The Tower of Joy- What exactly happened?

[Mitbert Strangejoy]

Rhaegar never said my baby was King... at best he said if it's a boy it would be 3rd in line for succession.

It was sarcasm. My point is that "heir by fiat" doesn't require any sort of a marriage if Rhaegar can do whatever he wants. You've implicitly recognized that Rhaegar does have to abide by prevailing norms, but you've also rejected the notion that Rhaegar has to abide by prevailing norms.

As has been noted upthread, Maegor faced intense backlash when he had dragons. Rhaegar has no dragons, and so he doesn't get to make up rules willy nilly. And if you insist that no rules apply to Rhaegar, you need to take your premises seriously. For instance, if Rhaegar said to the three in the ToJ, "you must stay here and guard the tower," then according to your understanding of Rhaegar's authority, the KG cannot defy him. If that's the case, again, legitimacy isn't necessary.

I'm not seeing any scenario where legitimacy is necessary to describe the actions of the KG.

[three-eyed monkey]

The Kingsguard vow is to protect the king. The king is decided by the law of the seven kingdoms, or by right of conquest. The baby at the ToJ does not qualify on either grounds. If the Kingsguard's priority was to protect the true king, then they would have to weigh up who the most likely Targaryen heir is. Is it Viserys, named heir by Aerys before he died, or is it Jon, born of a polygamous marriage and therefore of questionable legitimacy? That's not a hard call, really.

When Robert died, Joffrey, who was recognised by law as the legitimate issue of the lawfully wed Robert and Cersei, became the king on the basis of the law. The Kingsguard at the time faced no such dilemma unless they believed the claims of incest. The question the three at the ToJ faced is would Rhaegar's second marriage, and hence his issue from that marriage, be lawfully recognised? And I don't see anything that suggests that they could be certain it would. They simply must have known that there was a good chance they were protecting a bastard, even if Rhaegar had married Lyanna. Because Rhaegar was already married to Elia.

The same will happen with Jon

Just because the Faith says no to polygamy does it mean they didn't marry? no

Just because the Faith doesn't like the Old Gods does that mean they didn't marry in front of a weir tree? no

Just because people might have a problem with their marriage do that mean it did not happen? no

Just because people might not recognize Jon as legitimate does that mean they were not married? no

Jon's supporters will recognize him as legitimate and his detractors will not

Just because they married, doesn't mean the marriage will be recognised, especially when it is a polygamous marriage.

Ramsay and Arya married in front of a weirwood and the marriage was recognised. That is not the problem. If either of them were already married then it would be different.

It may have happened, but that does not mean it will be officially recognised.

People will not recognise Jon as legitimate, because Rhaegar and Lyanna were either not married or else in a polygamous marriage. Polygamy is an issue and the Kingsguard would have been aware of it. If polygamy is not a problem then why did Littlefinger tell Sansa that her marriage would have to wait until Cersei was finished hunting Tyrion and Sansa was safely widowed? He said it because polygamy is a problem.

Quote:

Petyr Baelish took her by the hand and drew her down onto his lap. "I have made a marriage contract for you."

"A marriage . . ." Her throat tightened. She did not want to wed again, not now, perhaps not ever. "I do not . . . I cannot marry. Father, I . . ." Alayne looked to the door, to make certain it was closed. "I am married," she whispered. "You know."

Petyr put a finger to her lips to silence her. "The dwarf wed Ned Stark's daughter, not mine. Be that as it may. This is only a betrothal. The marriage must needs wait until Cersei is done and Sansa's safely widowed.

[corbon]

Hang on. Are you saying that Jon is the legitimate king but that it will not prove important at all? Because I'm totally ok with that. I'm simply arguing against a "return of the king" scenario.

My perspective on this is that Jon's legitimacy does not matter. Bastard or not, he's a contender for the IT, more so if he got legitimized as "Jon Stark" in Robb's will. But his arc is about the spiritual/magical dimension, not the political one.

I'm arguing the data leads us to that conclusion. I don't really care if it has any impact or not, I'm patient (in a manner of speaking) enough to wait and see what GRRM does and how he does it.

As to whether it matters or not, that very much depends on GRRM's choices. I'm not one for predicting the (GRRM's) future, I'm just trying to understand he past as he has laid it out.

1) We don't know what the KG knew or not. Even read literally, Ned's fever dream doesn't show what the KG knew or didn't. In fact, one could easily make the argument that the dream shows Ned giving the KG all this information, making it likely that they didn't have it in the first place.

Thats not entirely true. We know that they know about the Trident because all Ned says is "I looked for you at the Trident" and already they are responding with woe to the Usurper if we had been there. They know its significance, that we can clearly see.

Less clear, is that they appear to know more stuff by their answers to other questions but it is definitely true that its carefully written ambiguously enough that they could be completely in the dark and just reflecting Ned's information back with bravado. Thats not my read, but it is a possibility. However the Trident thing definitely doesn't work like that - they are clearly responding with knowledge far beyond what Ned has provided them with. So we can't make the argument that Ned gave them all the information.

