Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy

I won't speak for Markg171 but i must say if this were a representation of an MMA fight you would be walking in with my favor  that was well reasoned (I do so miss Markg171 on Westeros.org).Especially when it comes to the line of succession an arguement that has nothing to do with who Jon's parents are and an arguement that bogs down the arguement.I sure do appreciate Kingmonkey for removing most of the noise from this theory and present it as is.Typically,when i get as an arguement in favor of R+L=J the KGs at the tower it still boggles my in light of the WBs information.But,what can you do some people's mind won't be changed on this matter.

Why thank you so much m'lady, I consider that high praise.   

And yes, the child-king was foolish to dismiss markg171 from the kingsguard. He is about as non-dramatic as they come, and sticks to cold hard canon. His dismissal was not without hypocrisy, but I'll leave it for him to tell that tale. 



Agreed.

And I cannot say enough how much kingmonkey's essay made me re-appreciate RLJ. After following the road to Starfall, and seeing the light, I was struck by how much RLJ still makes sense. Which is really saying something for me. Ever since I re-evaluated Eddard IX in a reread with Mojo, without my blue-rose tinted glasses, RLJ seemed quite implausible. And while it still does, I find myself still enjoying the idea of it because of KM's essay.  

I need to PM sfdanny and some other folks at the mothership sometime. Keep meaning to and forgetting. I quite sincerely want to attempt to patch the holes in RLJ. I think it will be a rewarding process that is increasingly difficult to conduct at a certain other place. A sober test of the theory's mettle has been needed for some time. 

Ahhh, but see you mistake me. These are all metaphorical and symbolic reasons. I said nothing about these.

The point was that Jon and his story require nothing more than what has been presented. When you reach outside of his story, pluck bits and pieces here and there, interpret things as you see fit, and think about where you envision the series going, then of course you can make the case that he should be someone else. Maybe it's even the right thing, and you're supposed to do this. My point was though that Jon and his story alone however don't need any of that. It works completely fine on the basis of being Eddard's bastard son. It requires no more as is. Jon's story does not need to be explained or flow any better than it has. From a story standpoint, everything works in Jon's story on the basis of him being Eddard's bastard. It's not needed anything more so far.



Well one, we don't know that Dawn is chosen by merit, at least not on the basis that you seem to be ascribing to it which is some "goodly" merit. We only know that it goes to the most worthy knight of House Dayne, but we have no idea what the worth is that is being judged.

And secondly, you are still ascribing to the fact that Jon needs to be "somebody" to make him do or receive "something" for him to be "special". You are still making Jon special for the sake of making Jon special so that he can do special things. Arthur Dayne was a fantastic swordsman sure, but without Dawn he wasn't without peers per GRRM's own mouth. Dawn made Arthur special, not his fantastic sword skills which were the equal of at least Barristan. Fantastic though he was, Dawn was what made him special, and he could only wield Dawn because he was a Dayne. Even Randyll Tarly, dick that he is, recognizes that Brienne seems better than she actually is because she's wielding Valyrian steel which makes her quicker than her opponents. That without it she's no better than most knights, which she's not. These special swords are making people special that otherwise weren't.

So if you want Jon to be a Dayne so that he can wield Dawn, you essentially want Jon to be able to have a magic sword that sets him apart, but that he can only have the sword because of who he descends from. He's special so that he can be more special then. It's a self fulfilling circle. Now of course I don't mind that so long as Jon NEEDS to have Dawn. If Dawn does nothing more for Jon than any super light and strong greatsword could do, then that's unnecessary to make him half Dayne simply so that he could've used this super fast and sharp sword. Which again makes him special so that he can be special.



I'm not saying his other half might not be special. But at least if he's only special on the basis of his Stark blood, which so far can explain all his specialness, then going outside Eddard Stark as his father is an unnecessary complication. Being his bastard will give us everything that can explain what's happened in Jon's story. You therefore need a reason for him not to be Eddard's bastard to warrant the change. Simply making him Lyanna, Brandon's, or Benjen's, while making him do nothing that Eddard's own son could've done, is nothing more than a shock inclusion. And if indeed Jon needs to be special from his other half's family, then it also needs to come from a way that Eddard himself also couldn't have provided through his own liaisons. Because again, it needs to be this way, otherwise it's nothing more than shock.

Which is unfortunately, while I do like the ALJ theory, one of my biggest problems with it: Ned and Ashara can give us this same bloodline. Does that mean I necessarily think that N+A=J is more likely? No, but it doesn't seem like it's a necessary inclusion to swap out Ned for Lyanna, and Ashara for Arthur, when the story did at least already have that pair possible and presented for Jon, and the two pairs do the same thing. The change would simply then be more or less shock for me seeing as Ned and Ashara pretty much can give Jon everything he "needs" from a Lyanna and Arthur pairing. He should have to get something that he could only have or do if he's Lyanna and Arthur's son, and that simply couldn't be possible if he were Ned and Ashara's son.

