R+L=J v.40

[The guy from the Vale]

By the time they'll meet again, Jon will be a sworn brother of the Night's Watch. It becomes a lot harder to leave once you've said your vows, and it's also a small protection against Robert - Jon won't be a threat at the Wall even if the truth leaks out.

[Bear Island Bruiser]

I thought I also read somewhere that GRRM said that you don't write a story where you leave several clues about who's the killer and then when people figure out who is the killer, you just change it in the last chapter. Because then all of the clues you left earlier are useless. (Hope this is also true in the R+L=J case)

On another subject: I know in the series when Ned leaves for KL and Jon leaves for the NW, Ned says he will tell Jon who his mother is when he sees him again (I don't recall if this was exactly like in the books). At that moment Ned doesn't know what's going to happen, so why does he want to tell the big secret once he sees him again. At that moment it's probable that Robert is still king once Ned sees Jon again.... Don't really know where I'm going with this, but was just wondering. Any ideas?

Well I'd argue that GRRM would have had some arguments with Agatha Christie and Arthur Conan Doyle. It's pretty much a mainstay story of detective stories to have all the evidence point one way and then have it flip round to show how the reader, and normally the slow policeman, have misinterpreted everything. Not that this necessarily goes against R+L=J just more a musing on the subject.

Why Ned would tell him the next time he'd see him? Well I guess you could theorise that by the next time they'd see each other Jon would have taken the NW vows giving up all claims to the throne. Though this would seem a little calculating for Ned.

I'd say it's far more likely that Ned always planned to tell Jon but only after he was old enough to understand the situation and be sure he could keep the secret, whatever it is. Chances are that Ned isn't going to see Jon for quite some time, possibly years, and he'd grow up fast in the NW.

Alternatively you could say that it's an empty promise given to give Jon a bit of hope. Again though doesn't seem very Ned.

[Bear Island Bruiser]

Oh, and it's absolutely not true that R+L's main argument is that there is no better explanation. It just has a lot of evidence towards it. Now combine this with the no-better-explanation, and you have a pretty solid case.

You're defending a lost case not because we are fanatic nutjobs who just won't let go, but because we are working with facts. Unless you come with a DNA test, the facts that we have examined till now show us that R+L=J. It's just the sane thing to conclude.

The 'no better explanation' line is something I've always considered a bit weak. To tie it back into mystery books if you take the locked door scenario suicide is always the most likely explanation but it is inevitably not the case.

Equally the level of conviction the R+L=J theory draws from some people doesn't really deserve to be based on 'no better explanation'. For a lot of people it's become canon . I'll give you that it's the most likely theory out there but to simply chuck out other theories as they're not the most likely explanation is a little flawed.

[The guy from the Vale]

The point with the 'most likely explanation' thing is the consistency - it's an explanation for not just where Jon comes from, but also for a ton of other little mysteries. If these aren't connected, GRRM will have a lot to explain; with R+L=J, everything is tied up in a neat package.

As for the Mystery novels - usually there is some evidence for the reader that the first offered explanation doesn't match up with the evidence. The first offered suspects in the mystery of Jon's parentage are Ned and either Wylla or Ashara. But those don't match up - with the timeline as well as the fact that Ned never thinks of either, has no reason to lie about them towards Cat, and doesn't think of Jon as his son.

[FittleLinger]

The 'no better explanation' line is something I've always considered a bit weak. To tie it back into mystery books if you take the locked door scenario suicide is always the most likely explanation but it is inevitably not the case.

Equally the level of conviction the R+L=J theory draws from some people doesn't really deserve to be based on 'no better explanation'. For a lot of people it's become canon . I'll give you that it's the most likely theory out there but to simply chuck out other theories as they're not the most likely explanation is a little flawed.

But isnt't it pointless to say something is less likely but equally possible for none is confirmed? Isn't this what we are doing here - figuring out what is the most likely? You know, criminals are being sentenced without confession exactly because lawyers, jury and judges figured out "what was the most likely". Same thing here, evidence towards R+L is so convincing to some people that they consider it cannon.

Saying it's not confirmed is kind of anti-contributing to the discussion, because we wouldn't be having it if it were confirmed, would we?

[The guy from the Vale]

But isnt't it pointless to say something is less likely but equally possible for none is confirmed? Isn't this what we are doing here - figuring out what is the most likely? You know, criminals are being sentenced without confession exactly because lawyers, jury and judges figured out "what was the most likely". Same thing here, evidence towards R+L is so convincing to some people that they consider it cannon.

