Jump to content

R+L=J v 59


Stubby

Recommended Posts

I dont know why, but i believe that R+L=J is not true and is not a big enough supprise and ned would have told jon before he went to the wall if he was not his actual father

What? It would be a far bigger surprise to the vast majority of fans than finding out Wylla or Ashara were the mother. Don't let this forum fool you, the vast majority of general GOT fans worldwide have no clue of R+L=J. There's a pretty simple explanation for why Ned doesn't tell Jon the truth before he goes to the wall, it's probably not smart to tell a 14 year old kid that's on his way to the wall where can never again hold any lands or titles, that he's actually the son of prince Rhaegar Targaryen thus making Jon the actual true heir to the throne of Westeros, who knows how Jon could react to that. Ya I think it would be a much safer bet for Ned to wait until after Jon had takin his vows before he drops a bomb like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know why, but i believe that R+L=J is not true and is not a big enough supprise and ned would have told jon before he went to the wall if he was not his actual father

Sorry, how would that be agood idea, when Jon's very existence is treason?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you that i think 90% of the people that watch the show and dont look stuff up would never even come close to guessing R+L=J.

Also, many people read the books and never even see any indication of it. I find this more common in the newer readers that were brought in because of the show and also read the books. They breeze through them because they already saw the show and they dont pay very much attention to small details. Also, while a lot of us had to wait a long time in between books, we had time to study stuff, reread and think about it.

FInally i also think that having all 5 books available to you at the same time, you dont concentrate on one as much as you would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, it does not fit Ned's character, the honorable and honest man that he is avoids lying whenever possible. And the mother being a highborn Lady (as opposed to a commoner) would give Catelyn reason to be jealous (all the rumour about Ashara's beauty) and to fear for her children's place in succession, as a bastard who is completely highborn is maybe more likely legitimized, so from this aspect, it would be salt in Cat's wound.

If anything, inventing a lowborn affair would attract far less attention, hence he gives Wylla's name to Robert when he asks, but for the reason why he does not do so publicly, we're back with Ned's character. Add to that the unknown promise(s), and the fact that the extent of the Dayne's involvement is unclear and they might be offended if he made the supposed dishonour of Ashara by him public, and there you are ;)

eta: and of course I forgot the most apparent reason, the scenario does not survive scrutiny, Eddard and Ashara would have to meet during the war when they were on opposite sides, so passing off Ashara as Jon's mother would be doubted universally and attract unwanted attention, as one could easily figure out the flaws of said scenario. And even the rumour going around at Winterfell does not even involve Jon being her son.

Well, Ned is perfectly capable of lying if the stakes are high enough. I guess I'm approaching it from the aspect of "lie of invention" vs. "lie of omission". Obviously, there is no "right" answer in that kind of question, but (and admittedly w the benefit of hindsight that Ned couldn't have had) in this case it seems invention may have been the better choice for Ned's family dynamic.

Cat's resentments around Jon are mostly centered around his existence being a reminder of Ned's infidelity, no? And that Ned raising him @ WF amongst the trueborn kids is defiance of the cultural norms. What if he named Ashara as the mother & pointed out what all that entailed? That leaving Jon @ Starfall would leave him to he raised by the Daynes, mother-less, father-less? Knowing full well that Ned was responsible for Arthur's death, & possibly indirectly responsible for Ashara's suicide, & how he had to weigh the unfairness of putting that burden on the Daynes & Jon vs. bringing Jon to WF & putting the burden on Cat? Would this not have made Cat's acceptance of Jon a little more tenable to her?

Conversely, we see the way that Jon's lack of knowledge, any knowledge about his mother affects him. Would he not, had he a name & background to attach to his mother, been less negatively affected, in terms of his own self worth, by his bastardy?

Ned's whole shtick to Robert was Ned painting the picture that it was his infidelity he was so ashamed of. Infidelity that Robert was quick to justify, & infidelity that Cat, in her thoughts, was perfectly willing to excuse & forget. Ned chose what to be publicly ashamed about, in other words, & rather than infidelity, he could just as easily chosen to be play the role of "doing the right thing after matters of the heart turned tragic" (I.e. affair w Ashara) which, given R+L=J, is pretty much what he ends up doing anyway, vis-a-vis Jon. It just seems to me, and it's just my opinion, everyone would have been better served had he embraced the Ashara story & ran w it.

As to your specific arguments, again, Ned wasn't above lying. Cat really didn't show any concern about Jon being legitimized and interfering w heirs until Robb brought it up. Ned asking Robert to legitimize Jon would never, ever happen.

Ultimately, what we've seen time & again in this series is that the truth is whatever those in power SAY it is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to your specific arguments, again, Ned wasn't above lying. Cat really didn't show any concern about Jon being legitimized and interfering w heirs until Robb brought it up. Ned asking Robert to legitimize Jon would never, ever happen.

