R+L=J v.162

[Rippounet]

48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but ask yourself: Would your thoughts dwell on prophecies you never had a genuine interest in as far as we know while your are bleeding out or dying from some other reason after giving birth killed her?

I don't know, I've never bled to death nor seen anyone bleed to death, but in works of fiction, main characters do have the strangest thoughts (and words) as they die.

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't know. I don't see Lyanna buying crap like that. I think she was much more interested in Rhaegar as a person and how he treated and acknowledged her as such in the wake of the KotLT episode. I don't think they talked prophecy and then Lyanna just suddenly agreed to sleep with him or marry him. At least I hope that's not the case. Rhaegar better should have kept the whole 'I desperately need another child' card up his sleeve and play the 'I'm desperately in love with you since we first met' card.

Ah, but on that I agree. In my scenario, Rhaegar only mentioned the prophecy after him and Lyanna were already close enough for him to confide in her. In other words, I think they fell in love first.
He might even have mentioned it only shortly before leaving for the Trident.

48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

From what AGoT gives us that's rather unlikely. Ned's memories don't give the impression he had the opportunity to talk much with Lyanna. What we get is that he she clutched his hand and begged him for his promise and then died. She would have to convey some information, mind you, but I very much doubt they had the time or the leisure (or the interest) to talk about KL, Aerys, and Rhaegar's children.

I take the very opposite view. Though they probably didn't have that much time together, I doubt Ned arrived only to see his sister die. I think they had the time to exchange a certain amount of information, and that the promise bit only happened at the very end.
Of course, Lyanna being weak and feverish, she probably wasn't that coherent and probably passed out every once in a while. Still, I would expect Ned and her had enough time to discuss important matters... In fact, I would argue that Lyanna made Ned promise something... Because in their previous discussions he had shown reluctance to agree to it.

48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And even if they did - how do you think that could be revealed in the books? We are not likely to get a Lyanna POV in the near future and I don't think Lyanna and Ned talked prophecy of all things before she died.

Now you're making this easy for me:

Quote

Howland Reed might know the truth and Bran can look into the past.

 

48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He definitely has to be recognized as a Targaryen at one point. The series is not likely to have a king who isn't closely related to the royal dynasty. It is a feudal monarchy, after all. But he could very well be just an acknowledged or legitimized Targaryen bastard. Or some weirdo child born from a marriage of dubious validity which is posthumously confirmed by a Targaryen monarch. That could work, too.

But I find it actually very unlikely that Jon will become king in his own right. He is likely going to become a co-ruler of sorts, being the Alysanne to Dany's Jaehaerys I.

I very much agree with this.

 

[Shmedricko]

Over on the ASOIAF subreddit, user Jen_Snow compared Daenerys' chapters in the Blood of the Dragon novella (published in Asimov’s Science Fiction on July 1996) with those in A Game of Thrones (published one month later on August 1996) and made note of all the biggest changes. One of the most interesting differences is that Blood of the Dragon mentions that Aegon the Conqueror married his sister Rhaenys, but A Game of Thrones mentions that he married both Rhaenys and Visenya.

Quote

BotD	AGOT
[...]	[...]
Aegon the Conqueror marries his sister Rhaenys	Aegon the Conqueror marries both Rhaenys and Visenya
[...]	[...]

Notes:

• [...]

• Intriguing that Aegon the Conqueror married only one of his sisters in the novella and married both of them in the published version of AGOT. WOIAF explained that he loved Rhaenys but married Visenya out of duty. Is there something there about the introduction of polygamous marriages and Rhaegar later? I think so but I haven't thought enough about it to write something up on it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/531sdu/spoilers_extended_asoiaf_archives_sample_chapters/

[Ygrain]

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

So... you're basically assuming that being a second wife would not be a dishonour, right?

So did Aegon dishonor Rhaenys?

And would it really be an equal dishonor as deflowering and impregnating someone out of wedlock?

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I think the SSM on the subject is very clear:

I'd say Martin made it clear that a dragonless Targaryen would have been crazy to play the polygamy card. Not to mention a dragonless prince who had serious issues with his father already.
Yes, he did leave the door open... Because we actually have a potential Targaryen ruler with dragons in the story... And the possibility of her having more than one husband has already come up...

