The Jon's Parentage Re-Read

[Gaston de Foix]

Arya was called "horseface" and yet Ned said she looked like the beautiful Lyanna. Aparently there can be a resemblance without a universal consensus of comparable attractiveness.

Also, Ygritte specifically used the phrase "his sweet face" when complaining about the Eagle scratching Jon.

Didn't Ned say Arya reminded him of Lyanna rather than she looked like Lyanna? I think it's as much behaviour as appearance. I don't deny your point that resemblance doesn't mean attractiveness though, I just never get the sense either Lyanna or Rhaegar's features were seen in Jon, kind of Ned's.

As for Ygritte's testimony, well she was just trying to get him into bed wasn't she? I think we can discount her sweet talking :0)

[Guest Other-in-law]

Didn't Ned say Arya reminded him of Lyanna rather than she looked like Lyanna? I think it's as much behaviour as appearance.

We're getting ahead of schedule with some of these quotes, but:

"Lyanna might have carried a sword if my lord father had allowed it. You remind me of her sometimes. You even look like her."

As for Ygritte's testimony, well she was just trying to get him into bed wasn't she? I think we can discount her sweet talking :0)

Whyever should her view be discounted? Isn't the fact that she wanted to get into his pants an indication that she, at least, felt he was attractive?

[Gaston de Foix]

We're getting ahead of schedule with some of these quotes, but:

"Lyanna might have carried a sword if my lord father had allowed it. You remind me of her sometimes. You even look like her."

whoops. Point conceded. I mis-remembered.

Whyever should her view be discounted? Isn't the fact that she wanted to get into his pants an indication that she, at least, felt he was attractive?

I was half-joking, but GRRM does point out that wilding notions of attractiveness vary from Westerosi, Ygritte is considered a great beauty where she would be only considered common looking. I obviously don't have the books to hand right now, or I wouldn't keep making bloopers. All this is besides the main point of my post, which is that is very little Targaryen in Jon, and while he has the Stark look, there is an obvious explanation in the figure of Ned.

[Rinso]

That must be why he told him all about his mother when he still had the chance, huh?

From the Black Cells:

The thought of Jon filled Ned with a sense of shame, and a sorrow too deep for words. If only he could see the boy again, sit and talk with him....

Whether or not it's his parentage, it sounds like Ned felt awkward enough that he never told him some things that he wished he had.

And that's another thing I wanted to talk about and was just about to raise the point.

WHY would Ned feel SHAME if he raised his sister's son just like he promissed her? The sorrow is clear anyway, but the shame? Why would he be ashamed of himself if he was doing what she wanted and begged him to do? Because the rest of the world would think that he has a bastard? Well, the rest of the world doesn't seem to care, except for Catelyn, so there is no point in that. If he was doing what he promissed, wouldn't he feel good about it? Kinda like "Well, Lyanna would be pleased if she saw what a good boy Jon has become."

However, wouldn't it be more fitting if he was ashamed because he broke his wedding vows and probably some woman's heart?

[Guest Other-in-law]

And that's another thing I wanted to talk about and was just about to raise the point.

WHY would Ned feel SHAME if he raised his sister's son just like he promissed her? The sorrow is clear anyway, but the shame? Why would he be ashamed of himself if he was doing what she wanted and begged him to do? Because the rest of the world would think that he has a bastard?

No. Because he had to lie about it. And he concealed the truth from Jon. And Cat. Isn't Jon entitled to the truth about himself? And if he simply did sire a bastard, why wouldn't he tell Jon who his mother was? If she was some lady at the opposite side of Westeros, how does it hurt her reputation to tell her son who she was?

grinachu,

I agree that Ned is a perfectly reasonable explanation for Jon's Stark looks, of course. That is, after all, the default explanation before one starts to theorise.

As to the quote thing, I just cut and paste the quote codes, or else highlight a section I want to be a quote and then click the little word bubble icon (next to the smilie) above the reply panel. No idea how to do "official" quotes (with the time and everything) from multiple people in the same post, though.

[Shewoman]

Mezeh--good point about the presence of the King's Guard at ToJ being a possible indicator that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married. Can't believe I overlooked that!

[Rinso]

No. Because he had to lie about it. And he concealed the truth from Jon. And Cat. Isn't Jon entitled to the truth about himself? And if he simply did sire a bastard, why wouldn't he tell Jon who his mother was? If she was some lady at the opposite side of Westeros, how does it hurt her reputation to tell her son who she was?

