146 replies to this topic

[Baitac]

Dragonfish, on 28 March 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

The legal illegitimacy is a result of the facts of the bastard's birth. If your point is that he is not legally a bastard in Westeros, then I agree. But that is only because the Westerosi don't know (or don't believe) the full facts of his birth. If they did, then surely everyone would regard him as a bastard, no?

Regardless, the entire point of this thread is a hypothetical: what would Joffrey's bastard name be (i.e. what name would he be given if his bastardy were known by all)? I feel I have adequately answered this question, and those who are still harping on whether or not Joff is technically a bastard are, as I've said before, missing the point of this thread.

Perhaps it would have been more to your liking if the OP appeared in a thread for small questions? What would Joff's name be in a hypothetical situation where he was a bastard? Answer: Hill or Waters. Big whoop. We like to argue here. This is the thread for long answers and discussion.

[Ser NotAppearingInThisBook]

Baitac and Fragile Bird, you seem to be arguing for Joffrey's legitimacy based solely on the fact that he appears to be legitimate.  However just because someone appears to be something does not make it truth, regardless of what the law says.  The factual status of one's legitimacy is determined by who the parents are.  The legal status is determined by who those parents appear to be.  Joffrey appears to be the child of Robert and Cersei, therefore he is legally legitimate, at least for now.  Joffrey is actually the child of Jaime and Cersei, who are not married, therefore he is factually a bastard. Do you see the difference?  Joffrey is what he is, and that is a child born out of wedlock.
    Let's pretend for a minute that there will be a court hearing to determine the legitimacy of Cersei's children.  When the judge ultimately decides whether they are legitimate not, he will decide whether they were bastards all along, or legitimate all along.  By definition a bastard is someone born to parents are unmarried.  http://dictionary.re...wse/bastard?s=t  One cannot be legitimate-in-fact one day and be a bastard the next, and vice versa.  (Ramsay was, is, and always will be a bastard, even if he is legally allowed to inherit his fathers holdings and titles.)
    I guess to summarize, you have to see the difference between what is legal, and what is factual.

[Ser NotAppearingInThisBook]

As to the question in the OP, lets take a look at the bastards whose histories we know something about.

Brynden Rivers: Crownland father, Riverland mother, raised in the Riverlands
Aegor Rivers: Crownland father, Riverland mother, raised in the riverlands
Shiera Seastar: Crownland father, Lysene mother
Jon Snow: Northern father, unknown mother, raised in the North
Sandsnakes: Dornish father, mothers of various heritage, all raised in Dorne
Edric Storm: mother from The Reach, raised in the Stormlands
Mya Stone: mother from the Vale, raised in the Vale
Gendry Waters: Crownland mother, raised in the crownlands

From the pattern I see here, it seems that where they were raised has the most to do with naming. However we don't have any other examples of children born to parents of the same region and raised somewhere else, as is the case with Cersei's kids.  Right now I would lean towards Waters as their hypothetical name, but I can see the argument for Hill.

[Fragile Bird]

Now you know why lawyers drive people crazy.  We will tell you what your rights are, and what the law is, whether or not you want to believe it.

[Wales338]

Fragile Bird, on 28 March 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

I've said this before and I'll say it again, but technically none of the children are bastards because they are all born in a marriage.  When Ned changes Robert's will, he writes "true born heirs", he doesn't use the word "bastard" to disinherit anyone.  The children are not bastards.

You are a bastard if you are born out of wedlock. Jamie anc Cersei are not married so the children are born outside of wedlock. This makes them bastards.

[Fragile Bird]

Wales338, on 28 March 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

You are a bastard if you are born out of wedlock. Jamie anc Cersei are not married so the children are born outside of wedlock. This makes them bastards.

Once again.  Cersei is married.  The children are not born out of wedlock.  The presumption of legitimacy is that all children born in a marriage are the children of the husband and wife.  It's a really sacred right that would be upheld by the High Septon IMO.

You have the right as a child born in a marriage to be assumed to be legitimate.  That's the protection of the legal status of marriage.  It is a very, very fundamental protection and right that comes with marriage.

You the reader know the children are Jaime's.  Big deal.  Robert considered the children his, and you have no right to take that away from him.

Note that a big song and dance was done in the HBO series, where Cersei visits Cat and Bran in Bran's sick room and talks about her first baby that died.  (A baby that was aborted in ASOIAF).  Cersei mentions the child was a black haired boy, which would prove all of Roberts children are born with black hair.  I am sure that somewhere down the road this story will come out (from the people who attended at Cersei's birthing bed) and this will be used as the proof the three children were not Robert's.  So stay calm, and accept the fact the children were all born in wedlock and all are presumed legitimate unless otherwise shown.

