Who's "they" ?

[LynnS]

10 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

The passage does not use the word "boil".  Search >Winterfell sloughing< and it will come up.  No clue on what it means.

It means I'm turned off making homemade chicken noodle soup for a while.

[asongofheresy]

I don't believe Lyanna was in ToJ as Ned's dream indicate, I would say she very well could be in Starfall and/or a third location that could be revealed, so I assume "they" are a Maester/Midwife, and a Wetnurse. 

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, asongofheresy said:

I don't believe Lyanna was in ToJ as Ned's dream indicate, I would say she very well could be in Starfall and/or a third location that could be revealed, so I assume "they" are a Maester/Midwife, and a Wetnurse. 

Yes, I'm not sure that Ned's dream of Lyanna screaming his name indicates that she was there.  When Ned is with her, she is so close to death, that she can barely manage a whisper.  But it does seem to be a transition point in the dream from events with KG into more of a dream of signs and portents.  So I have wondered if Lyanna screaming Ned's name, is akin to the cry of the banshee foretelling Ned's death. 

[asongofheresy]

1 minute ago, LynnS said:

Yes, I'm not sure that Ned's dream of Lyanna screaming his name indicates that she was there.  When Ned is with her, she is so close to death, that she can barely manage a whisper.  But it does seem to be a transition point in the dream from events with KG into more of a dream of signs and portents.  So I have wondered if Lyanna screaming Ned's name, is akin to the cry of the banshee foretelling Ned's death. 

The tidbit about banshee is new to me but I like the idea, I also think Lyanna barely whispering is closer to the truth and not her screaming for Ned. 

[LynnS]

26 minutes ago, asongofheresy said:

The tidbit about banshee is new to me but I like the idea, I also think Lyanna barely whispering is closer to the truth and not her screaming for Ned. 

I don't think anyone has made that comparison. 

Quote

A banshee (/ ˈ b æ n ʃ iː / BAN-shee; Modern Irish bean sí, from Old Irish: ben síde, pronounced [bʲen ˈʃiːðʲe], "woman of the fairy mound" or "fairy woman") is a female spirit in Irish folklore who heralds the death of a family member, usually by wailing, shrieking, or keening. 

 

[asongofheresy]

5 minutes ago, LynnS said:

I don't think anyone has made that comparison. 

 

Highly possible, I am afraid I wasn't much active with discussions to notice otherwise, it's also new to me as I am not familiar with Irish/Celtic legends

[corbon]

On 10/16/2021 at 4:27 AM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

As I said, I'm hoping to not have a huge semantic debate here, but in reading this part of Ned's conversation with Robert:

You need to read the whole paragraph, not cut in part way through Robert's question.

I object to you saying I 'handwaved away' textual evidence. I in fact did the exact opposite - I examined it in detail and showed exactly what the text says - which is not what it appears to say with soppy ready, and most people don;t look at it closely.

On 10/16/2021 at 4:27 AM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

The most obvious and likely conclusion to me and most other people is that Ned previously told Robert that Jon's mother was named Wylla.

Yes. Its well written to give that conclusion. But that conclusion isn't actually supported if you look closely, its merely something we pick up by reading casually, rather than a direct inference.

The point is that that doesn't make sense that Ned told a story before, but reacts the way he does to both Cat and Robert and won't tell the story again.

The 'he's embarrassed' excuse is just pathetic (never mind that we see anger, not embarrassment). Even Cat acknowledges that its nothing to be ashamed about - what he should be ashamed about, what hurts her, is not finding solace with another woman while on campaign, its bringing the bastard home to live with her family and make it public, in her face every day.

On 10/16/2021 at 4:27 AM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I know you have an elaborate theory where he never technically says that and Robert just makes that assumption and Ned doesn't correct him, etc.

Its not elaborate, Its very very simple. 
The 'elaborate' part is where people go 'well how did Robert hear the name from Ned before if Ned didn't tell him a story?' and I explain.

On 10/16/2021 at 4:27 AM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

(assumptions that don't have direct textual evidence, to respond to your second question),

There are assumptions I make. They are explaining how the actual textual reading can easily work for people who can't see that. They are not part of the actual reading of the text.

On 10/16/2021 at 4:27 AM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

 but I don't find it very convincing compared to the straightforward interpretation of the text, and I don't think most other readers do either.

Well, if you cut off the important part of the text, you can make lots of things ready different to what they actually say.