Well, there was no way to keep his word to Lyanna without lying. So, he must've accepted it when he agreed to raise Jon, don't you think? Besides he can distinguish lies from lies - like he says to Arya in AGOT regarding her lie that Nymeria escaped by herself. So, he can tell apart a honourable lie from a normal one. And the lie about Jon would be honourable.

[Guest Other-in-law]

And the lie about Jon would be honourable.

And ser Jon Darry was being honourable when he kept his vows and stood outside the door while Aerys brutalised his Queen. And Maester Aemon was being honourable when he stayed at Castle Black when his entire family was being slaughtered.

Just because something is honourable doesn't mean that it isn't (or shouldn't be) troubling. I think GRRM frequently makes the very opposite point in the books. In Ned's case though, I'm not sure that his concept of honour is very orthodox. He went along with the lie that Joffrey was Robert's son in order to save Sansa's life. While morally defensible, I think most Westerosi would consider that betrayal of Robert to be extremely dishonourable.

[Shewoman]

When Robert talked about sending an assassin after Dany in GoT, Ned said something along the lines of "Isn't that why we fought the Targaryens? To stop the slaughter of children?" Sorry I don't have a page number there. It's also noteworthy that Ned and Robert fell out over Robert's accepting Tywin's murder of Rhaegar's children Rhaenys and Aegon after the fall of King's Landing--and they were the next Targaryen heirs and therefore a direct threat to Robert at that point (and, by extension, to Robert's supporters, including Ned).

Given that, I don't find it unusual at all that Ned would raise his sister's son no matter what his paternity was (usual caveat about Jon's parentage not being established). We are told how much he loved Lyanna and I don't think he'd let her son be killed in any case. His statement about not having thought about Rhaegar in years indicates that he wasn't obsessed with the man. There are also those promises to Lyanna to factor in. And it's worth noting that Ned's mother is dead, his father and brother were killed as the war was starting, and his sister died just after it ended. At that point the Starks were Ned, Benjen, Catelyn Tully, and baby Robb. The loss of so many close relatives might make Ned more reluctant than he would have been in any case to abandon a nephew (assuming . . . .)--and his attitude about the murder of children would, I think, not have made that an option for him in any case.

[Rinso]

And ser Jon Darry was being honourable when he kept his vows and stood outside the door while Aerys brutalised his Queen. And Maester Aemon was being honourable when he stayed at Castle Black when his entire family was being slaughtered.

Ser Jon Darry was just a sheep, who obeyed orders.

Maester Aemon couldn't do anything to help his family even if he somehow managed to escape from the Wall (unlikely at his age).

Just because something is honourable doesn't mean that it isn't (or shouldn't be) troubling. I think GRRM frequently makes the very opposite point in the books. In Ned's case though, I'm not sure that his concept of honour is very orthodox. He went along with the lie that Joffrey was Robert's son in order to save Sansa's life. While morally defensible, I think most Westerosi would consider that betrayal of Robert to be extremely dishonourable.

Yes, but the whole thing about Jon here lies on a moral ground, since by Wesyerosi law there is nothing wrong about fathering bastards.

If we assume that he promissed to Lyanna to take care of her child and wasn't bothered by it's father's blood, he would see it as a honourable and good deed.

Really, there is no point of shame, if R+L=J, IMHO.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Ser Jon Darry was just a sheep, who obeyed orders.

Which is exactly what honour entails in this setting. It's NOT synonymous with morality. Jaime was moral in killing Aerys, but dishonourable because he broke his sworn oath.

Maester Aemon couldn't do anything to help his family even if he somehow managed to escape from the Wall (unlikely at his age).

Of course, and utterly beside the point. Keeping his vow troubled him that time even worse than the rest.

Yes, but the whole thing about Jon here lies on a moral ground, since by Wesyerosi law there is nothing wrong about fathering bastards.

Law is no more synonymous with honour than morality is. Doing the right thing, keeping your word, and obeying the law (or better, king) are all different.

If we assume that he promissed to Lyanna to take care of her child and wasn't bothered by it's father's blood, he would see it as a honourable and good deed.

You're making him one dimensional again. Just because he decides on a course of action doesn't mean that he's perfectly convinced that there's nothing wrong with it. Sometimes there are no good choices. At one point Ned thought of himself destined for a special frozen hell reserved for Starks. And there's really no basis for attributing "blood culpability" views to Ned. He is opposed to murdering children, full stop. Doesn't matter if they're Aerys' offspring.