2) Your explanation is fine, but you're still in essence arguing that the KG must be well informed enough to know everything that happened, but badly enough to ignore Viserys is the new heir. And obviously there's a problem with either iv or v: any messenger would know that who is the heir is crucial information for KG. Unless the messenger sucks.

Not at all. Its a question of what news gets passed around and by who. We have two reasonable doubts on the Viserys data getting out (first the court is in a shambles and its not certain that Aerys' decision was widely publicised - backed up by no one in-series ever mentioning it, and second even if their 'conduit' heard, their conduit must be a Rhaegar supporter over Aerys (or else surely Lyanna's location would have been betrayed to Aerys earlier) and thats not a set of news a Rhaegar supporter might choose to risk breaking their cover in order to pass on to them - the conduit isn't sending the message for the KG benefit so they can do their duty right, he/she is sending it for Rhaegar's benefit). From the pov of the KG, the messenger might well suck!

OTOH we can be very very sure that one of the very first acts of Robert's administration was to tell the whole world as fast as possible that he Targaryens have been destroyed, especially the male heirs from Aerys to Aegon. They need everyone to know that the war s over, they won, and the Targaryens are finished, no point in contining on a lost cause.

Consequently we have a clear and logical method for their conduit knowing of the deaths of Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon, but not of Viserys being made heir - the most probably original source of their data is indirectly from Robert himself.

It is a fact. This hardly requires proving: there haven't been polygamous marriages in the 7 kingdoms for centuries.

And incest was a source of dispute between the Faith and the Targaryens. How the Faith would see Polygamy would now depend on the High Septon and the political context.

It is not a fact. Show me any piece of evidence that shows the Faith refusing to accept a polygamous marriage. I predict the best you will get is disapproval.

Here is a fact. There are past Targaryen polygamous marriages. There is legal and administrative precedent for future Targaryen marriages. Precedents don't expire just because they haven't been used for a while, even several hundred years. They expire when the law is actually changed.

Here is a second fact. In not a single place have we been told of any law change regarding polygamous marriages. What we have been told is that the Targaryens are above the laws of men and gods.

Here is a third fact. In more recent cases polygamous marriages have been requested and denied by the King. What that shows is that they were still legally possible (either because its within law or because the Targaryens are above law), or there would not have been a request. That the kings at those time denied those particular marriages merely shows that some reason of the King's, not the laws, made those marriages inexpedient for the king. It does not show that those marriages were already illegal.

Here is a fourth fact. Jorah proposed to Dany that she enter a polygamous marriage. He had his own bias, sure, but clearly he considered it legally possible.

Regarding incest, you admit thats its a source of dispute between the Faith and Targaryens. We have explicitly from Catelyn that it is against the Laws of Gods (and men). We don't even have that much 'against' polygamy from the faith.

Yet despite the Faith clearly 'allowing' (is if they had any real say) repeated, recent, dragonless incestual marriages to Targaryens, and considering the get of such marriages fully legitimate, apparently you are willing to argue that 'its a fact' that they could not allow polygamous marriages?

Lets remove the labels and look at this afresh

We have Action A, and we are told that it is explicitly against the laws of gods and men, that it is a monstrous sin to both old gods and new, and the children of such wickedness were named abominations in sept and godswood alike.

We have Action B, and we are told that the faith disapproves. In fact, we are told that doing this is defying the Faith, and its harder to do so without dragons (not impossible).

So if we have absolute proof that Action A is a definite option, how the heck are we removing option B as a possibility? Because of a non-existent law change? Because it hasn't been done recently (its harder without dragons remember, not impossible)?

I cannot see how anyone can argue that position in good faith, once they have examined it with open eyes.

Aegon was the Usurper of the crowns of the seven Kingdoms. House Hoare were usurpers. The Durrandons were usurpers. In Earth's history and in the history of Westeros, a "usurper" is someone who starts a new dynasty. :mellow:

Err, no. A Usurper someone who seizes power that does not belong to them. Most Usurpers start a new Dynasty, but not all Dynasties are started by Usurpers.

Aegon was not a Usurper. The kings of Westeros bent the knee to him - either before battle or after battle (they or their heirs, or people who usurped their positions like the Tyrells). No Targaryen bent the knee to Robert.

Anyway, the point was that calling him the Usurper clearly shows that these three KG clearly did not accept Robert was their legitimate king. So its pointless to argue that they should have transferred their allegiance to Robert once he was crowned.

Robert was crowned. Barristan and Jaime seemed to think that their KG duties pass to whoever holds the Iron Throne. The're not Targaryenguards; they're Kingsguards.

No they did not. I've already pointed this out and if you keep bringing this as a point without countering arguments first I'm going to have to assume you are arguing in bad faith.