We can want Jon to be Rhaegar's son, Robert's son, Arthur's son, etc., but the text would have to require it. Not want it. So far my point is that it has not ever needed it. And it hasn't. It's why I treat any X+Y=J theory that's not E+W=J as a "future" theory. Because essentially you are saying that Jon needs to be someone other than Eddard and Wylla's son to explain some future part of Jon's story as AGOT-ADWD still works if Jon's just who we're told he is. People complain that GRRM has dragged on this reveal that Jon is somebody else, but the more likely answer is that the story simply hasn't been in the right place to warrant it. There's no point revealing that Jon is Rhaegar, Arthur, Robert, Brandon, whoever's son if the story doesn't need it at that point in time. The story requires the change, it's not just done for the want of a change. Which was one of my problems with the show's reveal that Jon was Lyanna's son. It did nothing but provide shock and fan service at that moment. Jon being Lyanna's son really changed nothing beyond that "okay Jon isn't Ned's son". It's just a fan service moment to reveal it then and in such fashion because it wasn't actually necessary for where the story was and what was happening. Jon didn't need to not be Eddard's bastard when it was revealed that he wasn't Ned Stark's bastard.

lol! Yes, imagine that- I convinced voice to lean toward the dark side in a PM about a year ago. I still never finished my reread. I figured I could just keep watching prestonjacobs videos to refresh my memory.

No, I knew I was broaching the territory of metaphor and parallel, and that you would disagree. LOL

A few tidbits are not speculative though, and Ned being Jon's father do not explain them. First, the obvious: Jon looks more like the previous generation of Starks than he does the current generation. The one exception to this is Arya, who looks like Lyanna.

And even then, it may be that Jon is even darker than Ned/Arya/Lyanna are/were. But I won't go down that rabbit hole. I'll stick to non-speculative suggestions.

Lyanna died in a bed of blood around the time Jon was born. That may mean nothing, or it may mean something. But it is a recurring theme for Ned. Ned thinks about Jon a lot, but not as one of his own children, and does not think about Jon's mother, like ever, unless she is Lyanna. 

One of the contexts in which Ned thinks about Jon, is lust. I will not bog down this thread with my analysis of that, because I already have done so in this thread. LOL

But there can be no doubt that Jon was sired by lust, and there can be no doubt that Ned was not a particularly lecherous man, even in his youth. Even Robert pointed out that there was only that one time that Ned forgot about his honor. Ned names Wylla, yet never thinks about her. 

Next, Ned's separation of Jon:

Ned thought, If it came to that, the life of some child I did not know, against Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon, what would I do? Even more so, what would Catelyn do, if it were Jon's life, against the children of her body? He did not know. He prayed he never would.

I understand why Ned would focus on Jon in relation to Cat in the second sentence. But if Ned is Jon's father, it doesn't make sense that he wouldn't list him with his own children in the first sentence. 

Next, Ned's inclusion of a male child:

… but then somehow he was back at Winterfell again, in the godswood looking down upon his father. Lord Eddard seemed much younger this time. His hair was brown, with no hint of grey in it, his head bowed. "… let them grow up close as brothers, with only love between them," he prayed, "and let my lady wife find it in her heart to forgive …"

We've had that discussion too, and I know you favor Theon for the above male child. But that is precisely the problem you have with X+L=J right? People favoring a certain line of speculation because it fits with what they want, rather than the story that has been told. 

Well, we have no reason to assume the above is talking about Robb and Jon or Robb and Theon. Ned could have been talking about Benjen joining the Watch ... who knows? 

But such vague interpretations, or the Theon interpretation, are in and of themselves conscious decisions to ignore a large part of Jon's story. That large part, is Catelyn. 

Many men fathered bastards. Catelyn had grown up with that knowledge. It came as no surprise to her, in the first year of her marriage, to learn that Ned had fathered a child on some girl chance met on campaign. He had a man's needs, after all, and they had spent that year apart, Ned off at war in the south while she remained safe in her father's castle at Riverrun. Her thoughts were more of Robb, the infant at her breast, than of the husband she scarcely knew. He was welcome to whatever solace he might find between battles. And if his seed quickened, she expected he would see to the child's needs.

He did more than that. The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him "son" for all the north to see. When the wars were over at last, and Catelyn rode to Winterfell, Jon and his wet nurse had already taken up residence.