Saying it's not confirmed is kind of anti-contributing to the discussion, because we wouldn't be having it if it were confirmed, would we?

On your last point: the debate would be a lot smaller, but it would still be there. Joffrey is confirmed as the one behind Bran's assassination and there are still people who believe it was Litlefinger.

[Bear Island Bruiser]

But isnt't it pointless to say something is less likely but equally possible for none is confirmed? Isn't this what we are doing here - figuring out what is the most likely? You know, criminals are being sentenced without confession exactly because lawyers, jury and judges figured out "what was the most likely". Same thing here, evidence towards R+L is so convincing to some people that they consider it cannon.

Saying it's not confirmed is kind of anti-contributing to the discussion, because we wouldn't be having it if it were confirmed, would we?

Well I'd say in court people are convicted on a line of 'beyond all reasonable doubt' which is no where near the same as most likely. To me this is what stops it being canon. At the moment it's canon but it's not beyond all reasonable doubt.

[Greymoon]

I watched a documentary about a guy who laughed himself to death. When they untroduced his case, it made me laugh in disbelief, yet - they showed exactly who, when and how it happened, and explained it biologically.

Meaning, sometimes you have to soak up your feelings towards the whole deal in order to be able to look at the solid things properly. Evidence up till now shows us this is exactly what happened. If you think it's ridiculous - then evidence shows us something ridiculous happened.

Oh, and it's absolutely not true that R+L's main argument is that there is no better explanation. It just has a lot of evidence towards it. Now combine this with the no-better-explanation, and you have a pretty solid case.

You're defending a lost case not because we are fanatic nutjobs who just won't let go, but because we are working with facts. Unless you come with a DNA test, the facts that we have examined till now show us that R+L=J. It's just the sane thing to conclude.

Err...defending what lost cause? Because I don't want to believe what you guys here on the forum made up about Rhaegar doesn't mean I'm not supporting R+L=J, at least 4 days of the week.

My expressing disbelief at the theory that the crown Prince planned to keep hidden at the Tower of Joy after he stole Lyanna Stark, does not mean I don't believe Rhaegar and Lyanna were at some point together at the tower.

We have no hard proof to give that theory any credence and I think it sounds ridiculous. I'm not suggesting an alternative here; I just don't see why I should take whatever has been deduced on this forum, mainstream opinion or not, as my daily bread and butter. I'm not blind, I've read the clues and seen the hints in the books just as much as any other person and right now, I'm not arguing against R+L=J, only, against the assumption that its perfectly normal and reasonable for the Crown Prince to act so stupid.

And that is just one thing the bothers me. What on earth is Rhaegar doing when people are being killed left and right by his dad? What kind of man is he, if he just waits it out at the tower like you suggest. Rhaegar wasn't blind or stupid either.

[Ygrain]

And that is just one thing the bothers me. What on earth is Rhaegar doing when people are being killed left and right by his dad? What kind of man is he, if he just waits it out at the tower like you suggest. Rhaegar wasn't blind or stupid either.

Perhaps the man who doesn't know what is going on because what actually happened far esceeds the worst-case scenario he could have imagined?

[Bear Island Bruiser]

The point with the 'most likely explanation' thing is the consistency - it's an explanation for not just where Jon comes from, but also for a ton of other little mysteries. If these aren't connected, GRRM will have a lot to explain; with R+L=J, everything is tied up in a neat package.

As for the Mystery novels - usually there is some evidence for the reader that the first offered explanation doesn't match up with the evidence. The first offered suspects in the mystery of Jon's parentage are Ned and either Wylla or Ashara. But those don't match up - with the timeline as well as the fact that Ned never thinks of either, has no reason to lie about them towards Cat, and doesn't think of Jon as his son.

Agreed with the first part. It does tie up a fair few things but each of them have alternative explanations that GRRM could easily be playing with us about.

In terms of the second part I disagree with you that both Wylla and Ashara doesn't fit because of the timeline. We have little to no knowledge of Wylla's movements. Just at some point she entered the Dayne's service as a wetnurse. Similarly with Ashara we know from a SSM that Ashara did not just sit at Starfall and moved around during the rebellion. Sure the Harrenhal meeting doesn't add up with the time line but it doesn't mean she couldn't have met with Ned at some other time. Her involvement certainly runs a lot deeper than just topping herself after the bad news.

Equally Ned does think about Ashara afterwards when Cat challenges him on the rumours and he tells her to never repeat it and equally tell him who told her the rumours. Why is Ned so keen to stop these rumours? Why doesn't he just deny it to Cat? There is more there.