Neither Barristan nor Jaime passed automatically to Robert as Kingsguards. In both cases Robert gave them their positions anew, Barristan a new position as Robert's Lord Commander, and they swore new vows to Robert.

With all due respect, much of this is made up from whole cloth. It's ok to make up hypotheticals, but you should be a bit more circumspect with your "thick skull" comments or implying that your inventions are canon/fact. The bolded language in particular was invented by you, and it's quite critical to your conclusions.

The 'thick skull' comment was a generalised comment in response to a sarky comment that the KG should have been marching back to KL to protect it. It has been gone over so many times, and that commenter is no noob, about communications difficulties and their isolation at the ToJ location, and yet still the expectation sits there that they should have been reacting to things before they'd even happened, let alone thinking even a tiny bit about how long it might takes news of current events to get to someone hiding in a remote location without ravens. :bang:

None of it is made of whole cloth and most of it not by me. There are many other threads expounding the background of this stuff and its functionally impossible to re-explain all the details and references every time you bring something up, specially for people who have already made deliberate choices to ignore the data and analysis involved.

They didn't know for months

I followed by explaining. Ned rides straight from the Trident to the Sack. And various other factors (including but not limited to comparative ages for several kids) pin down Jon's birth to around a month after the sack (give it up to a month wiggle room either side of that,) and Ned's arrival to not long after Jon's birth.

For them to have known about the trident and the sack for months, there first would have had to have been months between those events and Ned's arrival (which you might barely squeak in 2 months if you really stretch everything to the max, counting from the Trident), but they'd also have to have instantaneous information.

No ravens

Ravens only fly to where they are raised, very rare ones to a second location (I guess they have to live there for a while, but thats a guess). Ravens are raised and trained and cared for by Maesters. The ToJ is an old abandoned watchtower in the Dornish Marches. It clearly would not have an active rookery or a Maester in long term residence. They could have ravens with them to get messages out, but we are talking here about incoming news and its quite clear from facts we know, to anyone who thinks at all, that they cannot have incoming ravens.

its virtually impossible they knew about the Trident before the Sack, or either until well after both

If you are going to insist that they knew about these events almost instantaneously, then I have no interest in discussing anything at all with you. It takes time for information to get to them, whether its weeks or months we don't know.

By the Trident, Lyanna was almost certainly 7+ months pregnant.

This is just the same really as the first one. Jon is born within two months (max, more likely well less) of the Sack and the Trident is two weeks or so before the Sack. Therefore, by the Trident Lyanna is at least 7 months pregnant (ok, at least 6 and 1/2), probably slightly more.

Most likely they were passed a packet of news that included the key points of the deaths of nearly all male Targaryens, the defeat of the Targaryen army, the capture of Kings Landing and the crowning of King Robert (the Usurper).

Yes, his is invented whole cloth, and prefaced with 'most likely'. I've explained this already. The one thing absolutely imperative for the victors in a civil war to get out in the news is that the war is over, the other side has been destroyed and there is no point carrying it on any more. Hence sending out a 'news packet' that contains the Trident (key destruction of the royalist army), the death of nearly all male Targaryens (the dynasty is finished, even if you support them there is nothing to fight for any more), The capture of Kings Landing (the capital and administrative centre is taken and now loyal to the former rebels) and the crowning of King Robert (there is a new King, you owe him your allegiance now).

if Lyanna was pregnant and they have not heard of Viserys being named Aerys heir (as seems very likely), then

This is an if/then statement. :bang:

According to standard rules common in the societies on which GRRM has modelled most of Targaryen inheritance rules on, this what would happen, and has happened (in the real world). I am not making anything up.

[corbon]

And there is the legitimacy question, which you brush aside for no good reason. If Jon isn't legitimate, he wouldn't be the heir to the throne under any scenario.

The only thing I brushed aside was the 'setting aside the marriage' which is a foundation-less idea that has no pointers to in the text and does not fit any reasonable scenario. I'm not interested in discussing it further (OTOH, if anyone brings new data, as opposed to tired and pathetic old arguments about old data, then I'll listen with interest).

Regarding your comments about Visery, he was name heir. We don't have any reason to doubt that Kings can name their own heirs among qualified candidates.

Did I say we did? I don't think so.

What I think I've been consistent on with respect to the naming of Viserys as heir, is that there is no foundation for a high degree of probability they would have heard that. And if they have not heard, then in terms of driving their actions, it does not exist (yet).

Those marriages are valid, I agree. The problem in this case is that Rhaegar is already married, which means for it to be legitimate then one has to assume that Rhaegar either set Elia aside before he left Kings Landing, or that the Kingsguard are willing to accept polygamy, despite what the High Septon or their King might think. Unless you can explain a way around either one then I consider these points the rock upon which the legitimate Jon theory stumbles.