 

In what way is "You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?" a question?
In what way is "Her name was Wylla" an answer to that question?

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

On 10/16/2021 at 4:16 PM, corbon said:

I object to you saying I 'handwaved away' textual evidence. I in fact did the exact opposite - I examined it in detail and showed exactly what the text says - which is not what it appears to say with soppy ready, and most people don;t look at it closely.

 

I disagree, your dismissal of the straightforward explanation of the text for IMO flimsy reasons is handwaving to me. It's the same thing with the text from TWOIAF that says that Arthur Dayne died alongside his brothers. 

On 10/16/2021 at 4:16 PM, corbon said:

The point is that that doesn't make sense that Ned told a story before, but reacts the way he does to both Cat and Robert and won't tell the story again.

I don't think this is true at all, I think Ned's reactions make perfect sense. I also don't think Ned told some grand and detailed story to Robert in the first place.

On 10/16/2021 at 4:16 PM, corbon said:

The 'he's embarrassed' excuse is just pathetic (never mind that we see anger, not embarrassment). Even Cat acknowledges that its nothing to be ashamed about - what he should be ashamed about, what hurts her, is not finding solace with another woman while on campaign, its bringing the bastard home to live with her family and make it public, in her face every day.

I never said he was embarrassed

On 10/16/2021 at 4:16 PM, corbon said:

The 'elaborate' part is where people go 'well how did Robert hear the name from Ned before if Ned didn't tell him a story?' and I explain.

 

You "explain" based on your assumptions, but there's no evidence beyond those assertions. Is your version theoretically possible? Sure. Does it have more evidence or is it more likely than the baseline assumption? To me, no, and it's not even close.

 

On 10/16/2021 at 4:16 PM, corbon said:

In what way is "You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?" a question?

There's a question mark at the end for a reason. I wasn't excluding anything to make my argument look better, if you cut out all of Robert's wrong guesses of names and commentary on one of his girls, here's what you get:

Quote

And yet there was that one time … what was her name, that common girl of yours? ... You told me once ... You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?

I don't think this remotely helps your case. There's no indication Robert heard about her from anybody else or assumed she was Jon's mother without Ned telling him. And when Ned answers this question with "Wylla," that is a confirmation as much as you want to argue otherwise. In a hypothetical scenario where Robert finds out that Wylla cannot be Jon's mother and confronts Ned about it, Ned trying to play semantics about how he technically never explicitly said Wylla was Jon's mother (assuming for the sake of argument that he didn't do that in their original conversation Robert refers to) isn't going to mean shit, which is one reason why your entire theory doesn't make any sense. 

[corbon]

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I disagree, your dismissal of the straightforward explanation of the text

Its not straitforward. Its actually counter to the literal black and white.  

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

for IMO flimsy reasons is handwaving to me.

I guess there are different meanings that "handwaving away evidence" is used for. 
I was using at 'ignoring evidence without examining it or pretending it needs examining'. I guess you seem to be using it as doing nothing effective. 

Quote

It's the same thing with the text from TWOIAF that says that Arthur Dayne died alongside his brothers. 

That is 'handwaving', with clearly explained reasons. Ie not ignoring it entirely, but judging it flawed. My opinion on that will reverse if, say, we get a Hightower POV who also knows about Gerold's death, thus indicating that someone who was there has talked. In the meantime, unlike GRRM's words, this one single piece of data is something the a real-world writer would definitely know, but an in-world writer (Maester) does not, as far as we know, have any possibility of learning about. Given its not from GRRM, not referenced by any character outside Ned's head (HR not being a talkative chappie) and a single line in a book area not relevant to the ToJ fight, I think its reasonable that it may be a real-world writer's error (not in its being, but that the maester could include it). I may be wrong. We'll see.

Quote

I never said he was embarrassed

DIdn't say you did. That was another poster.

Quote

You "explain" based on your assumptions,

 

Is it a assumption that Ned disappeared from Storms End? Maybe I guess I think its a lot less an assumption that Ned, having stormed off south Mad at Robert, sent Robert a raven saying where he was going. (Not that you claim he did, just pointing out that this is a pretty straitforward and widely held assumption, as assumptions go).
Is it an assumption that Ned and Robert were best friends?
Is it an assumption that Robert gets mad quickly and gets un-mad just as quickly and wants to 'make up'.
is it an assumption that Varys was Robert's Master of Whispers?
Is it an assumption that Varys was previously Aerys' Master of Whispers?
Is it an assumption that post-rebelliion Ned was one of the most important men in Westeros?

