Jump to content

R+L=J v 59


Stubby

Recommended Posts

As I suggested earlier, I highly doubt GRRM planted the fisherman's daughter story in ADWD seriously expecting or wanting people to read it and think, "OMG so that's who his mother is!" It's so obviously red herring gossip that frankly I'm embarrassed for the people on here who continue to take it seriously. It doesn't fit the timeline for what we know of Jon's birth, it doesn't fit Ned's story about committing adultery, it contains at least one pretty big factual error right off the bat, it contains absolutely no links to Wylla in Dorne other than one girl from a different region who happens to have the same name. It explains nothing about why Jon's mother is such a gigantic secret, nor does it in any way address what happened with Lyanna. There is absolutely nothing about it that works apart from people's bizarre denial of the truth.

Like I said, it's embarrassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the fisherman's daughter, it is never actually stated when Ned left her. Borrell's exact words are "They say he left her with a bag of silver and a bastard in her belly. Jon Snow she named him, after Arryn." The last part is strange, because why in seven hells should a fisherman's daughter name her child after Lord Arryn, who probably never even visited the Sisters as it's mentioned that the Eyrie's grasp on the Sisters was tenuous at best and the islands are really only loyal to themselves. Ned named Jon, so if the fisherman's daughter was Wylla, either he told her to name the child Jon after finding out she was pregnant, or was with her when Jon was born.

Or Borrell is talking out of his ass and doesn't actually know anything first-hand about what happened. He's only parroting gossip.

Here's a hint: If the story doesn't make that much logistical sense, it's probably not true. As in, instead of hurting yourself doing mental gymnastics to explain why she'd name her kid after Jon Arryn, maybe consider the very real possibility that Ned isn't her kid's father and she didn't name him after Arryn at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Martin said Eddard "probably" named Jon. In other words, he did not answer the question. But that doesn't matter, since my theory is that Eddard told Wylla "if it's a boy I want to name him Jon" and then, when he was born, Wylla complied and named him Jon. There's no contradiction between what Mr. Martin said and what Godric said.

Incorrect. He answered it to his best knowledge, i.e. he probably hadn't thought about this aspect before, but not necessarily in relation to all three mentioned character. Ned was the one who named Jon, fullstop, meaning that the mother was not around to do so, and, "mother, father, Ned" instead of "Dany by her mother and Tyrion and Jon by their fathers" tells volumes about Ned's relation to Jon.

And it seems a little disrespectful to Mr. Martin to say that he would take the time to write this story in the novel, make it a believable answer to one of the mysteries he has crafted, and then give interviews where he tells you its not true. That would just be wierd.

He does none of the kind, so in future refrain from insinuating something like that on my part, will you. In case it escaped your attention, GRRM provides several plausibly sounding alternatives and they apparently cannot be all correct, and his statement doesn't coutner anything directly, it's up to the reader to connect the dots.

There are two answers to this. One is that he does not want Catelyn to find out that the supposed wetnurse was really his mistress. Why would he go to all the trouble to hide this from his wife only to turn around and tell a young child?

/facepalm/

That would require Ned to be so gross as to take his mistress under his wife's roof. - We know that he didn't anyway, since the wetnurse apparently wasn't behaving like Jon's mother - if you need an example of a behaviour of a mother forced to leave behind a child whom she has nursed for months (or years), take a look at Gilly.

The other is that he does not owe Jon any explanations. Lord Eddard is a harsh man. "WInter is coming" and all of that. He gives orders to his wife and expects her to obey without question. He lets people think he killed Arthur Dayne in single combat to enhance his reputation even though it isn't true. He chops people's heads off in front of little children and makes them watch the blood spray all over the place.

He has a bit of a soft spot for his daughters but he doesn't think he has to answer his bastard's questions about his former lovers.

Hello? Did we read the same book? There's little wonder that you keep proposing things like "Ned's mistress lived in Winterfell" if you have such a poor grasp of his character.