If Rhaegar says they are valid, and legal precedent supports him, who are the KG to say they are not valid. It doesn't really matter what they think, to be honest, unless they are going to play the game of thrones...

As for 'willing to accept polygamy', I know your opinion is probably quite different, but thats more like a pool of quicksand than a rock. Its a hard fact that they are willing to accept incest (Aerys and Rhaella) and no fact at all that polygamy is not acceptable - not likable perhaps, but not unacceptable.

Consequently I don't really think that a 'way around' this is necessary. No one yet has done an acceptable job of showing it as a significant obstacle, let alone proving it to be a rock.

One possibility is that Rhaegar told the Kingsguard before he left the ToJ that he planned on legitimising Jon. Maybe that's what he hinted about to Jaime before he rode for the Trident? The problem is that any such plan, if it did exist, died with Rhaegar and was never fulfilled. That still leaves Jon a bastard and makes Viserys the rightful king after the sack.

I consider that a very remote possibility, precisely because of that problem. Only a king can legitimise a bastard, and Rhaegar was never king, so they should be at very least splitting up to send someone to Viserys.

I doubt that a marriage before the old gods would be valid in the royal context, setting aside the polygamy issue. We are aware of no precedent of royal marriages being made before heart wood trees. In many societies, including among European crowns that presumably form the basis of ASOIAF inheritance systems, apostasy is grounds for disinheritance. The crown follows the Seven. Marrying under the rites of the old gods is apostasy. In pre-modern Europe, a catholic marrying before a protestant minister would be unforgivable. In this case, the religion of the old gods isn't even derivative of the Seven (unlike protestantism vs catholocism). This would be like a medieval British royal getting married in a mosque, no?

Speaking of which, are there any examples of a Targaryen marrying someone who isn't a follower of the Seven. I can think of a few mistresses (Blackwoods), but no wives. That alone would seemingly make the marriage scenario far fetched.

You have it backwards. You are the one inventing a new fact, you are the one has to show some data behind it. Show a single marriage between the two religions that is considered apostasty. In fact, show any mention of apostasy at all within Westeros!

Quite simply, religion in westeros is quite different to religion in western europe and many of the concepts do not seem to transfer between our world and theirs.

Neither the seven nor the old gods seem to be jealous types...

Tyanna of Pentos might be an example. We don't know what her religion was, but Pentos does not seem to be majority followers of the Seven.

Black Betha.

There are probably more, I can't be bothered looking further as I think I've shown quite clearly (below as well) that there is no substance in this line of argument already.

Given that no one seems terribly excited about Stannis' conversion, I'd say that apostasy among followers of the Seven is considered quite serious. Again, I challenge you to find examples of Targaryens marrying under the old gods, or even marrying a follower of the old gods. Absent such examples, how can we say that faith swapping marriages are legitimate?

Err, given that there is a not a lot of excitement about Stannis' conversion, I'd say that apostasy is not considered all that serious.

I mean, if everyone was calling for a crusade against the evil Apostate Stannis, you'd have a case. But no one really seems to care, its just an interesting side note to some people that he seems to have changed religion..

Well, Ned worships the Old Gods and Catelyn worships the Seven. There is not a hint from anyone that their marriage is illegitimate. I'm sure there are many other faith-swapping marriages, like Blackwoods and Osgreys etc. So that ought to put that to rest.

Now can you find a single faith swapping marriage that is declared invalid because religion? No? I didn't think so.

Finally, regarding your "don't compare Christian faith in Westeros to Europe," need I remind you that the majority of speculation on this board concerning inheritance in utero and inheritance rules derives from European example? If such comparisons are prohibited, I won't hear about Jon becoming the next heir while Lyanna was pregnant or about the title of crown prince passing to the crown prince's children rather than the King's next oldest son. If these inheritance rules are legitimate subjects of conversation, than the interplay between apostasy/heresy and inheritance is also legitimate.

Apple and Oranges. The inheritance rules are clearly (and explicitly, in SSMs) based on european rules. Religions and their rules are not.

Everyone knew about this, but not the proclamations of Aerys about his heir? Ok, that's your interpretation, but it adds a bit of complexity to your theory.

Aegon is dead = news.

Viserys is the Targaryen heir = not news.

This isn't readily apparent either as a matter of logic or from the text.

It is when you think about who the source for the news is quite likely to be - the victorious rebels. They definitely want everyone to know that Aegon (and Aerys and Rhaegar) is dead and House Targaryen power broken with them and if they even know, they would not be interested in adding additional legitimacy to Viserys' claim.

Polygamy is not allowed in Westeros, only two men have done it and both were kings with Dragons. We know that both Daemon Tragaryen and Daemon Blackfyre had to ask permission from their kings to take second wives and both were told 'no'. A king can break the law and say it's legal, a Prince can not.

There is legal precedent and no indication that precedent has been removed. Asking for it shows that its legally possible, denying it doesn't show that its illegal. A King doesn't have to break a law that doesn't exist for his House.

