Jump to content

R+L=J v.20


Angalin

Recommended Posts

Ashara wasn't with Elia in the last year of Elia's life, I'm pretty sure.

True , you beat me to answering it.

It is bugging me what she can mean.

When is a child stolen?

I can think of two situations:

1- Cersei believes Jon is not Ned's

2- Cersei believes Jon is Neds but that Ned stole it from its mother

When she believes in the first option when she says that Ned has a bastard of his own it is meant to taunt him, somehow I dont believe this, considering the context.

I think Cersei believes Jon is Neds. And that she believes he is Ashara's son.

And then it gets murky :bang:

Well, I read it like she believed Ned stole him from Ashara. Let's not forget that Cersei is a mother, loved Joffrey at least, so I suppose she could relate to Ashara's reaction to "having her son stolen" or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By not letting Robert see Jon, Ned is able to pretend that the boy is actually older, and that he fathered him during the time he and Robert were separated – i.e., when Ned was secretly heading north to call his banners – using the fact that he was actually seen with a fishergirl during that time.

I don't find this likely, given that Ned specifically tells Robert that he fathered Jon after he married Catelyn. More likely he told him Wylla was someone he met during the campaign in the south.

Regarding Ashara, we really have no idea where she was during the war itself. I'm personally a fan of the theory that she met with Ned clandestinely during the war to tell him where Lyanna was, and that this meeting was the source of the rumors surrounding her and Ned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fan Tasy

And that would rule out Ned as a father of any child of Ashara, born at the same time Jon was, if she stayed with Elia the whole time.

It is murky. Let's assume Cersei believes he is. Why would she say he stole this child? Stolen from whom?

If he could not marry Ashara because he had to stand in for Brandon, why would he take his child?

To save her or her family from shame?

Then Cersei would have said that and not used the word stole. If you steal you take something away from someone who doesn't want you to take it.

So it can't be an agreemeent that Ned and the Daynes made, it is not stealing then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find this likely, given that Ned specifically tells Robert that he fathered Jon after he married Catelyn. More likely he told him Wylla was someone he met during the campaign in the south.

Dammit, I totally forgot! - And it's even logical that his story should be consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is murky. Let's assume Cersei believes he is. Why would she say he stole this child? Stolen from whom?

If he could not marry Ashara because he had to stand in for Brandon, why would he take his child?

To save her or her family from shame?

Then Cersei would have said that and not used the word stole. If you steal you take something away from someone who doesn't want you to take it.

So it can't be an agreemeent that Ned and the Daynes made, it is not stealing then.

I think everyone saying that no one prys too deep into jons parentage because bastards don't really occupy peoples thoughts and are content with the knowledge I have. But it just seems like a bit of a cop out reason because of the obsession people have with lines of succession and blood lines and so much effort being put into the war. It seems like a major detail to overlook. The fact that they slaughtered rhaegars children would have me think that a mystery child born around that time would spark a little more suspicion. But I don't really have much of an argument against what I stated at the top of this post. It probably would be the explanation people would give if they were asked their opinions of who jons parents really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is murky. Let's assume Cersei believes he is. Why would she say he stole this child? Stolen from whom?

If he could not marry Ashara because he had to stand in for Brandon, why would he take his child?

To save her or her family from shame?

Then Cersei would have said that and not used the word stole. If you steal you take something away from someone who doesn't want you to take it.

So it can't be an agreemeent that Ned and the Daynes made, it is not stealing then.

I think everyone saying that no one prys too deep into jons parentage because bastards don't really occupy peoples thoughts and are content with the knowledge I have. But it just seems like a bit of a cop out reason because of the obsession people have with lines of succession and blood lines and so much effort being put into the war. It seems like a major detail to overlook. The fact that they slaughtered rhaegars children would have me think that a mystery child born around that time would spark a little more suspicion. But I don't really have much of an argument against what I stated at the top of this post. It probably would be the explanation people would give if they were asked their opinions of who jons parents really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is murky. Let's assume Cersei believes he is. Why would she say he stole this child? Stolen from whom?

If he could not marry Ashara because he had to stand in for Brandon, why would he take his child?

To save her or her family from shame?

Then Cersei would have said that and not used the word stole. If you steal you take something away from someone who doesn't want you to take it.

