Jump to content

R+L=J v.123


Jon Weirgaryen

Recommended Posts

I would have let it go, had I not remembered that quote about he Targs answering to neither gods or men.

I like it a lot. It is just so very convincing. It is bound to be in the OP :)

After all, "was and IS" precedent means that the precedent still applies.

It certainly does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there really is not. And I'm pretty sure it didn't happen - not because I don't like the idea, but because there is a better, more satisfying solution to the mystery of Jon's parents. Six months ago, I didn't think there was one - and I'd have told you that R+L probably did equal J, in spite of some reservations I had about the scenario. A month and a half ago, I still didn't see a hands-down better alternative. Today, I do, and I'm about... oh, 90% sure that RLJ is incorrect. Which brings me to your earlier post, BQ, which I told you I'd get back to:

You are correct that I have been "starting from a different point" in my consideration of the text, and I consider that to be a better way of testing the R+L hypothesis. Over the last several months I've done nearly a complete reread of the books, specifically on the assumption that R+L#J. And it may sound obvious to say but, among other things, I found that RLJ does not have to be true in order for Jon Snow's story to make sense. In fact, I finally decided that if we begin by questioning Robert's assumption that Rhaegar had sex with Lyanna, then it's unlikely there'd be enough other evidence in the text for the reader to confidently draw that conclusion herself.

History is written by the victor(s) - in Westeros as in life. So it's not difficult to imagine how Robert's version of the events leading to his rebellion and conquest became the accepted story in the Seven Kingdoms. Neither Rhaegar nor Lyanna lived to tell their own tales - and anyone who'd be able to say anything about what Rhaegar was really up to is also dead (so far as we know). Ned Stark, who did speak with Lyanna before she died, may have known the identity of Jon Snow's father. But he also knew that to contradict the official story of Lyanna's kidnapping and Rhaegar's sexual involvement with her would completely undermine the authority of Robert's throne. (Not to mention the fact that the truth would absolutely have broken Robert's heart, and possibly destroyed the man.)

The counter-argument to the topic theory, convincing or not, is simply that R+L#J. What I find alternately fascinating and frustrating is this notion that it matters one jot whether any of us happen to be "for" or "against" RLJ. The story is not our story, and this theory is barely even a reader theory. R+L=J is right there in the text, carefully designed, planted, and primed by George R. R. Martin himself as one possible solution to the mystery of Jon Snow's parentage. It'll either be right or wrong in the end, regardless of what any of us prefer. But the mere fact that it's there does not mean it is ultimately persuasive or correct - and the fact that we find ourselves with different views on that is not something that should be taken by any reader as a personal slight.

R+L=J is a theory that makes more sense of the story in certain ways, and less sense in others. In my view, a thread that claims the theory as the central topic of discussion should take into account both its strengths and its weaknesses, and be up front about both. I'm honestly not sure what the disadvantage of doing that would be - even if certain shortcomings and the theory's inherent lack of certainty are assumed to be things that "everybody knows" anyway. (And I'd point out that there are regular participants in these threads whose posts belie that very assumption. So perhaps such statements of the obvious would not be wasted if they were incorporated into the OP.)

It would be interesting if Rhaegar and Lyanna didn't have sex, if only because it seems everyone in Westeros thinks they did, so it would be a major surprise if Rhaegar's intentions with her were completely different. But I don't see it, not when we know Elia was barren after Aegon's birth, and when Rhaegar says "there must be one more".

I understand your frustation, I think. While I believe in RLJ, I never fully believed Jon legitimacy was case closed. I think it's possible R did marry L, but I'm not so sure such a marriage would be recognized. I read the essays about the Tower of Joy and the Kingsguard, but even though I think they were very well written, I still don't think we have enough evidence to say the KG were guarding the king at the moment, because I can imagine other scenerios that would explain the ToJ dream.

What I'm saying is that I know how sometimes other members are satisfied with the evidence that we have at the moment, while we just aren't, so I don't hold your doubts against you, or anything.

But while I (and doublessly many others) can respect your opinions, it is annoying when you insist on points that have been adressed over and over again. It's not that no one wants to discuss the "weakness of the theory", is that mostly everyone is satisfied with the answers that were provided and you aren't, and you continue to insist these points weren't adressed. People are going to say the same thing they did before, and you are not going to be convinced because you've read that already.

Many things you perceive as weakness aren't perceived as weakness by the others, so no one but you (and maybe a few others) thinks it takes away from the theory, makes it less likely, and therefore needs more explanation than what has already been given.