Equally I'd say not thinking of Jon as his son could simply be down to his bastard status. It's part of the understanding of Westeros that son carries some kind of recognition with it. For example Roose doesn't offer to have his son deal with the taking of Winterfell he offers to have his bastard do it. People tend to refer to Edric Storm as Robert's bastard not his son.

Again I'd reiterate that I still consider R+L=J to be the most likely conclusion to this mystery but I don't believe it's as foregone as most. To put in another example I consider Dany to be the most likely candidate for AA but that doesn't make it canon (and I'm well aware I'm on the wrong board for promoting the idea.

[FittleLinger]

Err...defending what lost cause? Because I don't want to believe what you guys here on the forum made up about Rhaegar doesn't mean I'm not supporting R+L=J, at least 4 days of the week.

My expressing disbelief at the theory that the crown Prince planned to keep hidden at the Tower of Joy after he stole Lyanna Stark, does not mean I don't believe Rhaegar and Lyanna were at some point together at the tower.

We have no hard proof to give that theory any credence and I think it sounds ridiculous. I'm not suggesting an alternative here; I just don't see why I should take whatever has been deduced on this forum, mainstream opinion or not, as my daily bread and butter. I'm not blind, I've read the clues and seen the hints in the books just as much as any other person and right now, I'm not arguing against R+L=J, only, against the assumption that its perfectly normal and reasonable for the Crown Prince to act so stupid.

And that is just one thing the bothers me. What on earth is Rhaegar doing when people are being killed left and right by his dad? What kind of man is he, if he just waits it out at the tower like you suggest. Rhaegar wasn't blind or stupid either.

But that's exactly what I was saying - we don't know Rhaegar, we don't know his motivations. Maybe he was really mad, blind, evil, stupid - we don't know. But the evidence suggests that's what he did until further evidence. "It seems stupid, out of character, cruel, etc." is not really an evidence against.

[corbon]

But that's exactly what I was saying - we don't know Rhaegar, we don't know his motivations. Maybe he was really mad, blind, evil, stupid - we don't know. But the evidence suggests that's what he did until further evidence. "It seems stupid, out of character, cruel, etc." is not really an evidence against.

In fact, since the evidence suggests this is what he did, and other evidence suggests that he was neither stupid nor cruel etc, all it really suggests is that the person saying it doesn't comprehend the situation properly. Whether that is due to lack of information, or poor analysis, is yet to be seen.

Or, perhaps, some of the information we have is wrong, not just incomplete.

[Alia of the knife]

In fact, since the evidence suggests this is what he did, and other evidence suggests that he was neither stupid nor cruel etc, all it really suggests is that the person saying it doesn't comprehend the situation properly. Whether that is due to lack of information, or poor analysis, is yet to be seen.

Or, perhaps, some of the information we have is wrong, not just incomplete.

:agree:

[Erudain]

In terms of the second part I disagree with you that both Wylla and Ashara doesn't fit because of the timeline. We have little to no knowledge of Wylla's movements. Just at some point she entered the Dayne's service as a wetnurse. Similarly with Ashara we know from a SSM that Ashara did not just sit at Starfall and moved around during the rebellion. Sure the Harrenhal meeting doesn't add up with the time line but it doesn't mean she couldn't have met with Ned at some other time. Her involvement certainly runs a lot deeper than just topping herself after the bad news.

True, but we do know Ned location around the time Jon was conceived, he was either at the Vale or in the North gathering his banners.

So GRRM would need to confirm that either Wylla or Ashara were at either fo those locations at the beginning of the war for the timeline to add.

We know Wylla is a servant of house Dayne, we don't know when she entered into their service, but (unless GRRM says so) has no reason for not being at Starfall or Dorne.

Same happens with Ashara, all we know is she was Elia handmaiden but she was not in KL when the Sack happened.....she has been pregnat during the war and that she was indeed at Starfall at end of the war when Ned comes to her to return Dawn.

Again GRRM would need to explain that she was in the Vale or the North during the first months of the war, and after that explain how an advanced pregnant woman got back from the Vale/North to Starfall to be able to be there when Ned arrives.

[Bear Island Bruiser]

True, but we do know Ned location around the time Jon was conceived, he was either at the Vale or in the North gathering his banners.

So GRRM would need to confirm that either Wylla or Ashara were at either fo those locations at the beginning of the war for the timeline to add.

We know Wylla is a servant of house Dayne, we don't know when she entered into their service, but (unless GRRM says so) has no reason for not being at Starfall or Dorne.

Same happens with Ashara, all we know is she was Elia handmaiden but she was not in KL when the Sack happened.....she has been pregnat during the war and that she was indeed at Starfall at end of the war when Ned comes to her to return Dawn.