Really, there is no point of shame, if R+L=J, IMHO.

It requires him to lie. And his lies clearly trouble him.

[Gaston de Foix]

Which is exactly what honour entails in this setting. It's NOT synonymous with morality. Jaime was moral in killing Aerys, but dishonourable because he broke his sworn oath.

Of course, and utterly beside the point. Keeping his vow troubled him that time even worse than the rest.

Law is no more synonymous with honour than morality is. Doing the right thing, keeping your word, and obeying the law (or better, king) are all different.

You're making him one dimensional again. Just because he decides on a course of action doesn't mean that he's perfectly convinced that there's nothing wrong with it. Sometimes there are no good choices. At one point Ned thought of himself destined for a special frozen hell reserved for Starks. And there's really no basis for attributing "blood culpability" views to Ned. He is opposed to murdering children, full stop. Doesn't matter if they're Aerys' offspring.

It requires him to lie. And his lies clearly trouble him.

I hope we aren't doing something we aren't supposed to be doing on this thread. In particular we seem to be discussing quotes from week 6 of JT's list. I think to some extent the discussion is inextricable but given that the topic of Ned's shame is so clearly brought up in Week 6

"The thought of Jon filled Ned with a sense of shame, and a sorrow too deep for words. If he could only see the boy again, sit and talk with him AGOT 530 Ned thoughts"

perhaps we should wait. I empathize with JT's feeling that this thread shouldn't become a donnybrook.

[Rinso]

Of course, and utterly beside the point. Keeping his vow troubled him that time even worse than the rest.

And the examples of Aemon and Jon Darry has nothing to do with it. Their vows were like a public oaths, which they had to keep no matter what. Ned's promise to Lyanna was something personal, so the honor itself is different in the both cases - for Jon Darry and Aemon it was more or less just another law, while for Ned it was personal promise and a matter of love and personal loyality.

Law is no more synonymous with honour than morality is. Doing the right thing, keeping your word, and obeying the law (or better, king) are all different.

They may be different on pricniple (more likely they are not so much, at least in your examples with Jon Darry and Aemon), but not in the Jon case. Because Ned promissed Lyanna to raise him (a vow he keeps in the next 15 yeras) AND if he promissed her that, it was because he loved her ergo he saw Jon's raising as a good deed, because it was for the sake of his beloved sister (doing the right thing).

You're making him one dimensional again. Just because he decides on a course of action doesn't mean that he's perfectly convinced that there's nothing wrong with it. Sometimes there are no good choices. At one point Ned thought of himself destined for a special frozen hell reserved for Starks. And there's really no basis for attributing "blood culpability" views to Ned. He is opposed to murdering children, full stop. Doesn't matter if they're Aerys' offspring.

I'm not making him one dimensional. I just think that if he agreed to raise Jon, he would think that he is doing the right and the good thing, if not for other reason, just because it makes Lyanna pass away in peace. There is just no reason for an overwhelming sense of shame.

It requires him to lie. And his lies clearly trouble him.

Yes, but it's for a greater good. It's the same with Nymeria, when he acknowledges Arya's lie as a honourable and good deed, or when he lied that he was a traitor and admitted that Joffrey is the rightful king to save the life of Sansa. So not EVERY lie has to chew him up from the inside. If the lies protect a higher and better goal (like keeping his beloved sister's son alive), he can swallow them.

[Guest Other-in-law]

And the examples of Aemon and Jon Darry has nothing to do with it.

They have to do with my point that doing the honourable thing doesn't guarantee that one will be able to sleep easy at night. I'm not sure why you skip over that, there's enough ink devoted to it in the books. Jon wants to desert the NW to help Robb, even though it's dishonourable. Therefore he feels conflicted about it. There is frequently a conflict between honour and love or sense of right and wrong for the characters. Because they choose one or another doesn't mean that they don't continue to be torn over their choices. I believe Jaime still fully agrees with his decision to kill Aerys, after all these years. At the same time, he wishes he could still be like ser Arthur Dayne (who didn't have to make that choice, but whose honour remains unstained) rather than the Smiling Knight. There is a price to be paid with these choices.

I'm not making him one dimensional. I just think that if he agreed to raise Jon, he would think that he is doing the right and the good thing, if not for other reason, just because it makes Lyanna pass away in peace. There is just no reason for an overwhelming sense of shame.