Plus, he does feel that he owes Jon, or why do you think that he wishes to talk to him so much when he is in the black cells, and feels shame?

I don't think he told Robert much at all, beyond the name Wylla. I think Robert is fishing for information, not retelling the story.

Yes, he is fishing for information - about Wylla's looks, because he never saw her and knows how uncharacteristic that fling was of Ned, so he is curious. However, it is clear that Ned had claimed that his affair with Wylla was a brief one, most likely a one-night stand.

Why do we think that dishonoring means breaking marriage vows? Having a bastard born while his wif was pregnant with another child would be pretty dishonorable, don't you think? That would mean he had two different women pregnant at the same time.

Are you married? What makes your spouse unfaithful - getting someone preggers before your marriage, or afterwards? You're sticking to the word "dishonour" without taking into account the context of "gods and men", which refers to the wedding ceremony and the vows taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All we need to know about "The Fisherman's Daughter" is that in 2006 David and Dan correctly guessed Jon Snow's parentage. So obviously TFD is a red herring.

What I take TFD and Ned Dayne's stories to show is that people all across Westeros know of Jon Snow. Ned's "honor" is quite famous, as is the fact that he had a bastard. When R+L=J is revealed to Westeros, it will generally be accepted, since it seems people have been speculating from Dorne to White Harbor as to the mother is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect. He answered it to his best knowledge, i.e. he probably hadn't thought about this aspect before, but not necessarily in relation to all three mentioned character. Ned was the one who named Jon, fullstop, meaning that the mother was not around to do so, and, "mother, father, Ned" instead of "Dany by her mother and Tyrion and Jon by their fathers" tells volumes about Ned's relation to Jon.

This is a huge one. He links Dany to her mother and Tyrion to his father but just refers to Ned as Ned, without specifying any specific relationship to Jon.

There's also the matter of the showrunners guessing Jon's real mother and GRRM giving them the go-ahead based on that. Call me crazy but I don't think parroting back a red herring from the first book is really all that impressive such that it demonstrates a sufficient command of the material necessary to produce the show. And people have pointed this fact out before and it just keeps getting ignored.

Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt. :dunce:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stumbled upon a pretty decent short Rhaegar tribute on Youtube:

How can you manage to argue when you actually agree?

Settled that Jon's not into the IT thing, what will his fate be?

Maybe the answer lies in liguistics. GRRM uses the indo-european root mag, mah = big, high to style the Magnar.

I see Jon rather tied to rex, rix, raj, that's a leader, but not neccesarily a king, in origin. You still can see both roots together in maharaja. There's something over a raj.

He'll be the Vercingetorix = Overlord of allied combattants.

He's AAR, and he'll unite the remnants of former enemies (NW, wildlings, Stannis' host, northmen) and lead them against the Others.

That's an important task, isn't it?

He has said that he won't deprive his brother of his birth right, more or less.

The other day, looking around for myths and heroes, I quoted Theseus as an instance. As I didn't remember clearly, after that I browsed the relate of his live by Plutarc, and I was most surprised.

Theseus was a baseborn son of king Aegeus and a foreign princess. He was raised by his mother's family. When his parentage was revealed, he was given his father's tokens, hidden beneath a rock. He united several tribes into a polis, and welcomed foreigners into it. Eventually, he willingly resigned his regal privileges.

That takes us to Tyrion, which sounds like tyranos = rex, more or less. But that's another story.

Btw, would you mind if he's a bastard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you manage to argue when you actually agree?

Settled that Jon's not into the IT thing, what will his fate be?

Maybe the answer lies in liguistics. GRRM uses the indo-european root mag, mah = big, high to style the Magnar.

I see Jon rather tied to rex, rix, raj, that's a leader, but not neccesarily a king, in origin. You still can see both roots together in maharaja. There's something over a raj.

