Jump to content

R+L=J v.21


Angalin

Recommended Posts

As the Tower of the Hand post articulated, Ned could have been lying, but that just raises further questions. If the entire Wylla story is a deception, it doesn't make sense for Ned to use a real person as the cover - he could have given Jon to Wylla to wetnurse and simply said "Take care of this kid," rather than "Take care of this kid, and if it's OK with you I'm going to tell everyone you're his mother." He would have to trust her enough to include her in a very important cover-up, and I'm not sure why she would warrant such faith. Moreover, this is a much more deceptive approach than to simply avoid talking about Jon's background. We know that Ashara rumors were already circulating, Ned wouldn't have needed to take things so far in order to claim Jon as his son.

Actually it strengthens Ned's case if he uses a real person who's still alive to corroborate his story. When you say things like, "Uh, his mother was ... uh ... Jane Doe" it makes people doubt the story (see: Jaime thinking Kettleblack is full of it when he says a Robert Stone knighted him). If they know that if they head to Starfall and find a lady who says, "Yeah I'm Jon's mother," it makes Ned's story more believable than if he came up with an obviously fake person.

I don't think Wylla's participation is coincidental, nor was she chosen at random. It's my belief that she was serving at Starfall and Arthur Dayne brought her to the Tower of Joy to act as midwife and wet nurse for Lyanna. In that way, she was already implicated, even before Ned was. Her allowing herself to be included in Ned's cover story is just an extension of her already existing role in the plot. It's not like Ned found some random woman on his travels and asked her, "Could you please fake being this kid's mother?"

I think the Wylla story almost has to predate the Ashara rumor, because Ashara didn't commit suicide until after Ned returned Dawn. I think that the Dayne rumor was only allowed to persist so that if Jon ended up with Targ features, they could be written off as Dayne features. Wylla was always the primary cover story, especially after Jon grew up to look like a Stark and not a Targ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to Dragonfish's post; lines such as the one about Ned having "lived lies for 14 years" offer decent support for R+L=J, and are why I'm not fully in the Wylla camp either. There are certainly more quotes that support R+L=J in some fashion, although I personally consider a number of them to be too attenuated to be solid clues. For example, Ned using the term "my blood" rather than "my son" would still make sense if Jon were his "natural child" and not a trueborn son - in Westrosi culture Jon isn't Ned's son in a very real way, so that phrasing can be read either way. The "14 years" line, while not explicit, is certainly very telling, and there are other examples. If all I were given were the "14 years" line and the "Wylla" line, however, I would at least be inclined to rely more on the Wylla line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to Dragonfish's post; lines such as the one about Ned having "lived lies for 14 years" offer decent support for R+L=J, and are why I'm not fully in the Wylla camp either. There are certainly more quotes that support R+L=J in some fashion, although I personally consider a number of them to be too attenuated to be solid clues. For example, Ned using the term "my blood" rather than "my son" would still make sense if Jon were his "natural child" and not a trueborn son - in Westrosi culture Jon isn't Ned's son in a very real way, so that phrasing can be read either way. The "14 years" line, while not explicit, is certainly very telling, and there are other examples. If all I were given were the "14 years" line and the "Wylla" line, however, I would at least be inclined to rely more on the Wylla line.

You're not just given that, though. There's very good circumstantial evidence that Lyanna died in childbirth, we see the "blue rose" growing in the ice wall, Ned does not once refer to Jon as his son in his mind and does not include him when he lists his children, he hopes that Jon and Robb will grow up "like brother," an indication that they are not actually brothers. The presence of the Kingsguard at the Tower points to the real king (in their minds) being there. Mormont's raven calls Jon, "King."

Keep the questions coming, though. I've yet to see any doubts I can't refute or any questions I can't answer when it comes to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that he isn't smart, far from it. I'm saying instead that he dislikes the deceptive, word-twisting approach of people like Varys. The quote in the book reads, at least superficially, as Ned naming Wylla as Jon's mother.

(If you have the boxed 1-4 paperback set, then this is on page 110 of AGOT)

"Was it Merryl? You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?"