There is just soo many evidence compiled that even if you manage to successfully argue against one quote that is used to support RLJ, there are others, so it will be hard to convince anyone.

If you still want to try and present an alternative, I think you should read the Tower of the Hand essay, analyse at least most of the arguements used and explain why you think they're false, then say what you think really happened. And you will probably have to explain how David and Dan guessed the identity of Jon's mother, why it could be viewed as a Star Wars kind of situation by the actor that plays Theon, and what is the big mystery Howland Reed knows about.

You are opposing a theory that has been discussed for more then 10 years, so it will take more than saying Aegon was at the ToJ to convince people it's not true. Sorry, but it's just the way things are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have let it go, had I not remembered that quote about he Targs answering to neither gods or men. Even if polygamy was illegal, the Targs would still consider themselves above it. So, we have a completely unsupported statement (polygamy was codified as illegal) versus textually supported that the Targs did not consider themselves bound by the laws of gods or men. In practice, the extent of that status would have been limited by the power that could support it (hence the SSM about the lack of dragons decreasing the Targs' ability to do completely as they pleased), but it changes nothing about the premise that whatever the law was for the rest of Westeros, the Targs could, and did, get a pass. After all, "was and IS" precedent means that the precedent still applies.

I totally agree with you, I don't think there's any evidence for Jaehaerys making poligamy illegal, or that it would have stopped Rhaegar. But I think it should be included as a possibility at the OP, because many people believed it was possible, and others might have questions about the code.

If it's in the OP, it's as if we're saying: "it is a possibility, we don't have strong evidence to say poligamy was outlawed, but there's no proof it wasn't". It's the (temporary) conclusion of that particular debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you, I don't think there's any evidence for Jaehaerys making poligamy illegal, or that it would have stopped Rhaegar. But I think it should be included as a possibility at the OP, because many people believed it was possible, and others might have questions about the code.

If it's in the OP, it's as if we're saying: "it is a possibility, we don't have strong evidence to say poligamy was outlawed, but there's no proof it wasn't". It's the (temporary) conclusion of that particular debate.

I'd say the other way round: there is no evidence polygamy was outlawed but there are hints that it would have been possible for the Targaryens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you, I don't think there's any evidence for Jaehaerys making poligamy illegal, or that it would have stopped Rhaegar. But I think it should be included as a possibility at the OP, because many people believed it was possible, and others might have questions about the code.

If it's in the OP, it's as if we're saying: "it is a possibility, we don't have strong evidence to say poligamy was outlawed, but there's no proof it wasn't". It's the (temporary) conclusion of that particular debate.

Can I point back to GRRM saying that it could only have mattered to convention, the Faith, and opinions? He pointedly does not say anything about a law. Therefore assuming that there was a law about polygamy is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bear with me or scroll down quickly...

Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal?
Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. Some people propose that the lack of clear examples after Jaehaerys the Conciliator's universal laws suggests that polygamy was made illegal to appease the Faith Militant. However Westeros does not have a constitutional monarchy, placing the royal family above any laws. which makes the idea of royals being subject to the law tenuous. Examples demonstrate that it was considered an option for Targaryens: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Daenerys as a viable option, and she said the same about Quentyn Martell.
George(GRRM | Mr. Martin) says in this SSM: "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." There is also this SSM predating the worldbook where he suggests that he may write about further polygamous Targaryens.

Note: GRRM does not say how much is markedly, and certainly does not say "laws"; he cooses instead to say, "convention, the Faith, and opinions" in relationship to polygamy.

Agree with MtnLion's strikeouts. There is zero hint about polygamy being illegal but it is stated black on white that the Targs considered themselves above the law:

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.

@MtnLion and @Ygrain - you are against what @Kingmonkey thought was essential to that part of the faq. I tend to see it as you do, but credit @Kingmonkey for thinking (or believing) otherwise.

Before I count votes (3:1) and start editing, I'd like to hear more opinions, if possible... you reader out there, what do you think?

I totally agree with you, I don't think there's any evidence for Jaehaerys making poligamy illegal, or that it would have stopped Rhaegar. But I think it should be included as a possibility at the OP, because many people believed it was possible, and others might have questions about the code.

If it's in the OP, it's as if we're saying: "it is a possibility, we don't have strong evidence to say poligamy was outlawed, but there's no proof it wasn't". It's the (temporary) conclusion of that particular debate.

I'd say the other way round: there is no evidence polygamy was outlawed but there are hints that it would have been possible for the Targaryens.