I'd suggest you look at the quotes when Cat sees Jon besting Robb at "swords and sums" and her constantly reminding her children of Jon's bastardy - of course legitimization in fact was extremely unlikely to non-existent, but this definitely contributed to Cat's resentment.

The one instance when Ned really lied, besides the confessing of "treason", is when Robert asked him about Jon's mother, and the wording here is ambiguous. Ned is not above lying, but he avoids it whenever possible and it is not in him to make up a cover story as weak as that one when it can possibly be avoided.

(and btw, if Ned had indeed asked Robert to legitimize Jon and thus risked not only offending Cat but all of the Tullys, I am not as sure as you are that Robert would refuse)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ned's whole shtick to Robert was Ned painting the picture that it was his infidelity he was so ashamed of. Infidelity that Robert was quick to justify, & infidelity that Cat, in her thoughts, was perfectly willing to excuse & forget. Ned chose what to be publicly ashamed about, in other words, & rather than infidelity, he could just as easily chosen to be play the role of "doing the right thing after matters of the heart turned tragic" (I.e. affair w Ashara) which, given R+L=J, is pretty much what he ends up doing anyway, vis-a-vis Jon. It just seems to me, and it's just my opinion, everyone would have been better served had he embraced the Ashara story & ran w it.

Have you considered that Ned purposely made Jon's existence an issue of shame, so that he could justify hiding him from Robert? If he was unrepentant about his "bastard", if Catelyn accepted his existence at a distance, the day might come when Robert expected to see him. As it is, we see Ned using the bastard stigma to keep Jon out of sight when being seen might place him in danger.

As far as we know, not a single person who knew Rhaegar personally (with the exception of blind Maester Aemon and fire-blind Stannis Baratheon) has ever seen Jon up close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ned's whole shtick to Robert was Ned painting the picture that it was his infidelity he was so ashamed of. Infidelity that Robert was quick to justify, & infidelity that Cat, in her thoughts, was perfectly willing to excuse & forget. Ned chose what to be publicly ashamed about, in other words, & rather than infidelity, he could just as easily chosen to be play the role of "doing the right thing after matters of the heart turned tragic" (I.e. affair w Ashara) which, given R+L=J, is pretty much what he ends up doing anyway, vis-a-vis Jon. It just seems to me, and it's just my opinion, everyone would have been better served had he embraced the Ashara story & ran w it.

He chose what to be ashamed of for himself but he would NEVER pin the shame on someone else, and least of all on a woman for whom he might have had some feelings. Even aside the issues of plausibility of his meeting with Ashara during the Rebellion (which, IMHO, is the main reason why he names Wylla to Robert - Robert would have known that they never met and that Ned would never dishonour a lady), by naming her as Jon's mother he would be publically besmirching her honour. She was known to have been dishonoured once already and due to the age difference, Jon cannot be claimed as a fruit of that dishonour; by having her dishonoured a second time she would be considered no better than a whore.

Furthermore, we already have a hint in the gossip spread about Stannis: people like to believe dirty little gossip about very honourable persons as it makes them less perfect. "Doing the right thing" is hardly as enticing as having base carnal needs like everyone else.

As to your specific arguments, again, Ned wasn't above lying. Cat really didn't show any concern about Jon being legitimized and interfering w heirs until Robb brought it up. Ned asking Robert to legitimize Jon would never, ever happen.

Only, he lies in very specific examples: to protect Cat (taking the blame for the kidnapping of Tyrion on himself), to protect Sansa (dishonouring himself by confessing treason he never committed) and to protect Jon (again, dishonouring himself). He sacrifices his honour and his principles for those he loves - an embodiment of love as a death of duty/honour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I think this is the main function and the Authors intent of the Gilly baby switch.

It's the pivotal event for Jon to look back to Neds actions and understand why he did it. Without Jon's being set up in this manner, the character response would not be so bittersweet or so understanding.

And to the list of his mother and father, I would also add the knowledge of the brutal deaths of his true half-siblings- Rhaenys and Aegon. If he finds out who he is before Dany and Aegon do, (Danys already been given hints), that may drive him to one, or the other.

Also, he must find out who he is before he fathers a child. Had he and Ygritte produced a child with silver hair, and purple eyes............. :shocked:

Suppose the child were dark black. Would he claim the throne of the Summer Isles? How would he trust Jalabhar Xho?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Ghost is white because it means Jon is the bastard, then I shudder to think what it means for the other Starks. Their wolves are all a different colour...

Its not Ghost being white that is unique... Its the fact that it is an albino. The eyes are also unique. It isnt the same as comparing brown to blond to white. Its albino vs normal capacity for coloring.