Yes, the SSM is indeed very clear - that without dragons, polygamy would be way more problematic than without them, which no-one denies. It is also very clear that for some reason, a simple "polygamy is no longer possible in present day Westeros" is not the answer that GRRM wanted to give.

And pray, what is the narrative point of Dany having more than one husband? I honestly don't see one.

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

What I truly don't get is that if you (Ygrain, or others) are so desperate to have Jon be the legitimate son of Rhaegar... Why not argue that he planned to repudiate Elia? Or even that there are ways, in the books, for a marriage to exist without a ceremony (Jon "stealing" Ygritte)?
Of all the ways for Jon to be legitimate, polygamy isn't the best one.

Because there is no textual support suggesting that Rhaegar was going to repudiate the wife he was fond of. Whereas polygamy is an issue that needn't have been introduced at all (see above), then there is all that talk about marriage being the honorable thing to do if you want to bed someone and Rhaegar being honourable, the whole KG guarding a bastard issue - and I believe all those are in the text for a reason. It's about textual clues, not wanting  Jon legit. Personally, I couldn't care less.

7 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Why can't a bastard be a dragon? I doubt Balerion's parents were married. 

Because Jon himself tells you, right in Bran's first chapter - he's not a Stark, he is not entitled to a wolf. Orys Baratheon wasn't the fourth dragon head, either.

7 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Aemon made an important observation:

"No one ever looked for a girl," he said. "It was a prince that was promised, not a princess... What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise! The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame. The language misled us all for a thousand years. Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke. The dragons prove it."

Aemon came to believe that Dany was the princess who was promised -- unlooked for, because of an error in translation giving rise to a belief that "prince" indicated a male saviour. "Prince" indicates a person of royal blood who is both male and legitimate. If by the parallel with dragons we can ignore the "male" part as a false assumption based on the translation, why shouldn't the "legitimate" part also be a false assumption based on the translation? Dragons are neither male of female. Dragons are also not prone to getting married. 

In other words, neither being female NOR being a bastard should be taken to disqualify someone from being TPTWP. 

I wholeheartedly agree with you that being a bastard doesn't disqualify anyone from anything per se, but I am not a person brought up in the society which obsessed over legitimity for millenia. For such a person, a"prince" and a "dragon" would automatically mean "trueborn".

[Kingmonkey]

11 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Because Jon himself tells you, right in Bran's first chapter - he's not a Stark, he is not entitled to a wolf. Orys Baratheon wasn't the fourth dragon head, either.

He *thinks* he's not entitled to one, yet it turns out he gets one anyway. Wolves are blind to human cultural prejudices. I'd suggest that dragons and prophetic destiny probably are too.

11 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

I wholeheartedly agree with you that being a bastard doesn't disqualify anyone from anything per se, but I am not a person brought up in the society which obsessed over legitimity for millenia. For such a person, a"prince" and a "dragon" would automatically mean "trueborn".

Agreed. Just as for such a person, "prince" would also automatically mean "male". Aemon observes that people had been misunderstanding for a thousand years due to those biases that society has given them.

If Aemon could figure out that those biases had lead people from the truth that the prince didn't have to be male, then perhaps Rhaegar could figure out that those biases had lead people from the truth that the prince didn't have to be legitimate either. If so, the difficulty over polygamy goes away.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Ah, but on that I agree. In my scenario, Rhaegar only mentioned the prophecy after him and Lyanna were already close enough for him to confide in her. In other words, I think they fell in love first.
He might even have mentioned it only shortly before leaving for the Trident.

On that I agree with you. Just as Rhaegar talked about the prophecy with Elia he may have talked to it with Lyanna. The question is - did she take this whole thing seriously? Was it also important for her? I mean, not necessarily everything your lover or spouse is interested in (or obsessed with) is also important for you...

Quote

I take the very opposite view. Though they probably didn't have that much time together, I doubt Ned arrived only to see his sister die. I think they had the time to exchange a certain amount of information, and that the promise bit only happened at the very end.
Of course, Lyanna being weak and feverish, she probably wasn't that coherent and probably passed out every once in a while. Still, I would expect Ned and her had enough time to discuss important matters... In fact, I would argue that Lyanna made Ned promise something... Because in their previous discussions he had shown reluctance to agree to it.

What's problematic with that is the fact that Ned remembers that 'they' found him at Lyanna's bedside in the tower. Surely Howland and whoever else was with them (Wylla, perhaps) wouldn't have waited hours or even half an hour outside the tower. After all, Howland Reed knew and liked Lyanna Stark, too, considering that she saved him from those thugs back at Harrenhal. One would assume he intended to pay his respects to her as well.

