R+L=J v.160

[Wayward Sand Star]

On 18/05/2016 at 6:50 PM, MtnLion said:

There is a wandering Septon Meribald that has been in the Riverlands for ages.  My money is on the Isle of Faces, though. BTW, I don't think anyone has ever required a witness, documentation, or other proof.  Suggesting that that proof is a requirement is really unsupported. 

As @RumHam said, it's merely a practical idea, that if a marriage was contested, it would be practical to have witnesses who could confirm it. I wasn't suggesting I had any textual support, although I had the Knight's Oath in mind as well as THK, where Dunk's knighthood came into question at Ashford (specifically, the proof Plummer the Steward required).

[Amis Targaryen]

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 10:58 PM, MtnLion said:

Greetings, Amis Targaryen, welcome to the forums.  Please, go to the first page, and read the first post, in its entirety.  You may find that your eyes have been blind . . .

 

Oh course, and common objections to the “Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon” theory and brief responses to them: (From Faq Westeros.org)

 

“It’s obvious”: There is extensive anecdotal evidence in the form of individuals new to the fandom expressing surprise when first introduced to the theory, because they themselves did not “connect the dots” that this is not true. Moreover, some alternative theories, that Ned and Ashara or Ned and Wylla are Jon’s parents are clearly far more “obvious”, since they are the ones explicitly put forward in the series. If obviousness is a factor that matters, then we can rule those combinations out.

 

IMO Jon snow... maybe not like your think, forgive me

[UnViserion]

I don't recall MtnLion ever warmly greeting me to the forums. Just telling me my theory made no sense while posting his own conjecture as canon fact. 

[UnViserion]

On 5/18/2016 at 0:47 PM, RumHam said:

 

A witness may not be a strict requirement of a valid marriage, I'm really not sure.

I'm pretty sure when it's the right of inheritance to the iron throne-- it's a pretty strict requirement. 

[MtnLion]

13 hours ago, Rhaegar the Unworthy said:

I don't recall MtnLion ever warmly greeting me to the forums. Just telling me my theory made no sense while posting his own conjecture as canon fact. 

Memory can be a fickle thing . . .

[Aeron_Damphair]

On 5/24/2016 at 10:04 PM, Rhaegar the Unworthy said:

I'm pretty sure when it's the right of inheritance to the iron throne-- it's a pretty strict requirement. 

It may be required for practical purposes, to press his claim, but saying that it's a strict requirement to the claim's legitimacy is a grasp at straws. I don't see how Jon's claim won't be massively important to the overall story. This, to me, must be the case whether he's able to actually succeed or fail in the endeavor. Maybe he would even abdicate. But it has been drawn out for too long and been too central to the underlying back story for it to simply be irrelevant once it becomes known.

That being said, I'm pretty sure there will have been a witness, for narrative purposes if nothing else.

[tugela]

2 hours ago, Aeron_Damphair said:

It may be required for practical purposes, to press his claim, but saying that it's a strict requirement to the claim's legitimacy is a grasp at straws. I don't see how Jon's claim won't be massively important to the overall story. This, to me, must be the case whether he's able to actually succeed or fail in the endeavor. Maybe he would even abdicate. But it has been drawn out for too long and been too central to the underlying back story for it to simply be irrelevant once it becomes known.

That being said, I'm pretty sure there will have been a witness, for narrative purposes if nothing else.

A claim does not have to be particularly strong when you have an army behind you.

Remember, this is a medieval fantasy. In those days the law was the sword, and the guy making the law was whoever held the biggest sword at the time. There were no lawyers to quibble over technicalities.

[Solaris]

My GOD! V160!!! i didn't think it was possible. Disappear for a few years and spiral out of control.

FABULOUS! Keep it up.

[TheDemonicStark]

hey guys. What if Jeyne Poole feel in love with Jon Snow?

Hear me out. Jon will probably come back. How will he treat Jeyne? Why, by actually treating her like a human being. He would see it as his duty to keep her safe. And Jeyne, having been mistreated by nearly every man she has met, well, she'll probably fall in love with him, believing him to be the heroes from the stories of her youth. And if R+L=J is confirmed, well, she'll think of him even more as her hero, come to save her from her evil husband. Her sworn protector.

Does anyone else agree? 

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

On 5/18/2016 at 2:20 AM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

 

 

Even of they indeed had been married, that doesn't automatically mean Jon has the better claim. After Rhaegar died, Viserys became Aerys's new heir, despite the fact that Aegon was still alive. Does that mean that Aegon specifically was passed over? Or does that passing over include all children of Rhaegar?  It becomes even more complicated if we consider that Jon might have been born only after Viserys had been named heir. 

Viserys, in turn, recognized Daenerys as his heir by naming her Princess of Dragonstone. 

 

So, should Rhaegar and Lyanna have been married, Jon has enough to support him making a claim. But he will have the disadvantage of Aerys having had an heir from another line than Rhaegar's, and Daenerys is the lawful heir from that line.

After Rhaegars death do most people know that Aerys passed over Aegon and made Viserys his heir? Jaime thinks about crowning Aegon or Viserys king after he killed Aerys, right? 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

3 hours ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

After Rhaegars death do most people know that Aerys passed over Aegon and made Viserys his heir? Jaime thinks about crowning Aegon or Viserys king after he killed Aerys, right? 

Perhaps, perhaps not. Jamie does consider crowing Viserys first, and crowning Aegon second. That might be a hint that he knew, and thus first considered the true heir, and only then considered the one who was within reach (Aegon).

According to Ran, there are historical documents on which Yandel based that part of his text, so it seems that Aerys did officially write something down. By how well-known that news became within two weeks, we don't know. And after a little while longer, for most people it would have ceased to matter much, as Aegon and Aerys were dead, and Viserys was crowned on Dragonstone. But in the end, it might come to be more important, when it becomes one claim (Jon or Aegon) against another (Daenerys).