Can I point back to GRRM saying that it could only have mattered to convention, the Faith, and opinions? He pointedly does not say anything about a law. Therefore assuming that there was a law about polygamy is incorrect.

The Jaehaerys I part - is setteled. I've read all I could find about Jaehaerys I (ASoIaf, worldbook, D&E, TRP+TPaTQ, SSMs, and the web ;-)) and the notion that he indeed did anything that would matter could only be found on this very dubious wiki page. It is now gone from the OP and only left with a strikethru in my in-thread post to not make latecomers unable to understand the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there really is not. And I'm pretty sure it didn't happen - not because I don't like the idea, but because there is a better, more satisfying solution to the mystery of Jon's parents. Six months ago, I didn't think there was one - and I'd have told you that R+L probably did equal J, in spite of some reservations I had about the scenario. A month and a half ago, I still didn't see a hands-down better alternative. Today, I do, and I'm about... oh, 90% sure that RLJ is incorrect. Which brings me to your earlier post, BQ, which I told you I'd get back to:

You are correct that I have been "starting from a different point" in my consideration of the text, and I consider that to be a better way of testing the R+L hypothesis. Over the last several months I've done nearly a complete reread of the books, specifically on the assumption that R+L#J. And it may sound obvious to say but, among other things, I found that RLJ does not have to be true in order for Jon Snow's story to make sense. In fact, I finally decided that if we begin by questioning Robert's assumption that Rhaegar had sex with Lyanna, then it's unlikely there'd be enough other evidence in the text for the reader to confidently draw that conclusion herself.

History is written by the victor(s) - in Westeros as in life. So it's not difficult to imagine how Robert's version of the events leading to his rebellion and conquest became the accepted story in the Seven Kingdoms. Neither Rhaegar nor Lyanna lived to tell their own tales - and anyone who'd be able to say anything about what Rhaegar was really up to is also dead (so far as we know). Ned Stark, who did speak with Lyanna before she died, may have known the identity of Jon Snow's father. But he also knew that to contradict the official story of Lyanna's kidnapping and Rhaegar's sexual involvement with her would completely undermine the authority of Robert's throne. (Not to mention the fact that the truth would absolutely have broken Robert's heart, and possibly destroyed the man.)

The counter-argument to the topic theory, convincing or not, is simply that R+L#J. What I find alternately fascinating and frustrating is this notion that it matters one jot whether any of us happen to be "for" or "against" RLJ. The story is not our story, and this theory is barely even a reader theory. R+L=J is right there in the text, carefully designed, planted, and primed by George R. R. Martin himself as one possible solution to the mystery of Jon Snow's parentage. It'll either be right or wrong in the end, regardless of what any of us prefer. But the mere fact that it's there does not mean it is ultimately persuasive or correct - and the fact that we find ourselves with different views on that is not something that should be taken by any reader as a personal slight.

R+L=J is a theory that makes more sense of the story in certain ways, and less sense in others. In my view, a thread that claims the theory as the central topic of discussion should take into account both its strengths and its weaknesses, and be up front about both. I'm honestly not sure what the disadvantage of doing that would be - even if certain shortcomings and the theory's inherent lack of certainty are assumed to be things that "everybody knows" anyway. (And I'd point out that there are regular participants in these threads whose posts belie that very assumption. So perhaps such statements of the obvious would not be wasted if they were incorporated into the OP.)

Snowfyre, and Black Crow/other Heretics - I'm sure this has been done before (many times), but would it be possible to have a future Heresy topic devoted to this discussion? Not necessarily anti-RLJ, but a broader conversation about how R+L=/= J would shape the story and change motivations of certain players in the game.

Although I am not necessarily against RLJ (but am leaning toward something else, too), I disagree with most of the conclusions surrounding RLJ that tend to dominate these threads - legitimacy via tree wedding, polygamy, ToJ, etc. Doesn't mean those conclusions are bad or wrong, just means that I have a different interpretation of the text and I would enjoy discussing those interpretations (for good or bad end, GRRM isn't paying me royalties for correct guesswork, alas) independently of the conclusions already reached here. That's my biggest complaint with RLJ threads in general - any alternatives brought up have to be presented in/fit within the preexisting framework of belief, creating an endless loop of circular reference towards poster theories already accepted as fact. Even when someone gets brave enough to start a separate thread to discuss alternative explanations, people from this thread jump into it and use the popular theories formed here as the basis for the counteracting argument! "That isn't possible, see so-and-so's analysis of that scenario." "Doesn't work because it goes against such-and-such's timeline of events." Uh, what?