But if we were in modern times (and people keep saying we have to view events through modern eyes) in many jurisdictions because Robert accepted them as his children, they are legally considered his children irrespective of who the father is.  Yes, it's true.

/sp

Edited by Fragile Bird, 29 March 2012 - 06:36 AM.

[Lizaveta Martell]

Dragonfish, on 28 March 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

It is accurate to state that Joffrey is not legally recognized as a bastard in Westeros. I and others have said as much time and time again. However, this does not mean he is not a bastard, just as a man who murders someone is still a murderer, whether or not he is convicted of the crime. The facts of Joffrey's birth make him a bastard in the eyes of everyone who knows those facts, and that includes we the readers. End of story.

Being a murderer is a result of an action, being a bastard is merely a status.  Is a child who was conceived before marriage but born after the wedding a bastard? NO, because it is merely a matter of status. Was the mother married to someone? Ok, then child legitimate.  

Imagine that a woman gets pregnant, the bio father leaves and some friendly 2nd man agrees to marry her. Is the child a bastard? no, of course not, it is the acknowledged child born during a marriage.  Same reason that bastards can be legitimized, because it is all a matter of legal status, not some essential quality.

You can scream all you like about products of incest and the like, but without strong evidence to overturn the presumption of legitimacy, a child born after a marriage has legitimate legal status.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Wolfwood Brother, on 28 March 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

As to the question in the OP, lets take a look at the bastards whose histories we know something about.

Brynden Rivers: Crownland father, Riverland mother, raised in the Riverlands
Aegor Rivers: Crownland father, Riverland mother, raised in the riverlands
Shiera Seastar: Crownland father, Lysene mother
Jon Snow: Northern father, unknown mother, raised in the North
Sandsnakes: Dornish father, mothers of various heritage, all raised in Dorne
Edric Storm: mother from The Reach, raised in the Stormlands
Mya Stone: mother from the Vale, raised in the Vale
Gendry Waters: Crownland mother, raised in the crownlands

From the pattern I see here, it seems that where they were raised has the most to do with naming. However we don't have any other examples of children born to parents of the same region and raised somewhere else, as is the case with Cersei's kids.  Right now I would lean towards Waters as their hypothetical name, but I can see the argument for Hill.

Gendry isn't a Waters per se, he is just Gendry. No one ever claimed that he was noble born, so he didn't get a second name.
Also Mance Rayder and Aemon Steelsong/Battleborn are two other known bastards, with an interesting twist to the standard naming procedure.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella are legitimate until a court* proves that they are bastards. Deal?

* Court in that case means Stannis, Aegon, the HS or whoever got enough swords.

[James Arryn]

Joffrey Gurgled.

[Dragonfish]

Fragile Bird, on 28 March 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

Once again.  Cersei is married.  The children are not born out of wedlock.

Cersei is not married to father of her children. That makes her children factually batards, even if they are not legally recognized as such.

Lizaveta Martell, on 28 March 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

Being a murderer is a result of an action, being a bastard is merely a status.  Is a child who was conceived before marriage but born after the wedding a bastard? NO, because it is merely a matter of status. Was the mother married to someone? Ok, then child legitimate.  

The child would not be considered legitimate if it were revealed who his true father is. That is the point of the murderer example: the law may not recognize him as a bastard, but that is because the law is not in possession of all the facts, just as the law may not recognize a murderer as such even if he is factually a murderer. And whatever status Joffrey may hold, nothing changes the fact that he is factually a bastard.

Quote

Imagine that a woman gets pregnant, the bio father leaves and some friendly 2nd man agrees to marry her. Is the child a bastard? no, of course not, it is the acknowledged child born during a marriage.  Same reason that bastards can be legitimized, because it is all a matter of legal status, not some essential quality.

This does not appear to be true in Westeros. Bronn married Lolys Stokeworth, yet her child is still considered a bastard.

Anyway, this example doesn't really matter that much, because Cersei's children are presumed legitimate not because Robert and Cersei are married, but because people think they're Robert's children born within the marriage. Take away the idea that they're Robert's children, and you take away the idea that they're legitimate.

Quote

You can scream all you like about products of incest and the like,

Eh, what? I've never done any "screaming" here, nor have I ever brought up the incest angle.

Quote

but without strong evidence to overturn the presumption of legitimacy, a child born after a marriage has legitimate legal status.