"Her name was Wylla."

As the Tower of the Hand post articulated, Ned could have been lying, but that just raises further questions. If the entire Wylla story is a deception, it doesn't make sense for Ned to use a real person as the cover - he could have given Jon to Wylla to wetnurse and simply said "Take care of this kid," rather than "Take care of this kid, and if it's OK with you I'm going to tell everyone you're his mother." He would have to trust her enough to include her in a very important cover-up, and I'm not sure why she would warrant such faith. Moreover, this is a much more deceptive approach than to simply avoid talking about Jon's background. We know that Ashara rumors were already circulating, Ned wouldn't have needed to take things so far in order to claim Jon as his son.

None of this is concrete proof, one way or the other - as I said, I'm not fully in either camp on this issue. However, in order to read that specific line from AGOT as supporting R+L=J, then Ned needs to be presented as having been both sloppier and more deceptive than Littlefinger was when he had to pass someone else's child off as his bastard. That is where I have a problem with theory.

it is great that people have an open mind in this question! I thought that Wylla was both midwife and wet-nurse for the child, she is still alive and lives in Starfall, moreover, we know she supports that gossip that she is Jon's mother (Ned Dayne told us through Arya). so clearly Wylla worked for Dayne and was there servant, probably it was Arthur Dayne, who put her with Lyanna, as the most trusting servant.

As for why claiming her the mother, but not Ashara- maybe Robert knew that Ned had nothing with Ashara, because he was his best friend and they were at Harrenhall tourney together. There is no evidence that Ashara had something with Ned, except the hint at Reeds' fairy tale about the KoLT - it is stated that girl with purple laughing eyes danced with many, and Ned was the last one (quiet wolf) after the wild one asked her and Barristan's memories of her looking at a Stark (we don't know which one yet). Well, Ned of course would have fell in love with Ashara, he wasn't betrothed and she also, plus Brandon was still alive, therefore Cat was his fiancee and not Ned's. But still think it Brandon, who made Ashara a child and it was a stillborn girl, as we know (it is not necessarily the truth, though).

Anyway my point is: if it was Ashara it won't be any reason to lie to Robert; plus everybody in the kingdom seems to think that it was Ashara, but not Robert - Ned told him it was Wylla. So why lie to Robert?

if Jon is Brandon and Ashara's child, there is even less reasons to lie to Robert!

It is so complicated actually! most of people, including Catelyne and Cersei, think it was Ashara Dayne, in Starfall the gossip is that it is Wylla, who still works there and Manderly thinks it was a fisherman's daughter, so it is a mystery. The clear here only one thing Jon is a Stark (whether his father is Ned or his mother is Lyanna, which is possible, because her genes would be superior and not Rhaegar's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Wylla's participation is coincidental, nor was she chosen at random. It's my belief that she was serving at Starfall and Arthur Dayne brought her to the Tower of Joy to act as midwife and wet nurse for Lyanna. In that way, she was already implicated, even before Ned was. Her allowing herself to be included in Ned's cover story is just an extension of her already existing role in the plot. It's not like Ned found some random woman on his travels and asked her, "Could you please fake being this kid's mother?"

This is certainly a better explanation than picking Wylla off the street, and if she were already complicit in the cover-up then using her as the fake mother wouldn't be as much of a liability. I cannot find any information on whether Wylla is still alive (although with GRRM its a shock that anyone is still alive). My understanding is that Howland Reed is supposed to be Ned's only (living) confidant in...whatever he's been doing following the Tower of Joy. However, the text supporting that could be based on the fact that he was the only other survivor of the battle. Kind of up in the air.

Actually it strengthens Ned's case if he uses a real person who's still alive to corroborate his story. When you say things like, "Uh, his mother was ... uh ... Jane Doe" it makes people doubt the story (see: Jaime thinking Kettleblack is full of it when he says a Robert Stone knighted him).