So it can't be an agreemeent that Ned and the Daynes made, it is not stealing then.

I think she believes the child was stolen from Ashara, who would naturally want to keep her baby.

He would take a son because that son could be threat to legitimate heirs one day, and letting the Daynes have him would be like saying "poison me and my legit heirs!"

This is also why the rumored child would need to be a girl, less of a claim.

Cersei imagines Ned is not only a baby stealing hypocrit, but he also threw his weight around to force the Daynes into further relinquishing any claim to Winterfell that may have been possible through a legitimized bastard. She's had three bastards herself, and worried obsessively over their legitimation. She's on it. She thinks Ned is politically astute. She sees him as a noble fool but a serious threat. I would argue that she's right about the latter, though I wouldn't call him a fool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she believes the child was stolen from Ashara, who would naturally want to keep her baby. He would take a son because that son could be threat to legitimate heirs one day, and letting the Daynes have him would be like saying "poison me and my legit heirs!" This is also why the rumored child would need to be a girl, less of a claim.

Hmm, thank you for sharing your view. Somehow I think there is another explanation. Cersei is a mother, if she thought Ned would have taken a child against the will of a mother, wouldn't she have said something like: and you were responsible for his mothers death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, thank you for sharing your view. Somehow I think there is another explanation. Cersei is a mother, if she thought Ned would have taken a child against the will of a mother, wouldn't she have said something like: and you were responsible for his mothers death?

I am one of those people who believe that people decide to take their own lives and are responsible for their own deaths in such cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@imany

Cersei knows everything. Unlike Jon Snow...

seriously now, I don't think Cersei says things just to piss someone off. Maybe she had something else in mind (some more plotting maybe?) but she must have had some deeper reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@imany

Cersei knows everything. Unlike Jon Snow...

seriously now, I don't think Cersei says things just to piss someone off. Maybe she had something else in mind (some more plotting maybe?) but she must have had some deeper reason

Imagine if she had got a hit. She would be ecstatic. But imagine the face Ned would have made if she was talking out of her ass. She wouldn't want to be laughed at. Her word choice protects her better than any other accusations might, but it would be a good opportunity for her to do some mining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'm afraid I'm not especially bothered about reading into the nuances of Cersei's "stole". I've been reading this topic a while, so instead I have some questions, and some questionable logic.

Questions

1) Why did Ned bring so few warriors to TOJ?

By bringing 7, I think it is heavily suggested that Ned knows i) that TOJ is defended by a few badass warriors and ii) that whatever is inside TOJ is 'sensitive'.

Otherwise Ned, fresh from Storm's End, would have presumably brought 30 archers and peppered the KG rather than lose 5 of his best friends needlessly. He picked 6 close companions because he knew they were going to find *something awkward* so he needed to trust their discretion, but needed them to be 'fighty' enough to beat three KG. This obviously leads to a second question

2) How did Ned know about TOJ's existence, location and sensitivity?

I think we're pretty much stabbing blind with this one. As I see it, either Lyanna herself somehow got word to him, or (as above) Ashara knew where her brother was, what he was guarding, and told Ned because she still loved him? The two aren't mutually exclusive. Seem like a questionable move if it was Ashara's game, since Ned's dream doesn't seem to suggest any kind of 'negotiation'. I mean, logically speaking, the KG and Ned wanted the same thing - protect the secrecy and life of ?whatever is in TOJ?

Crackpotism

OK bear with me. Several other posters have suggested that Ned and Benjen knew that Lyanna went with Rhaegar willingly (from the wine-pouring incident at Harrenhal and Ned's non-derogatory/rapist memory of R). If this is the case, then there are some serious implications. Ned and Benjen should surely have tried to stop Big Brandon on his uninformed rampage southwards? At least they might have mentioned 'Hey Bro, Lyanna's actually down with this". But they didn't. Now, either this just means that Brandon was even more hot-headed than Robert, a violent thug who would put his own brothers in danger if they tried to show him sense, or Ned and Ben were content to let him go. Why would they be content to let him go?