He'll be the Vercingetorix = Overlord of allied combattants.

He's AAR, and he'll unite the remnants of former enemies (NW, wildlings, Stannis' host, northmen) and lead them against the Others.

That's an important task, isn't it?

He has said that he won't deprive his brother of his birth right, more or less.

The other day, looking around for myths and heroes, I quoted Theseus as an instance. As I didn't remember clearly, after that I browsed the relate of his live by Plutarc, and I was most surprised.

Theseus was a baseborn son of king Aegeus and a foreign princess. He was raised by his mother's family. When his parentage was revealed, he was given his father's tokens, hidden beneath a rock. He united several tribes into a polis, and welcomed foreigners into it. Eventually, he willingly resigned his regal privileges.

That takes us to Tyrion, which sounds like tyranos = rex, more or less. But that's another story.

Btw, would you mind if he's a bastard?

Agree with what? Whether Jon would sit on the IT or be KINT, it still makes him a king regardless. No I don't mind him being a bastard, but the simple fact is GRRM has shown far to many routes that could lead to Jon being king, now I personally believe it will be KINT, and I've stated my reasons for that and how it will directly correlate with the war against the Others several times. But you're clinging on to this small hope that Jon will always be the bastard we fell in love with in GOT, trying to use other stories of heroes that didn't become king in order to backup your reasoning which is moot because there are just as many stories about men that were raised under hidden identities, who then eventually became legendary kings, as there are heroes that weren't kings, instead of just accepting what GRRM the author of this particular series has put in front of you.

Earlier you tried to argue that Jon couldn't be a head of the three-headed dragon if he's king, yet you failed to realize that the original members of the first three-headed dragon in which the Targ house sigil is based off of/represents, had a king in Aegon l. There doesn't have to be one without the other, get over it.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys got it all wrong. Jon is the son of Benjen Stark and his Wildling love. The Night Watch's commander found out and Benjen had to send his pregnant mistress to his brother for safe-keeping and covering up. Or else, they'd both have been executed. Ned was busy making war, so he asked Ashara - who was pregnant with his kid - to take them in. This is how Wylla ended up in the Dayne household. Her name's fake of course and the excuse for taking them in was that she was supposed to be the wet-nurse for Ashara's kid. Well, that one was stillborn and Ashara killed herself - from grief about her daughter as much as about Ned's betrayal when he married Catelyn instead of her. Wylla got it into her head that she wanted to return to Benjen, but Ned stopped her. He took the baby as a hostage against her good behaviour, but promised that he would raise him as his own son and provide well for him.

Oh, and the Fisherman's daughter: Her son really is Ned's bastard but he never thought twice about him.

Or: It's just a tale. People are wondering over Jon Snow all over the Realm and funny tales are being told here and there where Ned happened to have dropped by or was rumoured to be.

Ned never told Jon or anyone else about who Jon's mother was because he was ashamed of the Wildling heritage and because he feared for Benjen's and Jon's safety should the truth come out. He also thought that Jon would be less than pleased to learn that his mother was a Wildling, because he feels it is a shame.

Seriously, this is why I think it could actually be true:

  • We probably need someone alive to tell us the real story. It could be Howland Reed (in favour of R+L=J), but Benjen is also very conspicuous by his absence.
  • There are already too many lost princes out there. It's getting ridiculous.
  • I think Jon will play a significant role in a king-like position, but I'd really like it a hell of a lot better if his royalty was somehow earned the Wildling way - the King is the best man we have - than by him being fathered by a Targaryen.
  • I find the Rhaegar / Lyanna romance rather unconvincing. And even if there was romance, it's hard to stomach that they were both irresponsible enough to cause the civil war for the sake of their love. They could at least have declared themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ser, you wound me. FrozenFire ∞ quite obviously and... astigmatically ;)

Btw I was sure you'd appreciate our old little contributions to your fill-me-in plea about Jenny-Duncan-Rhaegar-Lyanna parallel :lol:

Still it doesn't narratively explain why Ned denied Jon an armless truth while confiding in others.

hehehe, yeah I know who you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys got it all wrong. Jon is the son of Benjen Stark and his Wildling love. The Night Watch's commander found out and Benjen had to send his pregnant mistress to his brother for safe-keeping and covering up. Or else, they'd both have been executed. Ned was busy making war, so he asked Ashara - who was pregnant with his kid - to take them in. This is how Wylla ended up in the Dayne household. Her name's fake of course and the excuse for taking them in was that she was supposed to be the wet-nurse for Ashara's kid. Well, that one was stillborn and Ashara killed herself - from grief about her daughter as much as about Ned's betrayal when he married Catelyn instead of her. Wylla got it into her head that she wanted to return to Benjen, but Ned stopped her. He took the baby as a hostage against her good behaviour, but promised that he would raise him as his own son and provide well for him.

Oh, and the Fisherman's daughter: Her son really is Ned's bastard but he never thought twice about him.

Or: It's just a tale. People are wondering over Jon Snow all over the Realm and funny tales are being told here and there where Ned happened to have dropped by or was rumoured to be.

Ned never told Jon or anyone else about who Jon's mother was because he was ashamed of the Wildling heritage and because he feared for Benjen's and Jon's safety should the truth come out. He also thought that Jon would be less than pleased to learn that his mother was a Wildling, because he feels it is a shame.

Seriously, this is why I think it could actually be true:

  • We probably need someone alive to tell us the real story. It could be Howland Reed (in favour of R+L=J), but Benjen is also very conspicuous by his absence.
  • There are already too many lost princes out there. It's getting ridiculous.
  • I think Jon will play a significant role in a king-like position, but I'd really like it a hell of a lot better if his royalty was somehow earned the Wildling way - the King is the best man we have - than by him being fathered by a Targaryen.
  • I find the Rhaegar / Lyanna romance rather unconvincing. And even if there was romance, it's hard to stomach that they were both irresponsible enough to cause the civil war for the sake of their love. They could at least have declared themselves.

This is supposed to be taken seriously? If so, please feel free to peruse the reference guide on the first page of each R+L thread before we start discussing anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhere in a far away TV land, Al Bundy is reading this and shaking his head........

For your reference to a 1980's tv icon, your post has been judged spin worthy. Enjoy this piece of classic 70's epicness may your soul be healed by the greatness that is Lynda Carter.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lSJd0CLc8XQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For your reference to a 1980's tv icon, your post has been judged spin worthy. Enjoy this piece of classic 70's epicness may your soul be healed by the greatness that is Lynda Carter.

http://m.youtube.com...h?v=lSJd0CLc8XQ

Haha awesome!

I am thinking of revoking your spin worthy award, was that Kristen Stewart sword fighting from Snow White and the huntsman? :shocked:

Kristen Stwewart will never be Lyanna Stark. Ever!

God no that's not Kristen Stewart! I think you know me better than that, the actress in the video is Katie McGrath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha awesome!

God no that's not Kristen Stewart! I think you know me better than that, the actress in the video is Katie McGrath.

As the person wearing the silver armor during the fight scene cannot and will not be recognized, the spin is sustained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the person wearing the silver armor during the fight scene cannot and will not be recognized, the spin is sustained.

Haha well I certainly see your point, but really it's Katie Mcgrath and I'm almost positive the silver armor scene is from the show Merlin lol:

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lea9d9sVPV1qauj5io1_500.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For your reference to a 1980's tv icon, your post has been judged spin worthy. Enjoy this piece of classic 70's epicness may your soul be healed by the greatness that is Lynda Carter.

http://m.youtube.com...h?v=lSJd0CLc8XQ

:lol: You know you're really okay, Ser C. Once upon a time I wanted to be Wonder Woman. Either that or the She Hulk ;)

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...