I doubt Ned would be as stupid as Kettleblack. If he were going to lie, I think he would take the approach Baelish did and simply not address the question of the child's past. Its both the most tactically sound (no loose ends, lets the speculation fuel itself) and it doesn't implicate anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not just given that, though. There's very good circumstantial evidence that Lyanna died in childbirth, we see the "blue rose" growing in the ice wall, Ned does not once refer to Jon as his son in his mind and does not include him when he lists his children, he hopes that Jon and Robb will grow up "like brother," an indication that they are not actually brothers.

Even if Jon is Ned's bastard, he and Robb aren't actually brothers. Ned's approach to Jon seems very, very liberal compared to how most Westrosi lords deal with their baseborn children, and even he kept Jon at arm's length. Not listing him among his children might seem harsh, but in a very real sense Jon was not a part of Ned's family, so it makes sense that he would not always think of Jon in that fashion.

(I'm starting to see how these threads grow so quickly.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This link at Tower of the Hand has a good summary:

http://towerofthehan...ws_parents.html

You will need to go to the main page though and set your spoiler level. The site will automatically filter out anything you haven't read yet SO if you want to see the whole theory (regardless of how far you've actually gotten) you will need to change your scope to be "A Dance with Dragons" and "Fire and Blood"

Ok, now that I have read that article, I’m convinced that Jon is Reagar and Lyanna’s son. It’s so in-your-face, but I was totally blind about it.

In a way, I feel like I just spoiled myself because I would’ve never known it before the official revelation in a future book if not for that forum… :crying:

Did any of you guessed it while reading the book with no help from anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, now that I have read that article, I’m convinced that Jon is Reagar and Lyanna’s son. It’s so in-your-face, but I was totally blind about it.

In a way, I feel like I just spoiled myself because I would’ve never known it before the official revelation in a future book if not for that forum… :crying:

Did any of you guessed it while reading the book with no help from anyone?

Unfortunately, yes and we are being "tortured" for few books, because the truth is not revealed!! (at least I am tortured and I discovered that during first part of GOT-in my native language it was in 2 books) :)

Don't be upset, just enjoy our show in the forum ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, now that I have read that article, I’m convinced that Jon is Reagar and Lyanna’s son. It’s so in-your-face, but I was totally blind about it.

In a way, I feel like I just spoiled myself because I would’ve never known it before the official revelation in a future book if not for that forum… :crying:

Did any of you guessed it while reading the book with no help from anyone?

For my part sorry you were spoiled (in any sense that you didn't want to be). I guessed it after the first book(well most of it), though until ASOS (or was it late in ACOK I can't remember the exact location in the book) and the description of the Harranhall tournament/Knight of the Laughing Tree I wasn't convinced Rhaegar and Lyanna were actually in love. Until that point I though she might have legitimately been kidnapped and come to care for Rhaegar by the end, but that regardless of how he was conceived she definitely loved her son and wanted him protected in spite of his father's sins. After the Harranhall/KOTLT story, I came to believe that it was more mutual love that brought them together.

Either way the timing of Ned coming home with a baby and his sister's bones when the sister had been missing (and presumed raped) for a year and a bit, comblined with Ned's reaction (or non-reaction to Rhaegar's name - i.e. would not be having those benign thoughts about the person who raped and murdered my sister - unless of course that wasn't what happened) and the fact that he killed all speculation about who Jon's mother was had me thinking that Jon was Lyanna's pretty early on. Rhaegar as his dad was the only one who made sense since he was one of the few known to be with her during the time she was missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, now that I have read that article, I’m convinced that Jon is Reagar and Lyanna’s son. It’s so in-your-face, but I was totally blind about it.

In a way, I feel like I just spoiled myself because I would’ve never known it before the official revelation in a future book if not for that forum… :crying:

Did any of you guessed it while reading the book with no help from anyone?

Nope, not until I found this board, and I didn't get into the books until the HBO series.

The way it was set up, if I can make an analogy, it felt a little like walking into a feudal barfight, (if you hadn't read the books), because you don't know what sparked the rebellion, or why Neds sister died, and I'm sorry to say that I had no read from the series that there was anything remotley romantic between Lyanna and Rhaegar, :dunce: and then they aren't mentioned anymore.