That cut deep. Ned would not speak of the mother, not so much as a word, but a castle has no secrets, and Catelyn heard her maids repeating tales they heard from the lips of her husband's soldiers. They whispered of Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's Kingsguard, and of how their young lord had slain him in single combat. And they told how afterward Ned had carried Ser Arthur's sword back to the beautiful young sister who awaited him in a castle called Starfall on the shores of the Summer Sea. The Lady Ashara Dayne, tall and fair, with haunting violet eyes. It had taken her a fortnight to marshal her courage, but finally, in bed one night, Catelyn had asked her husband the truth of it, asked him to his face.

That was the only time in all their years that Ned had ever frightened her. "Never ask me about Jon," he said, cold as ice. "He is my blood, and that is all you need to know. And now I will learn where you heard that name, my lady." She had pledged to obey; she told him; and from that day on, the whispering had stopped, and Ashara Dayne's name was never heard in Winterfell again.

Whoever Jon's mother had been, Ned must have loved her fiercely, for nothing Catelyn said would persuade him to send the boy away. It was the one thing she could never forgive him. She had come to love her husband with all her heart, but she had never found it in her to love Jon. She might have overlooked a dozen bastards for Ned's sake, so long as they were out of sight. Jon was never out of sight, and as he grew, he looked more like Ned than any of the trueborn sons she bore him. Somehow that made it worse. "Jon must go," she said now.

"He and Robb are close," Ned said. "I had hoped …"

Compare this back to Ned's prayer:

… but then somehow he was back at Winterfell again, in the godswood looking down upon his father. Lord Eddard seemed much younger this time. His hair was brown, with no hint of grey in it, his head bowed. "… let them grow up close as brothers, with only love between them," he prayed, "and let my lady wife find it in her heart to forgive …"

And to Ned's separation of Jon:

Ned thought, If it came to that, the life of some child I did not know, against Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon, what would I do? Even more so, what would Catelyn do, if it were Jon's life, against the children of her body? He did not know. He prayed he never would.

So while I applaud and admire your skepticism when it comes to symbolic parallels and speculation, I must point out that to suggest Jon's story to date makes perfect sense if Jon is simply Ned's bastard is no less biased a stance than wanting Jon to be special, or believing Jon bears an ancestry that does not include Ned. 

There is, per the text, only "one thing" Catelyn could never forgive, and that was Jon's inclusion at Winterfell. That isn't interpretation or symbolism, that's canon. And we have heard Ned plead more times than I can count, but this is the one and only forgiveness he asked from Catelyn. It is highly suggestive, even on its own. And, well, it is not on its own. 



A great point. And really, one more reason why we need a Jon/SotM thread. 

Jon is not a "goodly" man is he? 

That is not at all what I meant to suggest. Can one be bad, yet merit a sword? 

Yes, of course. 

Jon is morally flawed, on multiple counts. Dawn is not presented to the noblest boy scout, and we have no reason to assume all bearers of Dawn were "goodly." I've written a theory to the opposite point, actually. 

Instead, Dawn passes from one worthy swordsman to the next. It is all about worth. That is the sort of merit I was speaking of, and it is that sort of merit, merit as a swordsman, that makes the absence of a current Sword of the Morning all the more peculiar. Gerold "Darkstar" Dayne, Edric Dayne, and even Edric's unnamed lord father have all, conspicuously, not been deemed worthy in the years following Arthur's death. Edric's squire-status might explain why he was not named SotM, but even that isn't sufficient considering the fact that the sword predates knighthood and squiredom. In any case, surely there are other Dayne'ish swordsmen who might want to fill the office. 

Yet we hear of none.

I think that the vacancy is due to the fact that Arthur was killed by a Stark, but I'll try to stay focused for once.



That's not really what it's about for me. I do not think, for example, that Dawn will make Jon into the world's greatest swordsman. I think Dawn would offer Jon a much needed plot conflict:  darkness or light. Starkness would favor the first, Dayne-ness would favor the second. 

What I am hoping/wanting for Jon is not to be extra special because of his ancestry, but extra-conflicted. Ned+Some Woman does not provide that. If anything, that would put Jon at ease in his Starkness, and allow him to forget his motherhood entirely. 

If anything, Martin seems to be building towards the opposite climax for Jon. He repeatedly wonders about his mother's identity, and repeatedly feels shame for his "father's" dishonor. Ned+Some Woman resolves none of that. And Ned+Wylla would only reinforce that. 

Martin could totally go that way, but it doesn't seem likely. He's made a big deal out of Jon's mom. 