Bastards were common enough, but incest was a monstrous sin to both old gods and new, and the children of such wickedness were named abominations in sept and godswood alike (unless they are Targaryen). The dragon kings had wed brother to sister, but they were the blood of old Valyria where such practices had been common, and like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men.

Had Rhaegar actually married Lyanna the Targs would have announced it. Some of rebels support came from Robert demanding justice for his 'raped' bride. Some of the Nothern host would be OK with a Northern Queen. It would have ebbed a little of he Rebel support yet no claim was made.

Would they? Or would Aerys have denounced it and ordered Lyanna returned, or kept her as hostage? Not only does he not trust Rhaegar, but he missed out on choosing his own bride and he was faithful to his fathers orders to marry his sister. Why would he be happy allowing his untrusted son liberties he was denied himself? And even if he was, could Rhaegar trust him do be so? Wouldn't it be too much of a risk Aerys could break the marriage if he chose? Better he not know of it yet...

Rhaegar was married to Elia. For the Kingsguard at the ToJ to consider Jon legitimate then they must have good reason to consider a second marriage, between Rhaegar and Lyanna, to have also been a legitimate marriage. But there are only two ways a second marriage could be legitimate. 1) if Elia was set aside, or else 2) they accept polygamy as legitimate.

1). There is nothing to suggest Elia was set aside. I rule this out completely.

2). The issue of polygamy is not as clear cut, granted, but it has not been in practice for some time and is not a practice that is looked favourably upon by the Faith. GRRM says:

Maegor the Cruel has multiple wives, from lines outside his own, so there was and is precedent. However, the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object.

1) agreed

2) Right.

- it is not looked on favourably

- the extent to which they could defy the faith has decreased

- people are more likely (than before) to object.

not

- it is unacceptable under any circumstance

- they cannot defy the faith at all

- people will definitely object

Thats it. Thats all you got? Its harder now, whereas before it was easy. Now suddenly its impossible and the KG are going to deny Rhaegar when he tells them its legit and quotes them precedent because... politics, religious or otherwise?

The Kingsgaurd, even if themselves in favour of polygamy, could not be sure that a polygamous marriage would be upheld by the Faith and/or the King. They were not fools and would have known their opinions on the matter would have counted for little. Even if they wanted Jon to be legit, and saw him as such, they would have known that the decision on the matter did not lie with them.

They don't have to be sure it will be upheld. All they have to be sure is that it was legally valid. Then its the right thing for them to uphold it whatever anyone else says or thinks.

The Kingsguard vow is to protect the king. The king is decided by the law of the seven kingdoms, or by right of conquest. The baby at the ToJ does not qualify on either grounds. If the Kingsguard's priority was to protect the true king, then they would have to weigh up who the most likely Targaryen heir is. Is it Viserys, named heir by Aerys before he died, or is it Jon, born of a polygamous marriage and therefore of questionable legitimacy? That's not a hard call, really.

Indeed its not. Either the marriage is legally valid or its not. Their job isn't to navigate the political waters and choose the next king (some of their predecessors who did that are rightly despised), their job is to find the true candidate and protect him regardless of what others think. If it is valid, Jon is ahead of Viserys unless they hear otherwise from Aerys. If its not, Jon is of no consequence at all (to them as KG). This question was decided in effect when they witnessed the marriage (if in fact that happened of course) and at that time Rhaegar is no doubt there telling them its all fine and legal )or above the law) and quoting precedent to them.

They simply must have known that there was a good chance they were protecting a bastard, even if Rhaegar had married Lyanna. Because Rhaegar was already married to Elia.

As I said, this was decided at the time of the marriage, not the birth. Either they accepted the marriage is valid then or they did not, and it would be hard to not accept with with Rhaegar right there pushing them.

To accept then, and change their minds later, is playing the game of thrones in the worst way. No honour there.

They may well have known that most of the rest of the world might think they were protecting a bastard, one way or another, but thats not relevant in the slightest. They know the truth, and thus their honourable course is laid.

If polygamy is not a problem then why did Littlefinger tell Sansa that her marriage would have to wait until Cersei was finished hunting Tyrion and Sansa was safely widowed? He said it because polygamy is a problem.

Quote:

Petyr Baelish took her by the hand and drew her down onto his lap. "I have made a marriage contract for you."

"A marriage . . ." Her throat tightened. She did not want to wed again, not now, perhaps not ever. "I do not . . . I cannot marry. Father, I . . ." Alayne looked to the door, to make certain it was closed. "I am married," she whispered. "You know."

Petyr put a finger to her lips to silence her. "The dwarf wed Ned Stark's daughter, not mine. Be that as it may. This is only a betrothal. The marriage must needs wait until Cersei is done and Sansa's safely widowed.

Its not legal or acceptable for normal people. Just like Incest. But Targaryens are different...