Most of us who like to discuss books and debate are probably smaller than the general population, so it's still going to be a big surprise to the casual fan just watching the series.

Thats probably why they left out Neds TOJ flashbacks, because visually it's more obvious than strewn through five books and hundreds of pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Howland Reed is supposed to be Ned's only (living) confidant in...whatever he's been doing following the Tower of Joy. However, the text supporting that could be based on the fact that he was the only other survivor of the battle. Kind of up in the air.

We know that more than one person found Ned with Lyanna's body, so it's a safe bet that more than one person knows what happened there.

I doubt Ned would be as stupid as Kettleblack. If he were going to lie, I think he would take the approach Baelish did and simply not address the question of the child's past. Its both the most tactically sound (no loose ends, lets the speculation fuel itself) and it doesn't implicate anyone else.

I think Ned probably didn't want people (and by "people", I mostly mean "Robert") to get curious and pry, so he gave them an answer in order to forestall any feverish gossip that might, even accidentally, guess the truth.

Even if Jon is Ned's bastard, he and Robb aren't actually brothers.

Sure they are. Robb and Jon call each other brothers. What makes you think they aren't brothers? (officially, of course)

Ned's approach to Jon seems very, very liberal compared to how most Westrosi lords deal with their baseborn children, and even he kept Jon at arm's length. Not listing him among his children might seem harsh, but in a very real sense Jon was not a part of Ned's family, so it makes sense that he would not always think of Jon in that fashion.

Actually, the first sentence undermines the point in your second sentence. If Ned didn't think of Jon as being part of his family, then why did he go to the trouble of bringing him into his household, raising him next to his trueborn children and giving him all the training and education his trueborn children received? Why would he flaunt his unfaithfulness in front of his wife for a child he didn't love or consider part of his family?

Also, regarding the quote in which Ned omits Jon from his list of children, it's important to note the context. Cersei asks Ned if he loves his children. She makes no distinction between trueborn and bastard born (and why would she, given that her own children, whom she loves fiercely, are themselves bastards?). Neither does she distinguish between "children who you consider to be part of your family" and "children who you don't consider to be part of your family." She simply asks him if he loves his children. And when prompted with this question, Ned actually goes to the trouble of listing all of his children in the order in which they were born, yet leaves Jon out. IMO, there are only two explanations for this: Ned does not love Jon, or Jon is not actually Ned's son. I refuse to believe the former, given how much Ned has sacrificed to bring Jon into his family. Therefore, I can only believe the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfish pretty much said what I would have. Namely that it's absurd that Ned would differentiate, in his mind, between trueborn and natural children. This isn't a legal listing or a matter of inheritance.

I'll just add that the text says that "they" found Ned in Lyanna's chamber at the Tower. I'm a pretty strict grammarian and take "they" to mean a plural, even though (as I believe Dragonfish has argued, not incorrectly) "they" can colloquially mean one person. At that time, Ned and Howland were the only survivors of the fight and Ned was in the room. So someone had to be with Howland to form a plural "they" that found Ned. I think Wylla was likely one of the people, with Howland, who found Ned.

I'll ask PinkiePycelle the question I've asked other doubters:

If Wylla or even Ashara is actually Jon's mother, what's keeping Ned from telling Jon the truth?

There's no danger or controversy in Jon's mother being a castle servant or even a dead noblewoman. There's no good reason for Ned to keep Jon's mother's identity a secret from him in those cases. It does make sense to keep his parentage a secret if the truth held some element of danger or was a legitimately dark secret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For my part sorry you were spoiled (in any sense that you didn't want to be). I guessed it after the first book(well most of it), though until ASOS (or was it late in ACOK I can't remember the exact location in the book) and the description of the Harranhall tournament/Knight of the Laughing Tree I wasn't convinced Rhaegar and Lyanna were actually in love. Until that point I though she might have legitimately been kidnapped and come to care for Rhaegar by the end, but that regardless of how he was conceived she definitely loved her son and wanted him protected in spite of his father's sins. After the Harranhall/KOTLT story, I came to believe that it was more mutual love that brought them together.