If Wylla or some other servant was there at the tower then Ned and Howland could actually have gotten a lot of information about this whole affair from such a person rather than Lyanna herself. All Ned needed to know to make his promise was that Lyanna was married to Rhaegar (which he could have known for a rather long time at this point if this was a public marriage or if Lyanna had a chance to send a letter to her family after the abduction), that she had a son from Rhaegar (which would have been obvious without mentioning it explicitly), and that she was afraid Robert or the rebels in general would kill him. That's it. There is no need for some long conversation.

I mean, the very fact that Ned only went to the tower with six companions he implicitly trusts with this whole thing makes it very likely that he already knows what he is going to find there (Lyanna and a child) or that he very much suspects that he would find something like that. If he had no clue whatsoever he could have gone with a larger group of men.

Quote

Now you're making this easy for me:

Oh, what we can get from Howland Reed or visions of the past is just what Howland knows and what Rhaegar and Lyanna talked about in private. Unless you think Lyanna's last words included something along the lines of 'The prophecy ... Rhaegar was wrong ... his Aegon wasn't the one. My son is. Aegon ... his name must be ... Aegon' we would never know why Lyanna named the boy Aegon if it was her lonely decision after pondering prophecy on her deathbed. Neither Howland Reed nor vision-Bran can read the thoughts of other people.

7 hours ago, Shmedricko said:

Over on the ASOIAF subreddit, user Jen_Snow compared Daenerys' chapters in the Blood of the Dragon novella (published in Asimov’s Science Fiction on July 1996) with those in A Game of Thrones (published one month later on August 1996) and made note of all the biggest changes. One of the most interesting differences is that Blood of the Dragon mentions that Aegon the Conqueror married his sister Rhaenys, but A Game of Thrones mentions that he married both Rhaenys and Visenya.

https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/531sdu/spoilers_extended_asoiaf_archives_sample_chapters/

That is very interesting. That sort of confirms that polygamy was never supposed to be an important custom of the Targaryen kings. It is a later addition and one wonders why George added it. If we take the original outline and the Jon-Arya-Tyrion love triangle seriously then the idea to change that to Jon-Dany-Tyrion might only have come while he was writing the story.

Or rather, the idea of Targaryen polygamy might have crept into the story when George was contemplating Dany's later moves. It is in her chapters that polygamy is discussed as a viable option, and it is she who has three dragons - as many as Aegon the Conqueror had. It is pretty obvious that Dany is going to become a female version of the Conqueror when she finally arrives in Westeros. And just as Aegon was married to two female dragonriders Dany might decide to marry two male dragonriders (who both might turn out to be closely related to her).

The idea that polygamy was introduced in the story to give the necessary background for Jon Snow's legitimate parentage has become rather unlikely in that light. We know the original outline already had Jon Snow as Lyanna's son by Rhaegar (implicitly at least, considering there is talk about his true parentage in the outline). Since was also know that George had finished barely ten chapters when he wrote and sent that outline it is pretty clear that the change from the Aegon-Rhaenys match in 'The Blood of the Dragon' to Visenya-Aegon-Rhaenys in AGoT was a later change.

This doesn't have to mean that George cannot also use the polygamy thing for Rhaegar and Lyanna but it is much more likely (as it always was) that this was included to foreshadow Dany's multiple husbands later on in the story. That's why she got the three dragons she has in the story and not the single dragon she hatched in the outline.

We have to keep in mind that George's own talk about the genesis of ASoIaF very much suggests he just began writing it without first thinking what this novel was supposed to be about. For some time he wasn't even clear whether this whole should be fantasy or not (the whole talk about 'putting the dragons in' doesn't refer to the dragons alone but the magic/fantasy element). The idea that he had clear picture where the various characters would go when he begun the story isn't very likely at all.

[MtnLion]

Based upon the acceptance of Jon's legitimacy by the most honorable men that Ned knew, there should be no argument here.  Try turning that around, and if Jon were truly illegitimate, why would Ned have honored the Kingsguard at the tower?  Why would Ned not think of Rhaegar with disdain, for having dishonored his sister?  There are too many things that do not make sense, if Jon were not trueborn. 