Bastards were common enough, but incest was a monstrous sin to both old gods and new, and the children of such wickedness were named abominations in sept and godswood alike. The dragon kings had wed brother to sister, but they were the blood of old Valyria where such practices had been common, and like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men.

The loss of their dragons doesn't change this, just makes it harder to enforce (as per SSM). Which is probably one reason they didn't enforce it as much.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

There is legal precedent and no indication that precedent has been removed. Asking for it shows that its legally possible, denying it doesn't show that its illegal. A King doesn't have to break a law that doesn't exist for his House.

Bastards were common enough, but incest was a monstrous sin to both old gods and new, and the children of such wickedness were named abominations in sept and godswood alike (unless they are Targaryen). The dragon kings had wed brother to sister, but they were the blood of old Valyria where such practices had been common, and like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men.

We know from GRRM that the only two Targs who commited Polygamy did so because they were kings and had dragons to back them up. Rhaegar had neither.

We know through the histories that both Prince Daemon Targaryen and Prince Daemon Blackfyre wanted to take second wives, had to ask their kings permission and both were told no.

The author is pretty clear.

Rhaegar was not King, one day he would be and he could make any bastard child legitimate if he wanted to. At the time though there was no rush as he he already had two perfectly healthy children one of whom he thought was the Prince that was Promised.

[Mitbert Strangejoy]

No they did not. I've already pointed this out and if you keep bringing this as a point without countering arguments first I'm going to have to assume you are arguing in bad faith.

Neither Barristan nor Jaime passed automatically to Robert as Kingsguards. In both cases Robert gave them their positions anew, Barristan a new position as Robert's Lord Commander, and they swore new vows to Robert.

...

:bang:

There are many other threads expounding the background of this stuff and its functionally impossible to re-explain all the details and references every time you bring something up, specially for people who have already made deliberate choices to ignore the data and analysis involved.

If you are going to insist that they knew about these events almost instantaneously, then I have no interest in discussing anything at all with you. It takes time for information to get to them, whether its weeks or months we don't know.

The one thing absolutely imperative for the victors in a civil war to get out in the news is that the war is over, the other side has been destroyed and there is no point carrying it on any more. Hence sending out a 'news packet' that contains the Trident (key destruction of the royalist army), the death of nearly all male Targaryens (the dynasty is finished, even if you support them there is nothing to fight for any more), The capture of Kings Landing (the capital and administrative centre is taken and now loyal to the former rebels) and the crowning of King Robert (there is a new King, you owe him your allegiance now).

...

:bang:

...

The dragon kings had wed brother to sister, but they were the blood of old Valyria where such practices had been common, and like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men.

...

It is when you think about who the source for the news is quite likely to be - the victorious rebels. They definitely want everyone to know that Aegon (and Aerys and Rhaegar) is dead and House Targaryen power broken with them and if they even know, they would not be interested in adding additional legitimacy to Viserys' claim.

I recognize that you're very passionate about this, but you can't resolve legitimate questions through fiat, indignation, and insults. I won't respond in kind, for what it's worth.

My faith question was primarily driven by the notion that Rhaegar and Lyanna could be married in front of a heart tree, and specifically, on the Isle of Faces (the most common location that I've heard for this theory), which is the point you neglected to address. It's one thing to marry a follower of the old gods (I'll gladly concede that Black Betha is likely an example), but it's quite another thing for the crown to marry under the rituals of the old gods in one of their holy places. With regards to heresy, while the faith may not be as jealous as the God of the medieval Christians, Aegon's conversion was a key part of his ascension as king. He was crowned in the Oldtown Sept after Manfred Hightower decided not to oppose him (after consulting with the High Sept and fasting for seven days). There are also numerous comments in the books expressing disapproval for Stannis' new god.

If you subscribe to the wondering Septon theory, then so be it, we can discuss that. But we're getting more and more speculative once we start assuming that Rhaeggar and Lyanna got married in a secret ceremony before an unnamed Septon. I ask you to bear in mind the fact that there is no direct evidence of any marriage ceremony, whether by the Faith of the Seven or the Old Gods. The onus is on you to provide such evidence, as you're putting forward the affirmative theory of marriage. The fact that the KG stayed in or around the ToJ is circumstantial evidence at best, and it can be readily explained by numerous competing theories. If you have other evidence, I'll gladly see in it. In the meantime, your bald indignation is not a convincing or an endearing way to argue.

Regarding your argument about Jaime and Barristan's vows. Their old KG vows bound them, or they did not. Whether they said new vows (do you have evidence that they renewed the KG vows themselves rather than merely swearing loyalty to the King, which is a rather different vow?) does not change this. I recognize that you discussed this argument at some point upthread. Discussed, but not resolved. I don't have a position one way or another whether KG's can move from one king to the next, but I have evidence that some did, and the question would seem to be open for the Three who decided to go down fighting at the ToJ.