Quote

but there's no evidence beyond those assertions. Is your version theoretically possible? Sure. Does it have more evidence or is it more likely than the baseline assumption? To me, no, and it's not even close.

Well, at least you admitted your 'baseline' is an assumption. One without evidence in fact. 

Quote

There's a question mark at the end for a reason.

Yes. Thats not the point. You are claiming that a) it is a new question (ie the original was what what was the girls name, the second if she was Jon's mother), and b) Ned answers it. I am claiming that its not a new question, its a statement by Robert pertaining to his old question - a restatement of the original question with further clarification.
In order to show this point, just separate the two. Take the second in isolation. "You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother". Is there a question there? No there isn't. Just a question mark at the end of a statement. This shows that its a reference and continuation of the earlier question. Its not a second question. Its one question, with one answer. That question has a lot of additional data placed on it be Robert, but Ned's answer is only pertinent to the original question and does not in any way address the statements Robert makes.

Its very simple. Just read Ned's answer. "Her name was Wylla". Apply that to the question(s). Does this answer, in any way, address the status of Wylla? No it does not. Just her name.

Quote

I wasn't excluding anything to make my argument look better, if you cut out all of Robert's wrong guesses of names and commentary on one of his girls, here's what you get:

You did exclude the most significant thing of all. Ned's replay. Lets add that in and have another look shall we?

4 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

And yet there was that one time … what was her name, that common girl of yours? ... You told me once ... You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?
Her name was Wylla.

How does "Her name was Wylla" address anything but 'what was her name?'. It does not. 
"Your bastard's mother?" would be addressed by some sort of affirmative Ned give none. Just the name. If Robert changed it and said "What was the name of your bastard's mother, then that question would be answered by Ned supplying him with a name. But that's not how the conversation went. Rbert asked for a name, Robert gave qualifiers, Ned gave exactly what Robert asked for - the name of the one Robert means.

Quote

I don't think this remotely helps your case. There's no indication Robert heard about her from anybody else or assumed she was Jon's mother without Ned telling him.

There is no indication Ned told Robert that either. You are making just as much an assumption as I am. Ned told Robert Wylla's name once before. Everything else is an assumption on your part too.

 

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Its not straitforward. Its actually counter to the literal black and white.

No it isn't, your position is

2 hours ago, corbon said:

DIdn't say you did. That was another poster.

Why didn't you engage the actual explanations I gave instead of what somebody else said?

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Well, at least you admitted your 'baseline' is an assumption. One without evidence in fact. 

 

The evidence is the fact that Robert literally says that Ned has given him the name of this woman before, and identifies her as the mother of his bastard. That only constitutes "without evidence" if you privilege your headcanon over the plain meaning of the text. 

2 hours ago, corbon said:

DIdn't say you did. That was another poster.

I've already gotten more into the semantics here than I wanted to, but your analysis on this IMO just completely ignores how human communication works. By itself, "What's her name?" is a meaningless and unanswerable question, because there is no possible way to know who "her" is absent context. The context comes from Robert identifying her as "that common girl of yours" and "your bastard's mother." Ned answering Wylla affirms that she is the woman Robert is thinking of, the common woman of Ned's who he believes is his bastard's mother. You can argue theoretical technicalities about Robert just making this assumption and Ned answering based off that but not correcting him, but it's beside the point in an actual conversation. If someone asks you "Hey what's that guy's name, you know, your brother?" and you say "John" even though you don't have a brother (and don't clarify that John is not your brother), they're going to feel deceived if they find out you that John isn't actually your brother. If Robert ever found out somehow that Wylla couldn't be Jon's mother, he's not going to give a shit if Ned tries to play some semantic game like this.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

Is it a assumption

None of those things support your ultimate assumption that Robert found out about Wylla from other people or assumed she was Jon's mother without Ned telling him or confirming it.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

There is no indication Ned told Robert that either.

We know Robert heard her name from Ned and have no indication he heard it from anybody else. If Robert believes she is the mother of Ned's bastard, there is thus more evidence to suggest Ned is the source than any alternative. 