One can bury their head in the sand, and say that there is no sun; that there is no lion; that there is no water.  It just will never make it so. 

[Ygrain]

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

The only homage that interests the "old gods" is some poor sucker's lifeblood flowing. I doubt CotF or their tree-changed greenseers particularly care about the totally man-made concept of bastardy. Neither do they have opinion on the allowed number of wives, because they don't give a fig about these human things. Again, marriage is a man-made social convention. It's the opinions of other humans that matter. The validity of a marriage is dependant upon it being recognized by other members of human society, not fairies in the trees.

I beg to disagree - religious societies perceive marriage as a sacred religious ritual. The old gods may not care for marriage as such, but they may care about the vows because they witness them.

Besides, the old gods apparently do care about some human things, or else they wouldn't care if brothers shag their sisters.

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

You are really streching it here. Aerys and Rhaella were a royal prince and princess and - what's most important for the purposes of our discussion - they were both unmarried. Of course that Jaehaerys made Aerys and Rhaella marry to bring children into the world! Theirs was a completely different set of circumstances.

Of course the circumstances are vastly different, but the idea is the same - it is inherently assumed that to produce a child for a destiny, the child should be legit. Because that's the right way to produce children, not some bastard with black heart as the Westerosi oh-so-kindly think.

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Yeah, people tend to be disgusted by incest. I don't see your point. You think they should express their disgust over polygamy more? Why? Cersei/Jaime gave the people of the Seven Kingdoms some triggering suspicions. OTOH polygamy is pretty much a dead practice. Had Joffrey decided to marry Sansa and Margaery both, we would have likely seen an uproar.

Anyway, you've gotten the impression that people aren't shocked and disgusted by the situation at Craster's keep? True, they are more disgusted by the idea of father raping his own daughters. I can't blame them that they aren't more horrified by the idea of Craster raping more than of his daughters at a time.

They should express disgust over polygamy at all in the first place. Even with Targaryens for whom incest was common practice, we get to hear surprise or condemnation. Yet over polygamy, not a single word. No-one mentions that Craster shouldn't have more than one wife (BTW, no-one seems to question the validity of his marriages, either), no-one comments on the polygamous Ygon Oldfather even though practically every other Wildling custom gets trashed.

Besides, calling polygamy "dead" in the series where we see both dead folks as well as dead customs revived is not exactly the best figure of speech

You're right that Joffrey attempting polygamy would cause an uproar... just like Jaime and Cersei's coming out would. As Cersei puts it, they are not Targaryens, they can't do what Targs did. 

 

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

 

I really can't explain that since we don't have a deeper knowlwdge of Valyrian customs. We know that polygamy was a practice reserved for "sorceror princes" whatever the description encompasses. It appears Aenar Targaryen was one of them, but I don't think that Aegon the Conqueror was one (the sorceror of the trio was Visenya) and I'm decidedly sure Rhaegar wasn't one either.

I don't have TWOIAF, can you provide the quote about polygamy? Even though, I am not sure why such a rule should apply three hundred years after the fall of Valyria when Targaryens are pretty much the last of Valyrian blood and when their ancestor himself set a precedent for not following.

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

But it doesn't really matter what rules there had been back in Valyria, no? Rhaegar lived in Westeros of the 3rd century. The Seven Kingdoms have their own taboos, customs and conventions. We also know that people reacted very very badly when Maegor tried his luck, in fact they reacted worse than when Aenys wed his son Aegon to his sister Rhaena (which is something that I've always found a bit strange since iRL most people might not think well of bigamists, but they would be far more disturbed by a brother/sister couple fucking... but there you go; the way GRRM had written it, High Septon lived down the incestous marriage of Aenys' children, but not the polygamous marriage of his brother).

Wait a sec, as I said I don't have TWOIAF but I seem to recall from previous discussions that the Faith's uproar was indeed over the incest (and as for Maegor's polygamy, wasn't the "spurned" wife HS's relative?)

 

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

He did? I don't actually remember that bit. I was pretty sure that Daemon wanted an annulment.

It is not stated. He said he wanted to marry Rhaenyra, and Viserys told him nope because of the existing marriage. He never declined a request for annulment.

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Anyhow, the idea that not asking for the king's permission somehow makes the marriage okay is not true. Daemon did not ask for Viserys' permission when married Laena Velaryon, and we know that Viserys exiled them for it. The king has the full command of the line of succession; he can't just have his relatives making and disolving alliances without his leave. Avoiding the confrontation with the king doesn't make an unauthorized marriage of a prince accepted by the king.