Because Ned and Ben wanted Winterfell. This is GRRM's ultimate table-turning. He's going to show that the Starks are as bad as the Lannisters or the Targs:

Ned lets Brandon go on his Southern rampage, expecting Brandon's execution, since he will then inherit Winterfell. He lets Rickard and the other Northern father's go south for the same reason, but also for a super devious second reason - Ned assumes Aerys will, if not execute them, then force them to humiliating terms, hostages, huge sums of money, mutilations. Ned is now the Stark of Winterfell, with the right to call the banners, and all the Northern Lords, for once, are fully united behind him since Aerys is such an obvious wanker and has offended most of the North's nobility. This gives Ned unprecedented power/support. Ned then manipulates the rebellion to install his own best friend as King. What a megalomaniac.

Wait!

It doesn't stop there.

Lyanna is in on it too! See, she could easily have stopped/mollified the badness of the war, right? On one side, her brother and fiance; on the other side, her fair prince. Anyone with two braincells would have seen the war brewing and shouted very loudly "Stop this testosterone contest boys! Rhaegar didn't abduct me, he's super lovely, sorry Robert but I'm gonna stay with the Prince and we're gonna fulfill a prophecy and it'll be great. Sorry Dorne too." OR "Rhaegar I don't love you, let me go so I can calm the boys down and sort out this mess"

Instead she lets the war continue, killing R and ruining the realm.

Well, perhaps she was in on the plot with Ned. Perhaps she deliberately seduced and eloped with Rhaegar (whom she did not love), knowing it would start a war which her fiance would eventually win. She would be queen, Robert king and Ned Lord of Winterfell and possibly Hand too. I'd suggest there was some citadel orchestration here - a deliberate attempt to depose the dragony/magicy Targs in favour of more straightforward Robert, based on an alliance of 4 major houses (Stark Tully Arryn and Baratheon).

It all went wrong when Rhaegar either did seduce Lyanna, or raped her. Or rather, when she died. Her death forced all the key players to re-evaluate. Benjen is so ashamed of his role in 3 Stark deaths that he joins the NW as pennance/to restore his honour. Ned, feeling similarly bad about the continent-wide devastation and also realising that without Lyanna's queenly advice, Robert will be a piss-poor king, isolates himself, loathe to ever interfere in Southern politics again until Robert guilt-trips him in.

Ned understandably does not reveal the depths of the plot to his wife and kids, instead painting himself as the wronged party and justified avenger.

And Jon? To Ned, Jon is a constant and painful reminder, not of his overactive loins but of his hubris, his thirst for power and ultimate blame in manoeuvring his beloved sister into harm's way.

That's numberwang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more inclined to think Brandon wasn't with family when he heard it and ran off with his posse without consulting anyone. He's a hothead, and his friends may have egged him on, too. Or do you think Rickard wouldn't have stopped him and went in his place to handle the matter legitimately? All he would have had to do is go sue for an audience with Aerys and worked out Lya's return and compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where specifically would Ned be lying in his POV? He would be 'framing' things as appropriate to his situation, but even in my dastardly version of events, the basica facts remain the same - i.e. Ned's POV saying his immediate reasons for rebellion were Aerys and Rhaegar's actions. He just obfuscates the premediation and devious machinations that led to the Targs' blunders. Obviously to be sure I'd have to read every Ned dialogue and chapter again, but I'm pretty sure that the most you can accuse Ned of in my version of events is neglecting to tell the whole truth, i.e. acts of omission.

@Apple Martini

I can even twist this. You are suggesting that the Ned we know (and love?) is the epitome of honour and goodness, right? So he'd never kill his family to gain power? But clearly he wasn't so honourable when he was a teenage rebel, since he was happy to A - rebel [something justified but ultimately illegal and dishonourable, which we know he feels given his judgement of Jaime] and B- skulked around from Vale-->North C- have extramarital sex, which virtually everyone in Westeros seems to accept.

I'd argue that his GOT reputation for honour was something he'd cultivated after the end of the rebellion. Ned's honour-obsession is a direct result of post-rebellion guilt which ties into his isolationist policy. He has to assert First Men ideals and ironclad honour to psychologically ease the pain of former betrayals, and to stop interested parties delving too deep into Jon's origins or Ned and Benjen's role in the prerequisites for the conflict.

NB- I'm playing devil's advocate here. Although I do think there is scope for this, and if Martin does it I'd love him forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...