It would be wonderful to discuss some of these alternatives on their own merit (again, good or bad) without having to conceptualize said alternatives within the confines of what is commonly assumed. Tabula rasa. I for one would love to hear your (Snowfyre's) theory and discuss pros and cons (perhaps working in theories of my own) without fear of being labeled a troll or called intellectually dishonest or accused of not having reading comprehension skills, but understand completely the decision to keep it to yourself. However, if you change your mind and this topic makes its way to Heresy, I will gladly participate. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi there, Merry Christmas all, if a bit late !

Jon Weirgaryen,

First of, this is an excellent initiative you are undertaking! ;) I've not read through all the changes in the OP yet, but I have one objection concerning the matter of polygamy and two of the arguments used. I don't think polygamy was illegal; only that some of the arguments (Jorah/Dany + dragons) are either debatable, or might give rise to some contention on the topic:

Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal?
Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. Some people propose that the lack of clear examples after Jaehaerys the Conciliator's universal laws suggests that polygamy was made illegal to appease the Faith Militant. However Westeros does not have a constitutional monarchy, which makes the idea of royals being subject to the law tenuous. Examples demonstrate that it was considered an option for Targaryens: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Daenerys as a viable option, and she said the same about Quentyn Martell.
George says in this SSM: "If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want". There is also this SSM predating the worldbook.

Two things:

1) male polygamy is different from female polygamy. Using the example of a hypothetical case of female polygamy to prove the legitimacy of male polygamy might seem slightly inconsistent. Polygyny (male polygamy) and polyandry (female polygamy) have rarely coexisted. It's either one or the other; these sort of marriages have not, historically speaking, occurred in the same cultural framework or served the same purposes. While asoiaf is =/= from real world, in many ways westeros is similar to our own middle ages; we are dealing with a male dominated society where women have little say. There is absolutely no reason to even think Dany could, under other circumstances (sans dragons), entertain the thought of plural marriage....In Westeros, there has not been (as far as I know) a single instance of female polygamy. Not in the whole history of the 7K; not in what we known of Valyria, either.

2) the dragons. Rhaegar didn't have dragons, so the fact that Targaryens could do anything as long as they had dragons is irrelevant to that particular case.

.....

Jorah is 1) arguing a hypothetical case, and motivated by his own ambition to marry Dany; 2) arguing from the perspective of 'you have dragons, you can do anything'....IMO, this has nothing to do with polyandry being a legal form of marriage; and even less to do with any hypothetical second marriage of Rhaegar's.

Instead I'd argue in the direction of incest. If incest was legal, why should we expect that polygamy wasn't? both of these are atypical marriage customs, that in recent centuries were practiced almost exclusively by Targaryens. They have that as common feature, especially as both were practiced by Aegon I.

The rest of the explanation stands, though. :)

I would suggest something like this (though shorter?):

Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal?

Aegon I and Maegor I practiced polygamy so clearly this custom was not foreign to Targaryens. It can even be argued that polygamy and incest became symbolical (trademarks?) of the dynasty from the moment Aegon and his sisters conquered the 7k.

While polygamy seems to have fallen out of custom there is nothing in the text to suggest it was ever truly banned. Some people propose that the lack of clear examples after Jaehaerys the Conciliator's universal laws suggests that polygamy was made illegal to appease the Faith Militant. However Westeros does not have a constitutional monarchy, which makes the idea of royals being subject to the law tenuous.

Furthermore, it should be expected that if polygamy was banned to appease the Faith Militants, surely, sibling marriages would have been banned as well. Yet, we know for a fact that Rhaegar's own parents were brother and sister. This marriage custom, while atypical for the common Westerosi, remained continuously practiced by various Targaryens. While this does not constitute proof that polygamy was legal, the case of incest demonstrates that such atypical marriage customs were tolerated for the ruling house, and that Targaryens were not subjected to the same restrictions as common men -- even decades after the death of dragons.

As long as we cannot disprove that polygamy was banned, we must consider that it too (like incest) was tolerated. It is in fact rumored that Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre considered it as an option for Daemon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Greymoon, thank you for giving your thoughts. I am sorry to say that more or less half of what you have been worrying with has already been stricken through and removed from the OP.



The polyandry/polygyny (ooooh, 37.5% of the word is made of the letter "y") is interesting and so is the concern with Jorah (we had the motive part earlier, but not the law & lore part).



In the end Jorah is just an example for what in-story people think, I might be happy without it.