You're mixing up two different things - validity of marriage, and punishment for not obtaining the king's permission. The king doesn't have the power to dissolve the marriage vows, he can only make the newlyweds' lives miserable, disinherit their children etc., but the marriage holds.

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

In Rhaegar's case, there had been a much greater problem than Aerys: the existence of his lawful wife, Princess Elia of Dorne. Daemon's marriage to Laena was valid and the children trueborn, although they weren't part of the royal family until Viserys decided to reconcile with their father. But in Rhaegar and Lyanna's case the marriage would be considered invalid to begin with; even if Aerys had thrown his full support behind it, the proceedings wouldn't be smooth. Because Rhaegar already had a wife.

The proceedings definitely wouldn't be smooth but you cannot claim that the marriage would be invalid from the get go, there is no textual support for this. You see, if a polygamous marriage is automatically invalid, then the whole royal line is descended from an invalid marriage, and that's a can of worms that would be quite problematic to open.

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Anyway, since you're so fond of the idea of Rhaegar having one wife for duty and the other for love like Aegon the Conqueror, how do you feel about Prince Duncan's dilemma? If it was both sooo honorable and acceptable to pull this stunt, why didn't he make things easier for his royal father? Why didn't anyone bring it up as a possibility? After all, the marriage to Jenny would have been a morganatic one, so her children wouldn't have been a danger to the heirs born by the Baratheon queen.

Because, as was stated with Aegon, it was alwas an unusual solution? Or because it wouldn't solve the problem with Jenny's low birth?

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

The KitN business is mixing up together oranges and lettuce, sorry.

Because it doesn't fit with your claim that a three hundred years old custom cannot be revived?

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Now, a question.

Let's say that had indeed been a ceremony that Rhaegar had been dumb enough to present as a true marriage.

What do you believe it would accomplish?

Would it somehow make go away the fact that the country went KABOOM in the wake of their disappearance?

Is it supposed to prove to everybody that treat Jon as a bastard was wrong not because treating bastards differently than trueborn children is wrong, but because this particular bastard wasn't arguably a bastard?

Or will it be needed because Jon will be pathetic enough that only the confirmation that his parents had been married will give him a sense of self-worth?

What's the narrative purpose of it all?

To show how people's perceptions of necessary action are formed by the customs and prejudices of the society they live in? To break the trope of a secret rightful heir coming out with his birthright and everybody falling on their asses singing halleluyah? To show that in that big mess Westeros has become, such claims are totally insubstantial and someone else gets to sit the ugly chair while Jon dies doing his duty, unknown or perhaps even villainized?

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

To me it only kind of spoils the whole concept of cripples, bastards and broken things, the disadvantaged ones that have to stick together and work harder to receive recognition.

And if Jon earns recognition through hard work and then learns, does it spoil anything?

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Sorry, to me it sounds cheap, just like that 1993 Arya-Jon romance where the conflict was resolved by their discovering they aren't siblings. Fortunately GRRM gave up on that idea and instead

Possible spoilers for Season 7 of the show

  Reveal hidden contents

we will get Jon and Dany fucking before they discover they are related

Frankly, I really do think that Elia/Rhaegar/Lyanna marriage went the same way of non-existence. GRRM planned for it, but in the end decided to something else. Such things happen. Disrupting the narrative flow? No, not really. It's not a central storyline or anything.

Not the narrative flow as such but there would remain the loose ends and missing pieces. It is not much of a problem to steer the present storyline but the past that keeps being hinted at should remain the way past normally is - unchanged.

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Though I guess it could be also originally solved that way that Jon will be disgusted by his origins story, denounce his biological parents, and officially remain Ned Stark's (and Ashara Dayne's?) son for the rest of his life.

Quite possible. I'd even say, highly probable. "I will always remain Ned Stark's son, no matter how many swords the give me" - methinks that this, along with the gift of Longclaw, might be foreshadowing of Jon turning down the Targ heritage along with Dark Sister.

[lojzelote]

On 8. 11. 2016 at 11:52 PM, Lord Varys said:

Rhaegar is, in fact, not portrayed as a good leader or competent politician. The impression we get is that he was quite capable of representing House Targaryen in the public - much better than Aerys as a youth and later as king because he was a very capable knight - yet there is no hint he had any experience in anything or was properly trained for his role as king. Aerys II certainly didn't keep close to his side in his later years.