 

The semantic arguments about this passage are tiring, I'd prefer to focus on the impetus for your theory - the idea that Ned telling Robert that Wylla was the name of Jon's mother doesn't fit with the scenes we get of him talking to Catelyn and Robert. I just don't think your reasoning here makes sense. It's true that Ned is angry and uncomfortable in these scenes, but you ignore the possibility that he was also angry and uncomfortable in the original convo with Robert. Just from comparing the two scenes we do get to see, it's obvious that Ned has to talk to Robert very differently than he talks to Catelyn. 

[corbon]

3 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

r theory - the idea that Ned telling Robert that Wylla was the name of Jon's mother doesn't fit with the scenes we get of him talking to Catelyn and Robert. I just don't think your reasoning here makes sense. It's true that Ned is angry and uncomfortable in these scenes, but you ignore the possibility that he was also angry and uncomfortable in the original convo with Robert.

In no way do I ignore that. In fact I assume its a significant likelihood, sort of (the only reason not is that they were 'reuniting over Lyanna's death' and so the tone could be considerably different). I just don't see any reason to believe he 'gave' more than we are shown he gave - exactly as he didn't in the conversation we see.

That is in fact one of the impetus', as you say. Given what we see of Ned interacting with Robert on this subject, how does it make sense that the previous conversation went vastly differently? Why would Ned tell more then, yet remain light lipped now? 

3 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Just from comparing the two scenes we do get to see, it's obvious that Ned has to talk to Robert very differently than he talks to Catelyn. 

Sure. He doesn't get to be all icy rage and commanding with Robert, like he did with Cat. He has to be cool and deflective. Yet the result is the same, essentially. He actually gave more 'new' information to Cat than he did to Robert. At least she got 'he is my blood'! With Robert he was cool and respectful, but still shut the conversation down without saying any more than Robert already 'knew'.

So the fact remains. What we see is that he told Robert only one thing, (which Robert already knew) and made no other answer.
I see no reason why we should assume, without any evidence at all*, that the previous conversation with Robert was so very different the one we saw, and unlike both the ones we saw he gave Robert more information, true or false.
*Now you assume that Robert being in possession of information is evidence that Ned told him that information. But that is simply not the case. There are definitely other ways Robert could have that information. Its the same (mostly) information that Edric Dayne thinks is common knowledge. 
And given the situation at the time;
FACT 1 - Ned having ridden south in a huff post-argument with Robert,
FACT 2 - Robert being the character he is, Ned forgive and forget, keen to have his friends (and everyone else) love him
FACT 3 - Ned having 'disappeared' after Storms End instead of reuniting with Robert
FACT 4 - Varys is Master of Whispers and his job is to keep his new King apprised of what is happening around the kingdom
FACT 5 - Ned 'reappearing' at Starfall (that s the next known place he was at after disappearing from Storms End)
Assumption 1 - Wylla being Jon's other was 'no secret' at Starfall (at least, Edric assumes Jon knew and would have told Arya, so Edric doesn't think this is a secret in any way)
Assumption 2 - a report about Ned (and Wylla and Jon) turning up at Starfall would reach the Master of Whispers before Ned got back to Kings Landing
...I think its eminently reasonable that Robert can have already 'known' some stuff before he saw Ned again. And thus there is no reason to assume the first conversation was significantly different from the second conversation.
I think both my assumptions are pretty fair reasonable ones. More so than your assumption Ned told Robert, which goes against everything we see.
Since the 'evidence' fits both ways, then it doesn't point to one over the other, so you can't claim it as 'evidence' Robert must have been told details by Ned.

Again, its a consistency and characterisation thing. 
If Ned has 'a story' that he told Robert, then it makes much more sense to tell that story when the subject comes up. No need to get angry and mysterious with Cat (who doesn't consider it shameful to get a bastard while on campaign) and leave her forever wondering, leaving that little kernel of uncertainty slowly poisoning their relationship. No need to get defensive and shut down even Robert. Better and more convincing to simply brush off casual question's like Robert's with a casual consistent answer. 
However, if Ned doesn't have a story, if he just shuts down as best he can every time, giving safe answers to Robert's 'wrong' questions that allow Robert to think the safe 'wrong' thing without correction, then everything we see, is absolutely consistent.

[Mister Smikes]

8 minutes ago, corbon said:

*Now you assume that Robert being in possession of information is evidence that Ned told him that information. But that is simply not the case.

King Robert does say that Ned told him about Wylla.  I'm not reaching any conclusions about how the topic came up, or exactly what was said.

[corbon]

3 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

King Robert does say that Ned told him about Wylla.  I'm not reaching any conclusions about how the topic came up, or exactly what was said.