Also, regarding your theories about communications with the tower, I don't subscribe to the notion of "instantaneous communication" (no straw men here, please). My point is that it's inconsistent for the Three to hear that Aegon is dead and Aerys is dead without also hearing that Viserys is the Targaryen heir. Your theory appears to be that news of Aegon's death and Aerys' death traveled far and wide, while Aerys' announcement did not, because the rebels were attempting to spread information that supported their cause. The problem here is that anyone who would have delivered information to the ToJ presumably would have been a Targaryen ally. Did their informant not realize who Aery's proclaimed as his heir? I suppose it's possible, but it's quite speculative.

Finally, GRRM himself has addressed the Targaryen's can have polygamous marriages question. He who owns dragons can do what he wants. As to whether "precedent" dies after centuries, social norms certainly change after centuries, and generally old precedent in legal systems is updated along with social norms (for better or worse depending upon your political inclinations, which I won't get into here). Centuries is a long time. Did no other Targaryen want a second wife in that time? Regarding incest, this isn't incest. The notion that the Targaryens can breach one social norm because they can breach another isn't something I subscribe to, and if recent history in Westeros is an indication, it's not a norm accepted by others.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Finally, GRRM himself has addressed the Targaryen's can have polygamous marriages question. He who owns dragons can do what he wants. As to whether "precedent" dies after centuries, social norms certainly change after centuries, and generally old precedent in legal systems is updated along with social norms (for better or worse depending upon your political inclinations, which I won't get into here). Centuries is a long time. Did no other Targaryen want a second wife in that time? Regarding incest, this isn't incest. The notion that the Targaryens can breach one social norm because they can breach another isn't something I subscribe to, and if recent history in Westeros is an indication, it's not a norm accepted by others.

We already saw much older customs suddenly jump from behind a bush and kick characters in the arse. A trial of seven, a semi-obscure, "ancient, seldom invoked" procedure, Dunk's was first in over a century. A kingsmoot, first in two thousand years (maybe as long as four thousand years). Apparently, old ways die hard.

[Mitbert Strangejoy]

We already saw much older customs suddenly jump from behind a bush and kick characters in the arse. A trial of seven, a semi-obscure, "ancient, seldom invoked" procedure, Dunk's was first in over a century. A kingsmoot, first in two thousand years (maybe as long as four thousand years). Apparently, old ways die hard.

Whether those traditions re-emerge is context sensitive, no? With her dragons, perhaps Dany could so boldly defy the Faith of the Seven. But dragonless, crown prince, Rhaegar in the middle of a rebellion?

The most recent polygamy we have is Maegor, and as noted above, Maegor's example was specifically addressed by GRRM:

Maegor the Cruel has multiple wives, from lines outside his own, so there was and is precedent. However, the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object.

And here is what happened when the last group of Targaryens opted for polygamy:

Maegor shocked the realm in 39 AC by announcing that he had taken a second wife—Alys of House Harroway—in secret. He had wed her in a Valyrian ceremony officiated by Queen Visenya for want of a septon willing to wed them. The public outcry was such that Aenys was finally forced to exile his brother.

Aenys seemed content to let the matter lie with Maegor's exile, but the High Septon was still not satisfied. Not even the appointment of the reputed miracle-worker, Septon Murmison, as Aenys's new Hand could wholly repair the breach with the Faith. And in 41 AC, Aenys made matters worse when he chose to wed his eldest daughter, Rhaena, to his son and heir, Aegon, whom he named Prince of Dragonstone in Maegor's place. From the Starry Sept came a denunciation such as no king had ever received before, addressed to "King Abomination"—and suddenly pious lords and even the smallfolk who had once loved Aenys turned against him.

-TWoiAF

Some important clues are here. Maegor wed his second wife in "Valyrian ceremony officiated by Queen Visenya for want of a septon willing to wed them." Merely one generation after Aegon, Maegor could not find a septon willing to do a polygamous marriage. And now, hundreds of years later, finding a willing septon while on the run is feasible?

I would also note that Aegon married his two wives before converting. Polygamy -- even for Targs -- doesn't appear to be much of a tradition in the Faith of the Seven. I'm not sure if Maegor and Aegon really count as precedent given that neither of their polygamous marriages appears to have been performed by a septon.

[three-eyed monkey]

Corbon, we're gonna have to agree to disagree about polygamy. I don't think it is right to lump it in with incest.

To begin with, Incest, according to Targaryen wisdom, was a method of keeping the bloodlines pure. Polygamy, unless practiced in tandem with incest as was the case with Aegon and his sisters, dilutes the bloodline, and therefore contravenes the wisdom.