*Sigh* I'm not disputing that Joffrey has legitimate legal status. I am simply stating that he is factually a bastard. If all of Westeros knew what we the readers knew, then they would agree that Joffrey is a bastard. Do you disagree with this notion? I've asked this question several times, yet no one has bothered to answer it.

[Drinking Cersei's Tears]

Joffrey's bastard name should be Bastard.  Joffrey Bastard.  Has a good ring.

[Howling Mad]

Joffrey's bastard name:

Joffrey of the House Baratheon, the First of his Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm, that bastard!

[Lizaveta Martell]

Dragonfish, on 28 March 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

Cersei is not married to father of her children. That makes her children factually batards, even if they are not legally recognized as such.



The child would not be considered legitimate if it were revealed who his true father is. That is the point of the murderer example: the law may not recognize him as a bastard, but that is because the law is not in possession of all the facts, just as the law may not recognize a murderer as such even if he is factually a murderer. And whatever status Joffrey may hold, nothing changes the fact that he is factually a bastard.



This does not appear to be true in Westeros. Bronn married Lolys Stokeworth, yet her child is still considered a bastard.

Anyway, this example doesn't really matter that much, because Cersei's children are presumed legitimate not because Robert and Cersei are married, but because people think they're Robert's children born within the marriage. Take away the idea that they're Robert's children, and you take away the idea that they're legitimate.



Eh, what? I've never done any "screaming" here, nor have I ever brought up the incest angle.



*Sigh* I'm not disputing that Joffrey has legitimate legal status. I am simply stating that he is factually a bastard. If all of Westeros knew what we the readers knew, then they would agree that Joffrey is a bastard. Do you disagree with this notion? I've asked this question several times, yet no one has bothered to answer it.

There is no such thing as "factually" a bastard.  Facts and illegitimacy don't mix.  One is a legal status and the other is an objective truth.  I can promise you this is not the only instance where law and truth have nothing to do with each other.

As for the Lolys example, that actually proves my point.  Everyone knows that the biological father of baby-Tyrion is not Bronn, hence presumption rebutted.  But if Jeyne Westerling would have gotten pregnant shortly after her marriage to Robb, no one would contest that the child is legitimate, even though it might have been conceived before the wedding or even by someone else (which is not to imply that Jeyne Westerling is or was pregnant or was not a virgin when she slept with Robb, etc.   It is merely to illustrate the uncertainty principle)

[Baitac]

Wolfwood Brother, on 28 March 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

Baitac and Fragile Bird, you seem to be arguing for Joffrey's legitimacy based solely on the fact that he appears to be legitimate.  However just because someone appears to be something does not make it truth, regardless of what the law says.  The factual status of one's legitimacy is determined by who the parents are.  The legal status is determined by who those parents appear to be.  Joffrey appears to be the child of Robert and Cersei, therefore he is legally legitimate, at least for now.  Joffrey is actually the child of Jaime and Cersei, who are not married, therefore he is factually a bastard. Do you see the difference?  Joffrey is what he is, and that is a child born out of wedlock.
    Let's pretend for a minute that there will be a court hearing to determine the legitimacy of Cersei's children.  When the judge ultimately decides whether they are legitimate not, he will decide whether they were bastards all along, or legitimate all along.  By definition a bastard is someone born to parents are unmarried.  http://dictionary.re...wse/bastard?s=t  One cannot be legitimate-in-fact one day and be a bastard the next, and vice versa.  (Ramsay was, is, and always will be a bastard, even if he is legally allowed to inherit his fathers holdings and titles.)
    I guess to summarize, you have to see the difference between what is legal, and what is factual.

De jure versus de facto. By law or by fact.  I believe I get these two concepts quite well. In this kingdom, the fact is that Joff is son and heir by law.  Tommen' and Myrcella are in fact legitimate children born within the marriage of Cescei and Robert. The children recognize him as dad and dad recognizes them as Baratheon children. Their status will remain as such until that time when incontrovertible evidence is presented to the contrary. Also be aware that society and courts avoid as best they can, punishing children for the sins of their parents.

[Lizaveta Martell]

For instance, legally, a corporation is a person.  Factually, this is insane.

[Wales338]

Fragile Bird, on 28 March 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

Once again.  Cersei is married.  The children are not born out of wedlock.  The presumption of legitimacy is that all children born in a marriage are the children of the husband and wife.  It's a really sacred right that would be upheld by the High Septon IMO.

You have the right as a child born in a marriage to be assumed to be legitimate.  That's the protection of the legal status of marriage.  It is a very, very fundamental protaction and right that comes with marriage.

You the reader know the children are Jaime's.  Big deal.  Robert considered the children his, and you have no right to take that away from him.