Off topic but it is fitting that Jons wolf is Ghost and odds are Jon will end up being just that in many ways. Each wolf matches each siblings future I think... Sansa, as a true naive lady, dying and becoming a player. Bran becoming the antihesis to winter with his wolf Summer...Rickon the unkempt and wild one with Shaggy Dog on the isle of cannibals and utter chaos... Prophetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you considered that Ned purposely made Jon's existence an issue of shame, so that he could justify hiding him from Robert? If he was unrepentant about his "bastard", if Catelyn accepted his existence at a distance, the day might come when Robert expected to see him. As it is, we see Ned using the bastard stigma to keep Jon out of sight when being seen might place him in danger.

I agree. It's Ned's way of hiding Jon in plain sight, but it has consequences in his relationship with Catelyn.

As far as we know, not a single person who knew Rhaegar personally (with the exception of blind Maester Aemon and fire-blind Stannis Baratheon) has ever seen Jon up close.

I'm interested in the older characters that were at Harrenhal for that Tourney and how many are still about that could visualise Rhaegar from memory and connect that with Jon.

In the north are we talking possibly Lord Manderley and Howland Reed?

Maybe the Blackfish, who has made a statement about Jon and Theon being false and maybe Jon being false meant he was never a bastard. Roose would possibly too.

Would Jaime Lannister make the connection? He didn't when visiting Winterfell, but Ned kept Jon away too.

Barristan Selmy would possibly. I'm not sure if Jorah Mormont would though.

Would Randyll Tarly? Mace Tyrell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you that i think 90% of the people that watch the show and dont look stuff up would never even come close to guessing R+L=J.

Also, many people read the books and never even see any indication of it. I find this more common in the newer readers that were brought in because of the show and also read the books. They breeze through them because they already saw the show and they dont pay very much attention to small details. Also, while a lot of us had to wait a long time in between books, we had time to study stuff, reread and think about it.

FInally i also think that having all 5 books available to you at the same time, you dont concentrate on one as much as you would.

90 percent? I would say 0 viewers would think r + l = j. That concept doesnt even exist on the show. Only readers and forum browsers think that. The only thing that is 90 percent is the amount of viewers who couldnt care less who his parents really are... Which is sad. Hopefully that changes soon bc thats something to capitalize on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is getting too simplistic. I feel I'm needed.

Herakles wasn't a king.

Sir Lancelot wasn't a king.

Cuchulain wasn't a king

Tristan wasn't a king.

Teseus wasn't a king

Siegfried wasn 't a king.

As for Gilgamesh (the first drangonslayer, btw), the jury's out, but he didn't seem to care much for a kingdom, not more than Achylles cared.

Even Julius Caesar was never king!

That stated, why on earth or in hell are some of you so stubbornly fixed to make a king out of Jon?

Eta: I still type awfully

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is getting too simplistic. I feel I'm needed.

Herakles wasn't a king.

Sir Lancelot wasn't a king.

Cuchulain wasn't a king

Tristan wasn't a king.

Teseus wasn't a king

Siegfried wasn 't a king.

As for Gilgamesh (the first drangonslayer, btw), the jury's out, but he didn't seem to care much for a kingdom, not more than Achylles cared.

Even Julius Caesar was never king!

That stated, why on earth or in hell are some of you so stubbornly fixed to make a king out of Jon?

Eta: I still type awfully

Theseus, if that's the one you mean, was a king of Athens.

Herakles was to be High King but was robbed of his birthright by Hera's scheme (and since he was in the habit of marrying royal daughters, he might actually have ruled in his own name, as well).

Caesar was never a king because Romans didn't believe in monarchy; instead, he was a dictator which counted for more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theseus, if that's the one you mean, was a king of Athens.

Herakles was to be High King but was robbed of his birthright by Hera's scheme (and since he was in the habit of marrying royal daughters, he might actually have ruled in his own name, as well).

Caesar was never a king because Romans didn't believe in monarchy; instead, he was a dictator which counted for more.

Theseus, a king? Are you sure? I mean the one who killed the Mynotaurus, or whatever you spell it. Those myths tend to get blurred, but he was more an outlaw than a king, as far as I remember. He had a partner when raiding the countryside, what was his name? I can't remember.

Caesar was not a dictator, just a Consul.

The botom line is still the same: a hero needs not be a king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The raven also called him king, along with calling him by his full name Jon Snow, which is odd to Jon seeing as though the raven had never called Jon by his full name before that moment. I guess it's definitely simply just one huge coincidence that this happens immediately after the raven wakes him up from having a dream about him fighting the others, wielding a flaming sword, covered in black ice armor? Seriously if you want to be cheeky as the R+L=J detractor most long time members of this thread know you to be, then fine that's your prerogative, but no matter how much you want to disprove R+L=J, the supporters here will continue to brush your weak counter arguments aside, and yes I'm fully aware of the past detracting arguments you've 'attempted' to make on R+L=J in previous threads, and no, I don't think they're very convincing to say the least. :P

Isn't the dream about fighting wildlings and his brothers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is getting too simplistic. I feel I'm needed.

