Eurytus wrote:
This is incorrect. Jon often reflects on his bastard status. It is a major factor in his life and one of the things (perhaps the main thing) that makes him seriously consider Stannis’ offer of Winterfell.
I don't take Jon for an idiot, Eurytus. That's what he'd have to be not to realize the practical implications of his existance and his parentage. He KNOWS he's a bastard. Therefore, he does
of course think about it. A person can't go through life not considering the next step and, as you pointed out, his bastardy does allow or deny him many of those paths.
All I'm saying is that had been the kind to DWELL on it and blame the world, go around huffing and puffing and doing nothing else in life, I'd have positively hated him. I've read more than enough characters like that. Or he could have turned into another Littlefinger (though I don't think there's room in the world for TWO characters like that! I just love Littlefinger
... hmm.. totally off-topic
). Let's put it this way. If you compare how much Jon is fixated on his bastardy, and how much Cat is... Well, is that more clear, now?
Eurytus wrote:
And so far we have the fact that Jon does not criticise Cat and the fact that none of you have even provided examples of where Cat treats him ill.
So what exactly are we even discussing here?
I feel compelled to start copy/pasting from my last post. You obviously have not read it.
Eurytus wrote:
Ned NEVER once considers Jon his son. He never mentions it once, not externally, not internally. And in the quote mentioned it is explicit.
You seem to take an interesting stand on reading between the lines. As in, you
may, others may not. (And no, I'm not just talking about this particular quote.)
Eurytus wrote:
Ned could have asked Robert to proclaim Jon’s legitimacy at any time. And if he wanted to ensure that Jon was never discovered to be a Targaryen what better way would there be?
Now THAT I need a quote for. What makes you say so?
Eurytus wrote:
If you are condemning Cat for being BETTER than Westeros standards then I hope you also condemn every single other character in the book for following standards that fall well below those of today’s society. I wouldn’t like to see double standards.
I'm not judging her as a member of a society. I'm not even judging her as a person in general. I'm judging her as a woman and a mother from a very personal, in-no-way-general, woman's perspective. How many times must I say this? I'm not insisting that "Cat is bad" is the truth of the world. But if can has a right to dislike Jon, I have as much of a right (despite your protestations) to dislike her.
Cardo wrote:
If Jon would have been proclaimed trueborn that would have lifted him in the spotlight and that wasn't anything that Ned wanted.
Right. And this wasn’t just for Jon’s good. It was also to avoid insulting Cat’s sense of propriety. I always thought that was more than he owed her, but here was once again come to what people need or must do, and what they CAN do. He COULD treat his wife with respect and perhaps more affection than he felt at the beginning, so he did. She COULD have been nicer to Jon and make his feel welcome, but she chose not to. Neither is a crime or, necessarily, a redeeming virtue. There’s just choices that people make.
Eurytus wrote:
Jon has no way of knowing why except for the fact he is a bastard.
LOL! That’s not reason enough?! Eurytus, if after this you say another thing about our “ignoring the standards of their world” I’ll have to find a way to e-throw something heavy in your direction.
Can’t you hear what you’re saying?! In one post you declare that CAT has a right to treat Jon as a bastard because according to their society’s standards bastards are the lowest of the low, with no rights. In the next post, you say that NED must not have loved Jon because if he had, he would have made him heir. You’re absolutely right that Ned’s sister is irrelevant here. What you’re saying contradicts itself enough without her.
Eurytus wrote:
There's certainly no indication that they would not have accepted him. Most of the northern lords appear to have been very loyal to Ned and would accept his decisions to go to war. Therefore I think they would have accepted his decision to legitimise Jon.
The fact that the lords were loyal to Ned stemmed from the fact that they knew they could count on him to live a “clean” life and make “decent” decisions. That is, Ned was straight as an arrow, for all any of them knew. He kept his affairs discrete, he kept his bastards out of the line of succession and, at the same time, he managed to treat everyone fairly and not insult anyone. Except Cat. But she was overly harsh (JUST MY OPINION!) and what was Ned’s option? To throw baby Jon out into the street because his new “hand-me-down”-from-my-brother wife threw a fit?! I’m sorry, but no one’s temper/pride is worth a child’s life, whether it be your own or your sister’s.
SilverDagger wrote:
It's not a surprise that he would want to be the lord of Winterfell, he has been brought up with Ned's and Catelyn's children. He knows that Robb will inherit Winterfell, the home he loves.
Now, the question I have for you – all of you – is whether you think Jon was bitter about that, or power-grabby, or – more to the point – whether he had any negative feelings toward Ned about keeping him from being heir. This is definitely a point where you may persuade me that I’m wrong. Perhaps the reason I did not think this was true is that Jon
would have been after Robb in the line, anyway. He and Robb had a good relationship (or is this another misconception I had?!) and to want to be THE heir, he’d first need to hope for Robb’s death. Now THAT – you won’t convince me he wanted THAT!
