Black Wizard Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Ned is dead. What he thinks is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainFireBob Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I too could see Benjen joining the Watch for the family's honor. In my case, I lean toward his "more's the pity" remark reflecting the fact he knows Ned has told Jon nothing. Hiding Jon to protect him- fine. But denying Jon himself the truth- not fine. This is, after all, the *brother* of Ned Stark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of the North Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 nm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of the North Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I too could see Benjen joining the Watch for the family's honor. In my case, I lean toward his "more's the pity" remark reflecting the fact he knows Ned has told Jon nothing. Hiding Jon to protect him- fine. But denying Jon himself the truth- not fine. This is, after all, the *brother* of Ned Stark. That's an interesting point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shewoman Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 I always thought that "more's the pity" had to do with Catelyn's treatment of Jon--something along the lines that "If I were your father you'd be sitting at the high table with me at this banquet." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of the North Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 But wasn't Jon more included with the rest of the family during normal times at Winterfell? Wasn't he only banished to the lower table during the royal visit because of the possibility of them taking offense at being seated with a bastard? I honestly don't remember reading it anywhere, was Jon always banished to a lower table or did he have to eat elsewhere even when it was only the Starks in residence at Winterfell? I always thought he was so upset and angrily trying to drown his sorrows because he was receiving treatment that was unusual and, in his mind, unfair. I doubt anyone, including Ned or Benjen, would have dared to basically tell the royal family to screw off by seating their bastard with them at the high table Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWHamel Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 I think Jon was banished that night to the lower table to keep him away from Robert. If Robert looked at Jon he might have recognized Lyanna, or worse Prince Rhaegar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shewoman Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Yes, at other times Jon did eat with the family. Black Wizard--you said that what Ned thinks is irrelevant, since he's dead. But the discussion was about what he would have thought about re-establishing the Targaryen monarchy while he was alive--which I really can't see him doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wizard Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Well Ned was only avenging his father's and brother's murders and sister's abduction. He did counsel Robert not to assassinate Daenerys so he probably takes the view that the offspring doesn't bear the sins of the father. Viserys did turn mad like his father eventually, but that doesn't mean Dany will turn into a loony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shewoman Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 When did Ned avenge those things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wizard Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 By going to war against Aerys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shewoman Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Yes . . . in order to end the Targaryen dynasty. I find it hard to believe that Ned (or any other Stark) would think that honor required them then to restore that dynasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of the North Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 I think Jon was banished that night to the lower table to keep him away from Robert. If Robert looked at Jon he might have recognized Lyanna, or worse Prince Rhaegar. Um, the straight-forward and extremely acceptable explanation for why Jon was at the lower table is laid out right there in the book. A bastard simply could never be seated at table with the royal family. It would be the height of offense. Besides, didn't Jon look enough like Ned for nobody to really question that he was his son? I mean, I would think there was at least some family resemblance between Ned and Lyanna. I doubt someone would be able to look at Jon and see Lyanna but not Ned. In addition, we already have several instances where Jon is said to look more like Ned than any of his true-born sons, he has more of the North in him than his brothers, etc., so I doubt anyone was going to look at him and see Rhaegar (if R+L=J). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of the North Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Yes . . . in order to end the Targaryen dynasty. I find it hard to believe that Ned (or any other Stark) would think that honor required them then to restore that dynasty. I think you're referring to my theory that Benjen disagreed with Ned as to how to handle Jon so I'll reply. I agree with you that Ned would never want to try to put Jon on the Iron Throne even though, assuming R+L=J, he is the rightful heir. After all, he had given his word to Lyanna to protect the child plus it would be obvious that openly declaring that there was another male Targaryen heir and supporting him would plunge the realm into civil war again and, even more, pit him against his very close friend Robert. No, the only way to go was to keep the secret. However, where I'm not so sure is when it comes to why Benjen joined the NW. Of course, he may have simply joined because he wanted to and that's the end of it. If that turns out to be the case then I'll be more than happy with that reason. But, personally, I don't have much difficulty seeing the possibility that Benjen, who I assume was also possessed of the famous Stark sense of honor, wanted to do things more "by the book". I mean, if R+L=J, then Jon is the rightful heir and the "right" thing to do by the rules of succession and primogeniture would have been to establish some sort of regency until Jon came of age. Finally, I seriously doubt that Ned would hold anything done by other Targs against an innocent baby who also happens to be the child of his beloved sister. I mean, this is a man who valued trying to find out the facts before passing judgement. Oh, I have no doubt Ned hated and wanted to depose Aerys but he still didn't seem to hate Rhaegar for one example. This leads me to believe Ned wouldn't hold Aerys' crimes against Jon either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wizard Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Yes . . . in order to end the Targaryen dynasty. Did Ned go to war in order to kill little Viserys and Aegon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shewoman Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 No. Ned said to Robert (not an exact quote), "What did we go to war for if not to stop the murder of children?" (presumably a reference to the squires who went to KL with Brandon and were killed there.) I think it's worth noting that when Robert and Ned disagreed about Robert's plan to have Dany assassinated, Ned's position was essentially "Don't kill her." Not "Make her queen." If Ned considered the Targaryens the rightful rulers of Westeros to begin with, he wouldn't have joined Robert's Rebellion. He seems to have had some sort of "social contract" idea in which the Targaryens' behavior towards his family and retainers invalidated their right to the throne. I can't see him or Benjen thinking that they should restore that dynasty--particularly since the king after the war was Ned's closest friend. If Ned had a "divine right of kings" sort of belief, he wouldn't have risen against Aerys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roza Ahai Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 If Ned wanted to restore Targaryens on the throne, he would try to do this after Robert's death. Instead of sending a letter to Stannis, contact Varys and ask him to find Dany. Ned thought that the rightful king was Stannis not Dany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shewoman Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 Good point, Roza. And I don't think that Ned would hold Jon accountable for Targaryen misrule; he doesn't hold Dany accountable for it. But I can't imagine that he'd see the Targaryens as the rightful rulers of the realm after the war in which he rose in rebellion against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wizard Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 No. Ned said to Robert (not an exact quote), "What did we go to war for if not to stop the murder of children?" (presumably a reference to the squires who went to KL with Brandon and were killed there.) I think it's worth noting that when Robert and Ned disagreed about Robert's plan to have Dany assassinated, Ned's position was essentially "Don't kill her." Not "Make her queen." If Ned considered the Targaryens the rightful rulers of Westeros to begin with, he wouldn't have joined Robert's Rebellion. He seems to have had some sort of "social contract" idea in which the Targaryens' behavior towards his family and retainers invalidated their right to the throne. I can't see him or Benjen thinking that they should restore that dynasty--particularly since the king after the war was Ned's closest friend. If Ned had a "divine right of kings" sort of belief, he wouldn't have risen against Aerys. I wasn't saying that Eddard wanted to make Daenerys Queen after Robert's death, rather that he went to war take seek revenge against Aerys and Rheagar. He never wanted to destroy the Targaryen bloodline by killing the children. Did Ned actually think that the children would bear the sins of their fathers? After Robert's death, if Ned had thought that putting a Targaryen back on the throne was the best thing to do, he would have done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
automne Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 he went to war take seek revenge against Aerys and Rheagar. He didn't have any choice but to take up arms against the King. Don't forget that Aerys wanted Ned and Robert dead. After Robert's death, if Ned had thought that putting a Targaryen back on the throne was the best thing to do, he would have done it. Clearly Ned never considered that option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.