Others are.

Quote

what was her name, that common girl of yours? Becca? No, she was one of mine, gods love her, black hair and these sweet big eyes, you could drown in them. Yours was … Aleena? No. You told me once.

Ned told him Wylla's name once. Thats all we know. Well, that and that he never said what she looked like.

Others assume that because Ned told Robert her name, therefore Ned is the source of all Robert's information on the subject and told Robert more than that. I point out that there is no reason that first conversation couldn't have looked like the second - Robert coming in with predetermined assumptions (the likely report being a merely an explanation as to how Robert could get reasonably details that weren't from Ned) and Ned saying as little as possible (her name) and avoiding the subject.

Clearly he was successful in at least not telling Robert what she looked like. And you know that thats what Robert would have wanted more than anything... except perhaps salacious details. 

[Mister Smikes]

20 minutes ago, corbon said:

Ned told him Wylla's name once. Thats all we know. Well, that and that he never said what she looked like.

Well, he can't just have said "Wylla" and walked off.  There must have been some context to give the name meaning.  And Robert does not know much more than (1) she's a common girl; (2) she made Ned forget his honor; and (3) she is the mother of Jon's bastard.  I would imagine Ned confirmed all that.

20 minutes ago, corbon said:

Others assume that because Ned told Robert her name, therefore Ned is the source of all Robert's information on the subject and told Robert more than that.

I would guess he probably told King Robert no more than Catelyn was told - that he sired Jon on a common girl during the war.  Which does seem to be his official story.

I agree the conversations could have been very similar, with Robert hearing it from someone else before he brought it up with Jon, and Jon essentially confirming it while saying little extra.

[corbon]

3 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Well, he can't just have said "Wylla" and walked off. There must have been some context to give the name meaning.

Agreed

3 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

 And Robert does not know much more than (1) she's a common girl; (2) she made Ned forget his honor; and (3) she is the mother of Jon's bastard.  I would imagine Ned confirmed all that.

Why? We know Ned gets angry (icy or cool) and shuts down these conversations about Jon's mother (and we can well imagine why if R+L=J, thats a very dangerous secret to have people speculating around). Including with Robert.
If he told Robert all that before, why would he be icy and shut down about it now? Why tell a story to Robert once, and refuse to tell it again? Its just not a consistent response.

3 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

I would guess he probably told King Robert no more than Catelyn was told - that he sired Jon on a common girl during the war.  Which does seem to be his official story.

He didn't tell Catelyn that. The only thing he told Catelyn was that "Jon is my blood and thats all you need to know", and shut down the conversation in an icy rage. Poor Cat still wonders who Jon's mother was.

So no, he doesn't have an 'official story' it appears. 

3 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

I agree the conversations could have been very similar, with Robert hearing it from someone else before he brought it up with JonNed, and JonNed essentially confirming it while saying little extra.

Right. The whole 'report from Varys' thing is merely me finding a reasonable explanation how Robert heard stuff from 'someone else' before he spoke with Ned. 
And, if you read the conversation we saw closely, if you actually apply the answer to the question(s), you see that Ned didn't 'confirm' anything to Robert except that the name of the woman Robert is thinking of is Wylla. 

Robert can come away thinking Ned did, and thats fine. Ned has closed the conversation without actually saying anything. The rest is on Robert's own back.

 

Heck, for fun, I can even imagine Ned outright denying to Robert that he fucked a common girl and turned her into a wetnurse for her own baby. All Robert does is laugh uproariously, clap Ned on the back saying "sure thing pal whatever you say", and come away more convinced than ever that thats exactly that Ned did. 
A really subtle Ned would have a sly smile on his face while denying it. 
Ned's not actually that subtle though IMO, and I don't think Robert would need a sly smile to project his own actions on Ned with a little "Ned's a good guy, he'd look after the woman and baby properly" addition and be convinced he's right.

[Egged]

Lyanna = lie ana

ana 

or ana, word-forming element denoting "collection of sayings, gossip, etc. connected with a person or place,"

[Mister Smikes]

10 hours ago, corbon said:

Why? We know Ned gets angry (icy or cool) and shuts down these conversations about Jon's mother (and we can well imagine why if R+L=J, thats a very dangerous secret to have people speculating around). Including with Robert.
If he told Robert all that before, why would he be icy and shut down about it now?