Agreed. But as I've hinted at, while I think Jon's worthiness to bear [HASH]Dawn is contingent upon his having some House Dayne ancestry, I do not think Jon+Dawn=SuperJon. My views on Dawn are not exactly mainstream, nor relevant to this part of the debate, so I'll save them for other threads. But for now I'll just say that I think Jon will be the end of Dawn, as a sword, and the catharsis to end of the Long Night. 



Jon's Stark blood can indeed explain his specialness, but it cannot explain certain discrepancies in his story as a character if it comes from Ned. And really, it doesn't seem all that shocking that it wouldn't. Does it? I mean, GRRM has primed the readership for babyswaps in like every volume so far. 

Ned being Jon's father would smack of far cheaper shock-value a this point. Just my opinion, of course. But asserting that Ned is the only parent that wouldn't be anything more than a shock-inclusion seems off to me.

Ned being Jon's foster father would resolve a lot of conflict for Jon. He would no longer feel like the solitary disgrace upon his Father's Honor. Rather than be shocking, I see it as cathartic.

If Jon's mother is Wylla, that resolves little and less, right? For one, she's still alive. Jon will have a dead Stark father, and a living wetnurse mother. End scene. 

What does that do for our favorite bastard?

And I'm not talking about magic, heroics, or symbolism. I'm talking about Jon's story and character as a man. Assuming he is alive. LOL

If Jon is dead, I'm all for Ned+Wylla. LOL

But it seems that Jon is set on a collision course with buried truths. A Ghost, moving deeper and deeper into the crypts. Sorry, am drifting into symbolism. 



Yup. I'm quite fond of Ned+Ashara, and wrote the bicentennial "essay" on the topic. It was rather easy, because the text itself provided the body of the "essay". wolfmaid7 never used it at the W though.   But that's okay, it was for all intents and purposes, nothing more than a bibliography. LOL

Why? 

Well because literally every single mention of Ashara relates her to Ned, A Stark, or Jon Snow. 

As you say, N+A=J gives us the same genetics as A+L=J. But genetics are not really at issue. Jon could be a random orphan Ned brought home, who only looks like him by sheer coincidence, and it wouldn't matter. He'd still be Ned's bastard, because Ned called him son for all the north to see and hear. 

But that would not explain the discrepancies I brought up at the beginning of this post. NAJ would explain some of them rather nicely:  Ned's shame, the quieting of Ashara's name in Winterfell, Ashara's suicide, and naming Jon as his son/blood (Robert could scarcely deny one of his bastards, whose mother was a Florent). But others, it neglects:  Ned's prayer (close as brothers), Ned's exclusion of Jon when listing his children, Ned's desire for forgiveness, Ned's old-as-Jon lies.

Most perplexing of all, is the reason why Ned never told Jon about Wylla/Ashara, if she was his mother. But, those are probably conversations for other threads, such as your/our Eddard+Wylla=Jon thread. 



I don't think the revelation has been dragged on at all. I am quite content with the state of that. I wouldn't mind the story overall being published a bit more quickly, but in terms of the parentage mystery, it seems on-pace to me. 

E+W=J suffices because it is canon. It is the story as told by both Eddard Stark and Edric Dayne. I have no issue with that. 

But we may have to agree to disagree regarding the notion that it adequately encapsulates the story to date. I have no doubt that GRRM has intentionally cast doubt upon Jon's parentage. As we agree, a large part of that doubt seems to exist for the sole purpose of luring people into a fantasy trope. 

But that is not the only purpose. Jon's parentage is and has always been an intentional mystery in ASOIAF. Martin referenced it as early as 1993 in this letter. While that letter is certainly far from being an accurate synopsis of the series as published, it is nonetheless interesting that a secret parentage scenario for Jon Snow was on Martin's mind at the time. It is a mystery that presents itself early on, and is only reinforced in ADWD, not only by Ned's prayer (chapter 34), which I know you both dispute by suggesting Theon and dismiss as a dream, but by Wyman Manderly in Davos I (chapter 9) and the tale of the fisherman's daughter. 

Ned is assumption, the question of the mother is the variable. 

If GRRM has no desire to surprise his readership, he will go with Ned+?... after all, he already has at least thrice. But I think he's proven that he is good at surprises. 

We here may not be surprised by X+Lyanna, but most casual readers would be. The author must then decide how to surprise most non-casual/avid fantasy readers. I think R+L=J serves that purpose. Ned+? would be awesomely anticlimactic for those of us who have studied the series with great intensity, but wouldn't be very interesting from a storytelling standpoint and would leave some contradictions in the narrative for most readers. And that is coming from a guy who values Jon's bastardy more than his heroism.

SlyWren, Do you still have your original Jon as SotM OP from Westeros saved? Or actually any of those Death to Dawn threads. If you're willing to repost them over here I'd gladly help out with the formatting, etc.