Yes, but it's for a greater good. It's the same with Nymeria, when he acknowledges Arya's lie as a honourable and good deed, or when he lied that he was a traitor and admitted that Joffrey is the rightful king to save the life of Sansa. So not EVERY lie has to chew him up from the inside. If the lies protect a higher and better goal (like keeping his beloved sister's son alive), he can swallow them.

Yes you are. You make him sound like a computer program written to determine the honourable choice, which weighs all the variables and pops out it's answer and never looks back, never feels regret, never feels conflicted about it's choice. This is so unlike the Ned who chose to kill Lady and does so with feelings of anguish that haunt him chapters later. Yes he can swallow bad choices, but that doesn't mean they don't give him indigestion.

In most cases he deals with the Jon question with evasions. Who is the one person (assuming, etc, etc) that he flat out lies to on the subject? The one he can't refuse to answer?

His best friend.

[Guest Other-in-law]

I hope we aren't doing something we aren't supposed to be doing on this thread. In particular we seem to be discussing quotes from week 6 of JT's list. I think to some extent the discussion is inextricable but given that the topic of Ned's shame is so clearly brought up in Week 6

"The thought of Jon filled Ned with a sense of shame, and a sorrow too deep for words. If he could only see the boy again, sit and talk with him AGOT 530 Ned thoughts"

perhaps we should wait. I empathize with JT's feeling that this thread shouldn't become a donnybrook.

heh, maybe this thread needs some pruning and our various threadjacks exiled to their own thread.

[Rinso]

heh, maybe this thread needs some pruning and our various threadjacks exiled to their own thread.

Ya, but then the board will become too infested with R+L=J threads

Right now we have three of them, and a fourth one would be a tad too much. Anyway, if someone wants to nuke the threadjacks, I'm fine with it (how noble of me, eh )

So, despite the fact that I can continue, I think it's better to stop for now, if we really carried ourselves all the way up to Week 6

Soooo... what was this week's quote, again?

[Jon Targaryen]

grinachu,

I'll add the Ghost quote to the original post if you want it there.

General comment,

There is some great discussion going on, but if we could limit ourselves each week to that week's quotes I would like that. This is your guys's thread though, so do what you want. But I just think we can go over all the quotes and the SSM together and at once during the summary week(s).

Re: Ned caring for a grandson of Aerys

I don't see this as an issue. The child, if R+L=J, is his sister's son, his "blood" as Ned says. And he presumably made some promise to care for the child as well. Ned would do it; I don't doubt that. But YMMV.

[Gaston de Foix]

grinachu,

I'll add the Ghost quote to the original post if you want it there.

General comment,

There is some great discussion going on, but if we could limit ourselves each week to that week's quotes I would like that. This is your guys's thread though, so do what you want. But I just think we can go over all the quotes and the SSM together and at once during the summary week(s).

Re: Ned caring for a grandson of Aerys

I don't see this as an issue. The child, if R+L=J, is his sister's son, his "blood" and Ned says. And he presumably made some promise to care for the child as well. Ned would do it; I don't doubt that. But YMMV.

Yes, please add the Ghost quotes to the original post. I don't have my books with me at the present moment, so I can't be more specific, but I'm sure you know what I was referring to.

[Mutethunder]

For R+L, clearly this secrecy would be required, if for no other reason than to keep Robert from going after Jon as a surviving Targ. But why would this require Ned to keep the secret from Catelyn? Maybe in the first years of marriage, since they may have been unfamiliar with each other, but for 14 years? If Jon is no threat to succession at Winterfell by Catelyn's sons, then why could she not be trusted? Seems like it certainly would have eased marital relations to do so.

Catelyn is obviously insulted by having her husbands bastard raised in Winterfell, any highborn lady would I bet. If Ned had told her she wouldn't behave as she did against Jon. Sure she could probably act like she disliked him, and she would also have to act like that if she somehow was alone with him too. That would make her slightly guilty I suppose. Jon would probably sense that. "A bastard had to learn to notice things, to read the truth that people hid behind their eyes". And others would also see that I suppose, and so questions would be asked. So it's easier to hide the truth from everyone.

[rmt65802]

I think Ned's sense of shame is simply because he feels ashamed that he never told Jon the truth. Whatever that truth may be.

Now if R+l=J, I think he'd feel especially bad about not telling Jon this truth. Ned lets Jon join the Night Watch (throwing away claims to titles and such) without knowing of any even tenuous claims he might have to say, kingship.

Even without R+L=J, Ned is still withholding information about who Jon's mother is. Ned kept Jon in the dark, no matter what parentage theory we lean toward.