Note that a big song and dance was done in the HBO series, where Cersei visits Cat and Bran in Bran's sick room and talks about her first baby that died.  (A baby that was aborted in ASOIAF).  Cersei mentions the child was a black haired boy, which would prove all of Roberts children are born with black hair.  I am sure that somewhere down the road this story will come out (from the people who attended at Cersei's birthing bed) and this will be used as the proof the three children were not Robert's.  So stay calm, and accept the fact the children were all born in wedlock and all are presumed legitimate unless otherwise shown.

But if we were in modern times (and people keep saying we have to view events through modern eyes) in many jurisdictions because Robert accepted them as his children, they are legally considered his children irrespective of who the father is.  Yes, it's true.

Cersei is not married to the father of the children so they are born out of wedlock and are bastards. Are are you really serious that you think that they have no right to tell Robert that he is being lied to and that his wife is cheating on him and that the children aren't his? He has every right and you could say its Ned's duty not only as a best friend but also as a citizen of the realm to tell the King about the treason and that he has no true heirs of his body.

[Dragonfish]

Lizaveta Martell, on 28 March 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

There is no such thing as "factually" a bastard.  Facts and illegitimacy don't mix.  One is a legal status and the other is an objective truth.  I can promise you this is not the only instance where law and truth have nothing to do with each other.

As for the Lolys example, that actually proves my point.  Everyone knows that the biological father of baby-Tyrion is not Bronn, hence presumption rebutted.  But if Jeyne Westerling would have gotten pregnant shortly after her marriage to Robb, no one would contest that the child is legitimate, even though it might have been conceived before the wedding or even by someone else (which is not to imply that Jeyne Westerling is or was pregnant or was not a virgin when she slept with Robb, etc.   It is merely to illustrate the uncertainty principle)

Legal status is assigned based on the facts of someone's birth. It is a label intended to describe a person's birth status. The label may end up being misapplied, but that is usually because the full facts are not known. And just because a person may technically carry the label does not mean that the label accurately describes their birth status. To argue otherwise would be like saying that a can of beans does not contain beans because it is labeled "potato chips."

To put it another way, I think there are two issues here: the legal status Joff is entitled to based on the facts of his birth vs. the legal status Joffrey actually has due to said facts being obscured. We the readers know that Joff is not entitled to a legitimate status because we are in full possession of the facts; therefore, we can safely call Joffrey a bastard.

[Silver Spearwife]

I had a long post written up but got fed up and deleted it. I'm just going to say what I think what ultimately the most important bit.

We don't give a damn what the laws in other societies are. We just care about Westeros. If the laws in Westeros indicated that Joffrey wasn't a bastard because Cersei was married, why on Earth did Stannis break off and claim the throne for himself?

I like what was said about the murderer thing earlier. If someone has murdered, they are a murderer. If the courts deem them innocent, they are still a murderer, even if they are no longer labeled that way.

At this point, I feel like this conversation is veering into 1984 territory. How do the quotes go? "Sanity is not statistical"/"Sanity is statistical". Something to that nature. You end up starting to compare facts with what you know to be true (Joffrey's parents weren't married) to what is believed to be true (Joffrey's parents were married), and based on the fact that actions in the books are taken on the belief that the latter is true, it is irrelevant what is or is not true. It matters how people act.

But I just want the facts. The fact is that Joffrey's parents - his real parents - weren't married to each other.

Edited by Silver Spearwife, 28 March 2012 - 10:58 PM.

[Ashen Shugar]

Baitac, on 28 March 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

De jure versus de facto. By law or by fact.  I believe I get these two concepts quite well. In this kingdom, the fact is that Joff is son and heir by law.  Tommen' and Myrcella are in fact legitimate children born within the marriage of Cescei and Robert. The children recognize him as dad and dad recognizes them as Baratheon children. Their status will remain as such until that time when incontrovertible evidence is presented to the contrary. Also be aware that society and courts avoid as best they can, punishing children for the sins of their parents.

The problem is that no one at any stage in this thread has disagreed with the idea that "as far as the provable law is concerened, Cersies kids are not bastards". Yet it keeps popping up as some sort of counter arguement in a thread which simply asks: if it was widely known and accepted that Joff is a bastard what would his last name be. OR at least that is my understanding of it.

If Robert knew the truth and survived Joff would of never inherited and he would not of been a Baratheon, and if Tywin was around he probably wouldn't be a Lannister either. we get that no one in westeros can conclusively prove their illegitimacy, that doesn't make them legitimate.

Edited by Ashen Shugar, 28 March 2012 - 10:58 PM.