He certainly was a gifted and intelligent young man from what we know but he was also melancholic his entire life as far as we know. The fact that many young men and women admired him and thought the best of him doesn't make it so, actually. Prince Daemon and Prince Aerion had friends, too, and especially Prince Daemon was very popular with a lot of people. But this doesn't mean they were good and sympathetic men.

The faults of the less martial Targaryens are simply much more visible than those of the charismatic warriors.

And then, only very few people seem to have known or cared about the prophecy business. Rhaegar believing in stuff like that would most likely make him appear like a dangerous mad fool rather than a promising young prince. 

If you think about it - what is the difference between Aerion and Aerys II believing they could transform into living dragons and Dany believing she could hatch petrified dragon eggs?

(Sorry, had a busy day yesterday. And excuse the wacky quoting. Never really used it before.)

Well, I don't think that you need to be a good politician in order not to lack general awareness of societal norms and what disastrous consequences their breach may have for you.

It's like if your ordinary guy from the West travelled to the Saudi Arabia and married another woman or women there under the traditional Islamic law, and upon his return to his homeland expected for it to be recognized as legitimate by the Western courts or even the Catholic church itself. I'm sure your average Joe is aware it wouldn't work out for him.

Quote

Quote

Quote

 

Nope, this one would have imploded regardless whether there was a marriage or not. Robert loved Lyanna and the Starks would never suffer their precious girl becoming a glorified whore.

But I agree with you that Rhaegar must have known his family's history, especially the affair involving Jenny, his granduncle, and House Baratheon. Yet he took Lyanna anyway.

 

While nobility might be scandalized, I have my doubts that any of them would be willing to rebel because Lord Stark's daughter turned out to be a whore. After all, their society is very misogynistic, and if they can blame something on a woman instead of a man, they will.

The Starks would be obviously pissed, but even that might not last forever, especially if Lyanna's position gave them some advantages in the end. The Hightowers certainly don't seem shy about using the connections Lysenne's position gives her in their favour, and the Blackwoods seem quite proud of Missy to the point of building her a statue on their lands. Missy having the Unworthy's ear and her son getting important positions at court during reigns of three kings must have surely improved their lot significantly.

Quote

The idea is that if Rhaegar acted on the prophecy - which he seems to have done insofar as he believed because of the prophecy that he needed to father a third child - he may have believed said child should not be born a bastard. Not to mention that even a royal legitimization decree does not necessarily make you a prince. Daemon, Aegor, Brynden, and Shiera are all never referred to as prince(ss).

He may have, he may have not. We don't even know if or why he modeled his family after V/A/R. It's even possible that VAR modeled themselves after the same prophecy of three great dragon heads or whatever, but either way it doesn't necessarily mean that Rhaegar's take was that his children have to be exactly like VAR.

Anyway, he should wish that his children would not be just like VAR, because we know that Aegon hadn't been fond of Visenya and tried to avoid her, and later on Visenya's son had begun cannibalizing Rhaenys' grandchildren.

In fact a dyminac like Rhaenys/Aegon/Orys Baratheon might have suited his purposes better.

The Unworthy's Great Bastards had been princes and princesses in all but name. Had Daeron died childress during their father's reign and had Daemon been still legitimized, there's almost no way that the throne wouldn't have automatically passed to him upon the Unworthy's death.

Tbh, I think that in such a scenario - given the state of the Targaryen line at the time - as a recognized bastard son of the last king by a princess, he would still have had a decent claim even if he hadn't been legitimized. The only other rival claims could have come side of his half-sister Daenerys (who he could have attempted to marry) or side of the (male) descendants of Eleana Targaryen.

Quote

The other thing might have been Lyanna's own view on the matter. I doubt she intended to throw her life and honor away to become a glorified whore. Why should she? Do you think love blinded a woman who spoke rather dismissively about love when talking to Ned about Robert's love for her? Lyanna is described as a strong-willed and willful character. The idea that Rhaegar could just make her his mistress is not very likely.

People tend to see it differently when it's them who falls in love. Regardless, Rhaegar might have been her first (serious) love, and she might not have had much of a comparison before that.