But in terms of acceptance by Faith and indeed the realm at large, then I think we see a marked difference in the attitude towards the Targaryen practice of incest and that of polygamy. On one hand, we know incest is accepted because the king at the time, Aerys, has an incestuous marriage. It is tradition for the High Septon to bless the king, so we can safely assume the Aerys was blessed. I don't see the same level of acceptance towards polygamy. We have examples of septons unwilling to perform polygamous weddings, Targaryen requests for polygamous marriage turned down, public outcry and eventual exile when Maegor took a second wife, even a Faith Militant uprising, and no polygamous marriage since Jaehaerys reconciled the Crown and Faith, two hundred years before Rhaegar's time. And we have seen, from Aegon the Conqueror to Tommen Baratheon, that the Faith have power.

So where would Rhaegar find precedent strong enough to convince three highborn knights of the Kingsguard that the marriage was valid by law? And it would have to matter to them, because they are sworn to guard the king, not some royal bastard.

It's clear we interpret the data, as you put it, differently. But I think the argument comes down to one of two things.

If you take the vow mentioned in Ned's Dream as the Kingsguard vow, then it follows that Jon is the King, and therefore there must have been a legitimate marriage between his parents, hence polygamy must be ok.

If you take the vow as a vow to Rhaegar, no such hypothetical polygamous marriage is necessary. Of course this means the three Kingsguard are not as white as people believe, but then it would be very unusual by GRRM's standard if they were. Why should they be immune to the internal conflicts we've seen throughout the series?

[Rippounet]

Less clear, is that they appear to know more stuff by their answers to other questions but it is definitely true that its carefully written ambiguously enough that they could be completely in the dark and just reflecting Ned's information back with bravado. Thats not my read, but it is a possibility. However the Trident thing definitely doesn't work like that - they are clearly responding with knowledge far beyond what Ned has provided them with. So we can't make the argument that Ned gave them all the information.

Well, we clearly agree on this one. :)

Not at all. Its a question of what news gets passed around and by who. We have two reasonable doubts on the Viserys data getting out (first the court is in a shambles and its not certain that Aerys' decision was widely publicised - backed up by no one in-series ever mentioning it, and second even if their 'conduit' heard, their conduit must be a Rhaegar supporter over Aerys (or else surely Lyanna's location would have been betrayed to Aerys earlier) and thats not a set of news a Rhaegar supporter might choose to risk breaking their cover in order to pass on to them - the conduit isn't sending the message for the KG benefit so they can do their duty right, he/she is sending it for Rhaegar's benefit). From the pov of the KG, the messenger might well suck!

OTOH we can be very very sure that one of the very first acts of Robert's administration was to tell the whole world as fast as possible that he Targaryens have been destroyed, especially the male heirs from Aerys to Aegon. They need everyone to know that the war s over, they won, and the Targaryens are finished, no point in contining on a lost cause.

Consequently we have a clear and logical method for their conduit knowing of the deaths of Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon, but not of Viserys being made heir - the most probably original source of their data is indirectly from Robert himself..

You make a convincing case for the idea that it is possible. But likely? I dunno, I might go for a 50/50 at best.

It is not a fact. Show me any piece of evidence that shows the Faith refusing to accept a polygamous marriage. I predict the best you will get is disapproval.

Here is a fourth fact. Jorah proposed to Dany that she enter a polygamous marriage. He had his own bias, sure, but clearly he considered it legally possible.

Others have shown why the Faith is against polygamy.

Sure, in many ways, polygamy is not as bad as incest. The Faith might be convinced (through intimidation)... Except the current High Septon is unlikely to be intimidated...

OTOH... Dany has dragons. She can do whatever the f*** she wants. So if she marries several guys, maybe Rhaegar's theorized marriage to Lyanna would become legitimate.

It would be ironic: if Dany plays the polygamy card, she makes Jon the king. It would be so ironic I could get on board with that.

[BlackFyre > BlackFire]

Here a lot of people saying similar things re: Jon has to be legitimate to be a threat. Or something similar to that. We get a lot of backstory regarding bastards rebelling and issues with succession during the Targaryen dynasty. So Jon doesn't HAVE to be the product of a Rhaegar and Lyanna marriage and therefore a "legitimate" son to be heir and a threat to Robert. There is also the issue of how anyone could prove who Jon is. That's one of the issues with the R+L=J theory, how would it be "revealed" to be true? If Ned and Howland show up and say this is a Targ baby why would anyone believe them? He doesn't have any Targ features.

Also...it wouldn't matter it he was a legitimate heir. No way would Robert let Lyanna's son by another man live. The two facts of him being a Targ and him being Lyanna's by another man would have sealed his fate.

That's why (if R+L=J is true) Ned had to hide the parentage.

IMO this was pretty clear cut, but just seems a lot of people are overlooking those simple facts.

[Endymion I Targaryen]

Maybe Jon and the wet nurse were spirited away before Ned arrived.Lyanna shared that information with him on her deathbed.After all,with Aerys,Rhaegar and Aegon dead Jon was the heir (if Rhaegar married Lyanna) or at least a bastard who could later be legitimised.