Either way the timing of Ned coming home with a baby and his sister's bones when the sister had been missing (and presumed raped) for a year and a bit, comblined with Ned's reaction (or non-reaction to Rhaegar's name - i.e. would not be having those benign thoughts about the person who raped and murdered my sister - unless of course that wasn't what happened) and the fact that he killed all speculation about who Jon's mother was had me thinking that Jon was Lyanna's pretty early on. Rhaegar as his dad was the only one who made sense since he was one of the few known to be with her during the time she was missing.

It’s so obvious now, I feel like I was blind!!!

It makes the whole ASOIAF even more interesting, if possible (it is!). I don’t want to offend anyone here, because I know this is a treat mostly followed by Jon fans, but I never really have been one. These informations give me a new perspective on Jon and create a new interesting for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that he isn't smart, far from it. I'm saying instead that he dislikes the deceptive, word-twisting approach of people like Varys. The quote in the book reads, at least superficially, as Ned naming Wylla as Jon's mother.

(If you have the boxed 1-4 paperback set, then this is on page 110 of AGOT)

"Was it Merryl? You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?"

"Her name was Wylla."

But you missed out the important part of the quote, the actual subject of the question.

“You were never the boy you were,” Robert grumbled. “More’s the pity. And yet there was that one time . . . what was her name, that common girl of yours?"

Ned answers what the name of his 'common girl' was. Robert clearly thinks, even says so, that he is talking about Jon's mother, but the actual question was not what was Jon's mother's name, but 'that common girl of yours'.

It only actually superficially looks like a question about Jons mother because Robert flubbs around inserting that assumption in there, after the question.

It is not a word twisting approach. In fact it is the exact opposite of a word twisting approach. Its using the exact words, and ignoring the random bumbling assumptions that weren't part of the question. This is exactly how honest people can deceive without lying. You don't. You tell the exact truth and let the idiots screw themselves up. I do it all the time (well, less now since gaming parters slowly get wise and careful or after a while you just try to avoid gaming with total idiots as no one enjoys themselves).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Wylla or even Ashara is actually Jon's mother, what's keeping Ned from telling Jon the truth?

There's no danger or controversy in Jon's mother being a castle servant or even a dead noblewoman. There's no good reason for Ned to keep Jon's mother's identity a secret from him in those cases. It does make sense to keep his parentage a secret if the truth held some element of danger or was a legitimately dark secret.

this is quite possibly one of the largest clues, and it is important because it derives from common sense. the only secrets worth keeping are big secrets, and the only reason to keep a secret as important as this from Jon for 15 years is for his safety. hence, his parents are not who he thought. they need the perfect opportunity once the citizens of the realm accept new Targaryen leadership as a possibility, whether it be Dany or Aegon. once there are Targ's back in Westeros it will be safe for someone (Howland Reed) to come out and tell everyone who Jon really is. Jon Targaryen. First of His Name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfish pretty much said what I would have. Namely that it's absurd that Ned would differentiate, in his mind, between trueborn and natural children. This isn't a legal listing or a matter of inheritance.

I'll just add that the text says that "they" found Ned in Lyanna's chamber at the Tower. I'm a pretty strict grammarian and take "they" to mean a plural, even though (as I believe Dragonfish has argued, not incorrectly) "they" can colloquially mean one person. At that time, Ned and Howland were the only survivors of the fight and Ned was in the room. So someone had to be with Howland to form a plural "they" that found Ned. I think Wylla was likely one of the people, with Howland, who found Ned.

I'll ask PinkiePycelle the question I've asked other doubters:

If Wylla or even Ashara is actually Jon's mother, what's keeping Ned from telling Jon the truth?

There's no danger or controversy in Jon's mother being a castle servant or even a dead noblewoman. There's no good reason for Ned to keep Jon's mother's identity a secret from him in those cases. It does make sense to keep his parentage a secret if the truth held some element of danger or was a legitimately dark secret.