My main concern is too much detail and length. I'd rather have less discussion in the faq, as I don't think it is the main concern of R+L if they married or no.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with MtnLion's strikeouts. There is zero hint about polygamy being illegal but it is stated black on white that the Targs considered themselves above the law:

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.

IMO, striking out counter arguments that have been made by others is sort of like 'hiding' or omitting facts. If the theory is true and the OP well argued, there should be no need of hiding or omitting things. On the contrary, mentioning other opinions and proving how these are either irrelevant or wrongly argued, strengthens the theory. Pretending counter arguments do not exist, otoh, weakens it considerably. These arguments are out there, hence they must be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, striking out counter arguments that have been made by others is sort of like 'hiding' or omitting facts.

In the case of the above, I took it out because it was indeed an un-fact.

It was nowhere to be found in the text, nor any of George's other ASoIaF-related writings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end Jorah is just an example for what in-story people think, I might be happy without it.

But that's exactly what matters - if in-story people consider polygamy possible or not.

IMO, striking out counter arguments that have been made by others is sort of like 'hiding' or omitting facts. If the theory is true and the OP well argued, there should be no need of hiding or omitting things. On the contrary, mentioning other opinions and proving how these are either irrelevant or wrongly argued, strengthens the theory. Pretending counter arguments do not exist, otoh, weakens it considerably. These arguments are out there, hence they must be addressed.

IMHO, the OP should stick to quotes. There is no quote for Jaehaerys banning polygamy, only an inference from the actual historical records with no further examples, ignoring both the fact that polygamy was never common pre-Aegon, anyway, and the existence of the still valid precedent mentioned in the SSM, as well as in-world opinion (ot lack thereof in situations where condemnation of the practice could have been expected but never happened). Therefore, I don't think it should go into the OP but be answered individually, or perhaps be linked to a post/essay analysing the matter at length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snowfyre, and Black Crow/other Heretics - I'm sure this has been done before (many times), but would it be possible to have a future Heresy topic devoted to this discussion? Not necessarily anti-RLJ, but a broader conversation about how R+L=/= J would shape the story and change motivations of certain players in the game.

Although I am not necessarily against RLJ (but am leaning toward something else, too), I disagree with most of the conclusions surrounding RLJ that tend to dominate these threads - legitimacy via tree wedding, polygamy, ToJ, etc. Doesn't mean those conclusions are bad or wrong, just means that I have a different interpretation of the text and I would enjoy discussing those interpretations (for good or bad end, GRRM isn't paying me royalties for correct guesswork, alas) independently of the conclusions already reached here. That's my biggest complaint with RLJ threads in general - any alternatives brought up have to be presented in/fit within the preexisting framework of belief, creating an endless loop of circular reference towards poster theories already accepted as fact. Even when someone gets brave enough to start a separate thread to discuss alternative explanations, people from this thread jump into it and use the popular theories formed here as the basis for the counteracting argument! "That isn't possible, see so-and-so's analysis of that scenario." "Doesn't work because it goes against such-and-such's timeline of events." Uh, what?

It would be wonderful to discuss some of these alternatives on their own merit (again, good or bad) without having to conceptualize said alternatives within the confines of what is commonly assumed. Tabula rasa. I for one would love to hear your (Snowfyre's) theory and discuss pros and cons (perhaps working in theories of my own) without fear of being labeled a troll or called intellectually dishonest or accused of not having reading comprehension skills, but understand completely the decision to keep it to yourself. However, if you change your mind and this topic makes its way to Heresy, I will gladly participate. :)

See, there seems to be a crucial difference in approach which causes these clashes. The analysis that is done here in this thread is basically the good old literary analysis - sift the text, look for patterns, imagery, consistencies/inconsistencies, bits of information from various PoVs, what have you, and put them together like a big puzzle - you may be missing a few pieces, or there may be a few that you don't know yet how they fit, but you get the picture. You know if the picture is a flower or a ship or a couple at it, and the picture won't change because you have misplaced some bits or cannot quite figure out whether a particular piece fits this way or another. So, if you want to raise an option that the picture is not a ship, you cannot do so by taking an individual piece and show how it incidentally fits elsewhere, you need to take all of them and completely reshape the picture in a way that makes sense for all of it, not just some parts, and you mustn't end up with a pile of bits that previously fit but don't any more. Then you have a valid counter-theory - and that's something I haven't seen done since version 17 or so when I joined the forums, just bold claims and butt-hurt comments when someone's grand idea fails to fit with all the known bits. Like it or not, the picture is a ship, we just haven't been able to establish the number of masts and sails.