Possibly because he told Robert all he meant to tell him before; spurned Robert's request for further details at the time; and does not appreciate Robert's attempt to re-open a topic he had declared closed, and especially does not appreciate Robert's attempt to press him for further details

10 hours ago, corbon said:

Why tell a story to Robert once, and refuse to tell it again? Its just not a consistent response.

Seems consistent to me.

10 hours ago, corbon said:

He didn't tell Catelyn that. The only thing he told Catelyn was that "Jon is my blood and thats all you need to know", and shut down the conversation in an icy rage. Poor Cat still wonders who Jon's mother was.

Before Ned returned, Catelyn learned that Ned has sired a child on a girl chance met on campaign.  I would guess that Ned was the ultimate source of the story, which he at least chooses to permit people to believe.  This story is, at least, reconcilable with the story understood by Robert and the story of the fisherman's daughter.  At least, I see no need at this time to postulate 3 different stories when current evidence is consistent with a single story for which there are multiple clues.

10 hours ago, corbon said:

And, if you read the conversation we saw closely, if you actually apply the answer to the question(s), you see that Ned didn't 'confirm' anything to Robert except that the name of the woman Robert is thinking of is Wylla. 

This makes zero sense.  What specific woman does Ned think Robert was thinking of?  Robert does not know her name.  Robert does not know what she looks like.  The only specific he has (other than "common girl" which is not specific) is that she is the mother of Ned's bastard.  That's what the question means.  That's what the answer means.  

10 hours ago, corbon said:

Robert can come away thinking Ned did, and thats fine.

It's called deception.  It's called a lie.  The purpose of language is to communicate, and Ned is presumed to intend the natural and probably consequences of his chosen words.  Let's not be like Bill Clinton, quibbling about the meaning of the word "is".

And I am perfectly willing to agree that the lie may have been justified.  

[Jaenara Belarys]

On 10/16/2021 at 6:03 AM, LynnS said:

It means I'm turned off making homemade chicken noodle soup for a while.

Oooh, tasty. 

[FictionIsntReal]

23 hours ago, corbon said:

My opinion on that will reverse if, say, we get a Hightower POV who also knows about Gerold's death, thus indicating that someone who was there has talked

GRRM has already said he's not adding any more POVs. What we've got is text showing that Yandel knows about it, but you choose to ignore that.

Quote

In the meantime, unlike GRRM's words, this one single piece of data is something the a real-world writer would definitely know, but an in-world writer (Maester) does not, as far as we know, have any possibility of learning about

Of course it's possible. There were multiple survivors of the Tower of Joy. You've just got an incorrect theory of how those survivors subsequently behaved, so you ignore the text when it disproves your theory.

Quote

Given its not from GRRM

He's a credited author on that book, even if Elio & Linda wrote much of it. He approved of what went in there, and he doesn't permit stuff he doesn't want published under his name.

Quote

HR not being a talkative chappie

You don't know how talkative HR is or isn't. What we do know is that he told his kids about the Tourney of Harrenhal & the KotLT, which they are surprised his kids don't know about.

Quote

I think its reasonable that it may be a real-world writer's error (not in its being, but that the maester could include it)

What does that parenthetical mean?

Quote

I may be wrong

Not just "may". You are wrong.

Quote

is it an assumption that Varys was Robert's Master of Whispers?

I don't think we know precisely what he was up to right after Aerys ignored Varys's advice to keep Tywin out. Allegedly he swapped out Aegon for a "pisswater prince", but we don't know the circumstances (including precisely when) under which he was found and pledged fealty to Robert.

Quote

Its very simple

What's on the page is simple, you complicate it into nonsense in order to avoid the obvious takeaway: Ned told Robert that Jon Snow's mother was named Wylla.

Quote

Does this answer, in any way, address the status of Wylla?

Of course it does, because Robert specified her as "your bastard's mother" before Ned answered.

Quote

How does "Her name was Wylla" address anything but 'what was her name?'

It addresses the name of Ned's bastard's mother.

Quote

the name of the one Robert means.

The one Robert means is Jon Snow's mother!

Quote

There is no indication Ned told Robert that either.

Quote

You told me once.

That's the indication.

17 hours ago, corbon said:

I just don't see any reason to believe he 'gave' more than we are shown he gave

He gave the name "Wylla" for his bastard's mother, and the information that she was "common".

Quote

Given what we see of Ned interacting with Robert on this subject, how does it make sense that the previous conversation went vastly differently?