Herakles wasn't a king.

Sir Lancelot wasn't a king.

Cuchulain wasn't a king

Tristan wasn't a king.

Teseus wasn't a king

Siegfried wasn 't a king.

As for Gilgamesh (the first drangonslayer, btw), the jury's out, but he didn't seem to care much for a kingdom, not more than Achylles cared.

Even Julius Caesar was never king!

That stated, why on earth or in hell are some of you so stubbornly fixed to make a king out of Jon?

Eta: I still type awfully

First of all there's just as much precedence for legendary kings as there are heroes that never became king so your point on that front is moot. Second of all, this has nothing to do with some feel good ending to the story because Jon was thought to be bastard so now we want to see him at the top. No, this is about necessities of war, and the type of ruler that is needed in the North in order to have a victorious outcome for the northern kingdom against the Others, the North is currently in shambles, the others are on their doorstep, Robb's will is still out their, Arya is doing her faceless thing, Sansa is currently in Littlefinger's control, Bran is crippled, and Rickon is a child, not to mention R+L=J, is lurking over our shoulders so sorry, but whether you'd like to admit it or not, the story seems to certainly be setting up Jon to be king.....And we've given plenty of fully detailed posts listing the logistical reasons of why Jon is the best candidate for the job, along with also explaining how Robb's will and R+L=J will come into play and why he will have to free himself of his vows eventually in order to better help the NW defeat the Others.

If you don't like the idea of it then fine so bet it, but don't try to ask, "Why on earth or in hell are some of you so stubbornly fixed to make a king out of Jon?" Because we'll just come back and ask why are you so 'stubbornly' fixed on him not being king? We think he's going to be king because that's what makes sense to us and we've given plenty of reasons for it, so get over it...Obviously you have your reasons for him not being king and I understand them, and acknowledge that it could be possible that he doesn't end up king. But I'm not gonna change my opinion on the matter just because you think it's 'stubborn'. You have your viewpoints and we have ours....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-read the passage it's not just wildlings and his brothers he describes the Others as well, and having to use fire in order to stop them...

Don't the words "dead men" mean people Jon knows to be dead? Like Ygritte, he kills her in the dream, and none of them are described as wights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all there's just as much precedence for legendary kings as there are heroes that never became king so your point on that front is moot. Second of all, this has nothing to do with some feel good ending to the story because Jon was thought to be bastard so now we want to see him at the top. No, this is about necessities of war, and the type of ruler that is needed in the North in order to have a victorious outcome for the northern kingdom against the Others, the North is currently in shambles, the others are on their doorstep, Robb's will is still out their, Arya is doing her faceless thing, Sansa is currently in Littlefinger's control, Bran is crippled, and Rickon is a child, not to mention R+L=J, is lurking over our shoulders so sorry, but whether you'd like to admit it or not, the story seems to certainly be setting up Jon to be king.....And we've given plenty of fully detailed posts listing the logistical reasons of why Jon is the best candidate for the job, along with also explaining how Robb's will and R+L=J will come into play and why he will have to free himself of his vows eventually in order to better help the NW defeat the Others.

If you don't like the idea of it then fine so bet it, but don't try to ask, "Why on earth or in hell are some of you so stubbornly fixed to make a king out of Jon?" Because we'll just come back and ask why are you so 'stubbornly' fixed on him not being king? We think he's going to be king because that's what makes sense to us and we've given plenty of reasons for it, so get over it...Obviously you have your reasons for him not being king and I understand them, and acknowledge that it could be possible that he doesn't end up king. But I'm not gonna change my opinion on the matter just because you think it's 'stubborn'. You have your viewpoints and we have ours....

If it eases your mind, I think stubborn someone who refuses to reason or discuss, not the one who defends a viewpoint.

Jon's fate is not a throne, he's one of the dragon's heads. The very night Danaerys gave up Rhaego: "She glimpsed the shadow of a great wolf, and another like a man wreathed in flames." She found a new destiny, tied to Jon and Tyrion, None of them will sit the IT, but they'll defeat the Others.

I'm seing some think like Tywin Lannister. Haven't you noticed who is the enemy? We were introduced to them in the first prologue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't the words "dead men" mean people Jon knows to be dead? Like Ygritte, he kills her in the dream, and none of them are described as wights

No, the first four dead men he encounters he doesn't know, it isn't until he slays Ygritte that he starts seeing ppl he knows, which is when the nightmarish part of the dream starts. Also the fact that he's wielding a flaming sword while he's battling in the snow is a reference to original AA in the first Battle for Dawn against the Others.

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...