Now, what is the whole picture going to be like when it's completed? Will it be an outstanding piece of art? Will it match my other pictures? And how will it change the look of my living room if I put it on the wall? There is a lot of space for discussion here which can be based on the analysis but is for the greater part, speculation. Not that speculation about the role of the picture doesn't take place but, to continue with the previous ship example, it's always ship-related, somehow. No use discussing that the picture is actually a wheel of cheese. If that's an option you'd like to discuss, you'd really better take it to the Heresy threads. Here, cheese is just the hypothetical cargo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it should also be mentioned that poligamy was never a common practice, since Aegon's marriage to Rhaenys was considered unnusual, but not without precedent.

/grrr/

Alright, alright. I had intended to dedicate my holidays to writing something else (yeah, fanfiction, in fact) but I'll try and formulate something conscise on polygamy. You guys then let me know if I have missed something. I could also use someone helping me with quotes from the works outside the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with MtnLion's strikeouts. There is zero hint about polygamy being illegal but it is stated black on white that the Targs considered themselves above the law:

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.

I disagree with the strikeouts. I think it is important to keep that in the OP for a very simple reason: the OP claims to set out the "Frequently Asked Questions" alongside the "Pro-RLJ" answers. This question about whether polygamy was ever legal, or if it was outlawed, is one of the most-frequently asked questions. The OP will not be accurate if it pretends that it is not.

I don't think you and Mtn Lion are saying that this does not belong in the FAQs. You are just saying that you think the "Pro-RLJ" answer is convincing. So the correct approach is to ask the question and then provide the answer that you find convincing.

Finally, while I don't suggest that the FAQ go into this much detail, that quote from Catelyn is clearly not correct if you are using it to suggest that the Targaryens were above the law. Rhaenyra thought she was above the part of Andal law that says that a younger brother comes before an older sister, but many of the lords who supported Aegon thought it important to force the Targaryens to follow the law -- and they succeeded. King Jaehaerys and Bloodraven both called Great Councils of the lords to decide the succession and abided by those decisions. Cersei even reminds Robert (whose claim to the throne comes from his Targaryen grandmother) that he is bound to her family by "all the laws of marriage." And Aerys himself obvioiusly "answered to men" in the end, since crimes led to the rebellion that ended his life.

More importantly, the quote clearly relates to the actions of the dragon kings. had done. Rhaegar was not the king. As RumHam has pointed out, the king may be able to give exemptions to the law (although it is interesting that Joffrey could not get himself out of his betrothal to Sansa, he needed the High Septon to do that). But even if kings can do it, princes can't. That is why Maegor was able to take multiple wives when he was king, but he was punished (by exile) for doing it while he was still a prince. If the law didn't apply to him, why did he have to go into exile? Daemon Targaryen wanted to put his first wife aside, but couldn't do it without the king's permission. If all Targaryens are above the law, why did he need permission? Prince Duncan the Small was removed from the line of succession breaking a betrothal to House Barratheons. If he was above the law, how could he be punished for breaking it? Aerion Brightflame wanted to kill Duncan the Tall, but Dunk was entitled to a trial and Aerion was required to abide by its outcome. If Aerion was above the law, why did he have to let Dunk go after the trial?

So I don't think the Catelyn quote is sufficient reason to remove part of the polygamy FAQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that the OP faq is for laying out the arguments in favor of the theory for those who are new to it and want to know why it is such a popular theory. That way, they know the points they need to debate if they wish to dissent. It shouldn't be a catch-all for everyone's opinion...even those who favor it. I agree that it shouldn't say much about polygamy because that's only a subset of the theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the strikeouts. I think it is important to keep that in the OP for a very simple reason: the OP claims to set out the "Frequently Asked Questions" alongside the "Pro-RLJ" answers. This question about whether polygamy was ever legal, or if it was outlawed, is one of the most-frequently asked questions. The OP will not be accurate if it pretends that it is not.

Two people don't have to be married to have sex at all. In my opinion, polygamy/marriage has ZERO bearing on whether Rhaegar and Lyanna conceived a child. It's related to the "so what?" part of the discussion, but not to the actual birds and bees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two people don't have to be married to have sex at all. In my opinion, polygamy/marriage has ZERO bearing on whether Rhaegar and Lyanna conceived a child. It's related to the "so what?" part of the discussion, but not to the actual birds and bees.

That too. Which is also why I suggested to adress the polygamy issue at length outside the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...