+L parentage for Jon.

Edited July 5, 2020 by QhorinQuarterhand