Again GRRM would need to explain that she was in the Vale or the North during the first months of the war, and after that explain how an advanced pregnant woman got back from the Vale/North to Starfall to be able to be there when Ned arrives.

Was Ned in the Vale or the North at this point? I'd have thought he'd have been around the Riverlands. We know Jon was conceived after Ned and Cat got married which I thought was after he'd been to the Vale and after he'd raised his banners in the North.

Either way you'd need an explanation for how either Ashara or Wylla got to where Ned is. I'd just say it was more likely they could reach the Riverlands rather than the North or the Vale. Equally Ashara needn't be heavily pregnant when she moved to Starfall. Just pregnant. Ships or horses could easily get her from the Riverlands to Starfall by a number of routes. However yep more explanation is required.

[Lady KotLT]

Surely the war was well under way by the time Jon was conceived? If the rebellion was 282-283 and Jon was born around the end of the year 283 then he was conceived in 283.

[Erudain]

Jon was born 9 months before Dany, who was born 9 months after the Sack of KL (9 moons).

The whole war lasted a year, with the sack happening near the end of it (the sack was not the end of the war....Ned lifting the siege of SE is also counted as part of the war)

So Jon had to be conceived 1-3 months after the war started for his birth could match (week more week less) wth the sack.

In that time frame of 1-3 months Ned had to: go from the Vale to the North (by sea), gather his banners, get down the neck to RR, marry Cat.

All of what most likely took a couple months, so for it to fit with Jon birth, had to be done at an extremely fast pace.

About Robb being older than Jon, that's the official story from Ned and the fact that to the people in WF both looked the same age when they got there. Jon could be one month older and no one would notice.

[Greymoon]

Surely the war was well under way by the time Jon was conceived? If the rebellion was 282-283 and Jon was born around the end of the year 283 then he was conceived in 283.

The time of Jon's birth is one of the biggest reasons I'd think Ashara's daughter was not conceived during the tournament. Barristan saw Ashara's girl, so Ashara was at some point near the end of the pregnancy, at Kingslanding, or at least, somewhere in Westeros in the presence of Barristan Selmy.

For the rumor of Ashara being Jon's mother to ring true, Ashara's pregnancy would have to be further towards the end of the war. Unless, it was really only a rumor started by the common folk who heard of Harrenhall, Ned's involvement with Ashara and the bastard boy brought to Winterfell and added things up with complete disregard for the timeline and Jon's age. That's possible of course.

Either way....

We don't know much about Ashara or where she was at any given point in between the begining of the war, and the end of it. From kingslanding to Starfall she could have made a number of stops on her way. She could also have been with her brother Arthur, if say, he was the only escort available to her.

What speaks against Ashara being at the ToJ? Some have speculated Ashara knew of its location and informed Ned. I think this more plausible if Ashara was indeed deeply involved in the affair. Such an involvement would certainly also be cause of great grief for her.

Also possible however, is that Arthur sought Ashara's help to find a wet-nurse. Though this doesn't explain how Ashara got from point A Kingslanding to point B, Starfall. In a country torn by war, its unlikely a high born lady would travel on her own, unless the situation was dire. So who, if not Arthur, escorted Ashara on the road?

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

Jon was born 9 months before Dany, who was born 9 months after the Sack of KL (9 moons).

The whole war lasted a year, with the sack happening near the end of it (the sack was not the end of the war....Ned lifting the siege of SE is also counted as part of the war)

So Jon had to be conceived 1-3 months after the war started for his birth could match (week more week less) wth the sack.

In that time frame of 1-3 months Ned had to: go from the Vale to the North (by sea), gather his banners, get down the neck to RR, marry Cat.

All of what most likely took a couple months, so for it to fit with Jon birth, had to be done at an extremely fast pace.

About Robb being older than Jon, that's the official story from Ned and the fact that to the people in WF both looked the same age when they got there. Jon could be one month older and no one would notice.

Just curious, do we have evidence to fix Jon's birth that closely to the sack? Because in order for the puerperal fever as Lyanna's COD theory to be accurate, the birth would have to have occurred within 10 days or so of her death. In that time Ned would have had to go from KL to SE, raise the seige and then make his way to the ToJ. Is that the accepted timeline? If I've missed something, by all means correct me :)

[The Singer]

Ned heard Lyanna scream, he then went up to her and found her in dying in a bloody bed.

To me that sounds like she was in labour when Ned and co were fighting the KG at the TOJ.

That fixes Jon's birth quite accurately.