This. Ned's silence was exactly what set me on the track, on my second re-read of AGOT. So, I carefully sifted through his, and Catelyn's, chapters, and came up with R+L, plus the thought of the romance. And while I found lots of hints that could be considered as proof, I found nothing to disprove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, now that I have read that article, I’m convinced that Jon is Reagar and Lyanna’s son. It’s so in-your-face, but I was totally blind about it.

In a way, I feel like I just spoiled myself because I would’ve never known it before the official revelation in a future book if not for that forum… :crying:

Did any of you guessed it while reading the book with no help from anyone?

I guessed something was wrong in AGoT, from the moment Ned looks at Jon strangely when he says he would give up on a direwolf because there were only five, and they should go to Ned's children. And then all of Ned's chapters (and some of Catelyn's) seemed to corroborate the idea. Actually, though at first I was convinced Ned only died so that the rest of the Starks could follow their separate storylines, I now know his death was also necessary because he knew too much about Jon, and we were not supposed to find out crucial information that quickly.

As for why claiming her the mother, but not Ashara- maybe Robert knew that Ned had nothing with Ashara, because he was his best friend and they were at Harrenhall tourney together. There is no evidence that Ashara had something with Ned, except the hint at Reeds' fairy tale about the KoLT - it is stated that girl with purple laughing eyes danced with many, and Ned was the last one (quiet wolf) after the wild one asked her and Barristan's memories of her looking at a Stark (we don't know which one yet). Well, Ned of course would have fell in love with Ashara, he wasn't betrothed and she also, plus Brandon was still alive, therefore Cat was his fiancee and not Ned's. But still think it Brandon, who made Ashara a child and it was a stillborn girl, as we know (it is not necessarily the truth, though).

Anyway my point is: if it was Ashara it won't be any reason to lie to Robert; plus everybody in the kingdom seems to think that it was Ashara, but not Robert - Ned told him it was Wylla. So why lie to Robert?

I had never thought about it on these terms, thank you for bringing this up! Best explanation I've see so far as to why keep Wylla in the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you missed out the important part of the quote, the actual subject of the question.

“You were never the boy you were,” Robert grumbled. “More’s the pity. And yet there was that one time . . . what was her name, that common girl of yours?"

Ned answers what the name of his 'common girl' was. Robert clearly thinks, even says so, that he is talking about Jon's mother, but the actual question was not what was Jon's mother's name, but 'that common girl of yours'.

It only actually superficially looks like a question about Jons mother because Robert flubbs around inserting that assumption in there, after the question.

It is not a word twisting approach. In fact it is the exact opposite of a word twisting approach. Its using the exact words, and ignoring the random bumbling assumptions that weren't part of the question. This is exactly how honest people can deceive without lying. You don't. You tell the exact truth and let the idiots screw themselves up. I do it all the time (well, less now since gaming parters slowly get wise and careful or after a while you just try to avoid gaming with total idiots as no one enjoys themselves).

Hmm ... not sure if this is to be considered not lying.

Robert asks: what is the name of that common girl of yours.

Ned answers: Wylla.

This is only not lying if Wylla was 'a common girl of yours'.

Let's forget about Jon. Does the answer of Ned, if he is not lying, mean that he considered Wylla to be 'his girl'? That he had an affair with her?

If not, what else could Ned mean, not lying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm ... not sure if this is to be considered not lying.

Robert asks: what is the name of that common girl of yours.

Ned answers: Wylla.

This is only not lying if Wylla was 'a common girl of yours'.

Let's forget about Jon. Does the answer of Ned, if he is not lying, mean that he considered Wylla to be 'his girl'? That he had an affair with her?

If not, what else could Ned mean, not lying?

Well, it could make sense if Wylla had traveled with him at some point, maybe after the rebellion when he brought Jon to the North she went with him part of the way? Robert is so used to have his own common girls, he could certainly think that was the only explanation to Wylla's presence near Ned.

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...