You insist on misinterpreting the conversation we actually get. And the big difference with the previous conversation is that Robert hadn't already been given that information so he couldn't have any specific woman he was already thinking of.

Quote

With Robert he was cool and respectful, but still shut the conversation down without saying any more than Robert already 'knew'.

Because, per Robert, Ned had already given him that information earlier!

Quote

Now you assume that Robert being in possession of information is evidence that Ned told him that information

Because Robert said as much!

Quote

Its the same (mostly) information that Edric Dayne thinks is common knowledge

Edric Dayne refers to his aunt Allyria as his source of information. Robert refers... to Ned.

Quote

Ned having 'disappeared' after Storms End instead of reuniting with Robert

Why is "disappeared" in scare-quotes? Who are you quoting?

Quote

Varys is Master of Whispers and his job is to keep his new King apprised of what is happening around the kingdom

I don't think we can be sure he was doing so at that time.

Quote

Ned 'reappearing' at Starfall

Again with unsourced scare-quotes.

Quote

your assumption Ned told Robert

Not an "assumption", Robert actually says it happened!

Quote

Since the 'evidence' fits both ways

No, it doesn't. You just insist on your headcanon above the evidence, like with two of Aerys' KG.

Quote

Again, its a consistency and characterisation thing.

You think they must be consistent with your incorrect theory.

Quote

No need to get angry and mysterious with Cat

Ned is making sure all the Winterfell gossip about Ashara stops.

Quote

No need to get defensive and shut down even Robert. Better and more convincing to simply brush off casual question's like Robert's with a casual consistent answer.

The consistent answer is that she was a smallfolk named Wylla. And it's even consistent with Edric's story, though less specifically tied to Starfall.

Quote

However, if Ned doesn't have a story

Like some kind of gormless idiot who can't anticipate the obvious.

16 hours ago, corbon said:

Ned told him Wylla's name once. Thats all we know.

Ned told Robert that Wylla was his "common girl", who birthed his bastard.

Quote

Others assume that because Ned told Robert her name, therefore Ned is the source of all Robert's information on the subject and told Robert more than that.

The reason Ned would be the source is because Ned made up the story, presumably along with collaborators at Starfall. The principle of consilience tells us how reality is entangled, so a consistent truth can be found from multiple perspectives & approaches. A lie is different, and if someone looks further into it they may uncover the truth.

Quote

I point out that there is no reason that first conversation couldn't have looked like the second - Robert coming in with predetermined assumptions

Of course there's a reason: we know in the second conversation that Ned already told Robert!

16 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

I would guess he probably told King Robert no more than Catelyn was told - that he sired Jon on a common girl during the war. 

Nope. Catelyn thinks of Ashara as the big possibility, and she wasn't common. Ned refused to give her a name, but just shut down talk of one name.

15 hours ago, corbon said:

Why tell a story to Robert once, and refuse to tell it again? Its just not a consistent response.

Becaus Ned already told the story, and can just fill in the detail Robert forgot. Ned has no obligation to repeat himself.

Quote

the woman Robert is thinking of

Ned's common girl, his bastard's mother.

Quote

Ned has closed the conversation without actually saying anything

Sure he did. He filled in the detail of the story he already told before but Robert forgot.

Quote

Heck, for fun, I can even imagine Ned outright denying to Robert that he fucked a common girl and turned her into a wetnurse for her own baby.

You can imagine all sorts of nonsense at odds with the text, which says more about you than it does about the text. Robert himself says that Ned told him, not that he denied it. Whether or not Ned is "subtle" is irrelevant to the plausibility of your fanfic, because it's already incompatible with the text. The idea that Varys has any info on Jon Snow's mother is also fanfic without any supporting evidence, although that's a case where we just have to rely on absence of evidence rather than specific evidence of absence.

[Mister Smikes]

30 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Nope. Catelyn thinks of Ashara as the big possibility, and she wasn't common. Ned refused to give her a name, but just shut down talk of one name.

Catelyn hears 2 different, and probably-incompatible stories

- FIRST, that Ned had sired a bastard with a girl chance met on campaign.

- SECOND:  That Jon was the son of Ned and Ashara, and apparently the product of a liaison at the Harrenhal Tourney, which was prior to Robert's Rebellion.

The First is compatible with Robert's understanding; and also maybe with the Sisterman's story of Ned and the fisherman's daughter.  So those three stories might be a single story.

The Second story seems to be another story entirely.