To me she seems rather like a free spirit who didn't care much for societal norms. I mean, she is supposed to be a sort of precursor to Arya. I don't think Arya would lose much sleep over being regarded negatively by stupid according according to their stupid rules, even if she got to be brought up as a noblewoman.

Quote

But the most important hint that Jon Snow might have been more than just some bastard has to do with the fact that both Lyanna and Ned apparently feared for his life. A bastard of Rhaegar by Lyanna shouldn't have been in mortal danger because he had no good claim to the throne and would never become a danger if raised by Eddard Stark. Ned could have told Robert about Jon had the boy just been a bastard.

I don't believe Ned would have risked Robert's wrath either way.

But even if had been sure that Robert wouldn't take it on on the kid, it still would had been a kindness not share the news with the world. As Rhaegar and Lyanna's (rape)child, Jon would have lived with terrible stigma.

Quote

Could be. But then, why could Viserys not be the promised prince? Because there were no sign heralding his birth? Perhaps Rhaegar just didn't see them? Summerhall was just a chance the Targaryens jumped on. Hey, there was smoke from the fire and salt from the tears. And we know the promised prince is supposed to be born from Aerys and Rhaella's line.

Summerhal wasn't significant only ex post. We know that Ghost made a prediction about the birth of a dragon there. Of course, after the Tragedy Targaryens might have believed it was a load of bull, but Rhaegar might have realized that in prophetic dreams dragons stand for human Targaryens. In which case it would mean that the dragon was... himself. And if his birth was significant enough that a witch would have had prophetic dreams about him... could he not be the dragon?

You don't have to go through great mental gymnastics to get to the point.

Quote

That is certainly a possibility. But then, some people advising Rhaegar on prophecy or making prophecies themselves doesn't necessarily clear up things. It could just muddy the water further. Rhaegar wanting to believe in prophecy and other people believing in prophecy advising them is not necessarily going to sound reasonable to Lyanna (or anybody else, really).

Well, I don't think it would necessarily convince anybody else, but I think it would have convinced Rhaegar himself.

Quote

Why should Rhaenys feel something of that sort? A woman is supposed to be obedient and loyal to her husband, not the brother she did not marry.

The children of Alicent and Rhaenyra also didn't get along.

But don't noble families sometimes signify the end of a conflict by marriage? The Brackens and the Blackwoods do it all the time, apparently, though not with great success.

No matter how Rhaenys would have felt, her marriage to Lyanna's son would have blocked him from marrying a woman from a powerful family that could help him usurp his half-brother. Meanwhile Aegon could be married to such a woman to secure his position as the heir.

That is of course, unless the disastrous concept of polygamy re-entered the realm of possibility with Rhaegar and Lyanna. In that case there would be no guarantee of anything. I guess half-brothers would try to trump each other who marries more well-connected women (and Viserys would join in, I'm sure). A generation later there would be even more heirs from even more different noblewomen... and then.... disaster.

If Rhaegar felt any sort of responsibility towards his country, he wouldn't make the system even messier than it already is.

 

 

 

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, lojzelote said:

If Rhaegar felt any sort of responsibility towards his country, he wouldn't make the system even messier than it already is.

Well... arranging for a saviour of the world might worth a little political uproar, in case the other option is complete annihilation....

I am withholding m judgement until I learn what was on the man's mind.

[lojzelote]

18 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I beg to disagree - religious societies perceive marriage as a sacred religious ritual. The old gods may not care for marriage as such, but they may care about the vows because they witness them.

Bloodraven and CotF don't seem to give a fig that the next greenseer's parents had been married in the Light of the Seven, though. Bran's not disadvantaged in any way.

Besides, the old gods apparently do care about some human things, or else they wouldn't care if brothers shag their sisters.

That's what ignorant humans say. I doubt that Cley Cerwyn's men-at-arms actually talked to any greenseer.

Of course the circumstances are vastly different, but the idea is the same - it is inherently assumed that to produce a child for a destiny, the child should be legit. Because that's the right way to produce children, not some bastard with black heart as the Westerosi oh-so-kindly think.

Nobody ever brougths it up like this. Anyhow, this idea that heroes can be only dashing trueborn princes and knights is exactly what the narrative goes against.

They should express disgust over polygamy at all in the first place. Even with Targaryens for whom incest was common practice, we get to hear surprise or condemnation. Yet over polygamy, not a single word. No-one mentions that Craster shouldn't have more than one wife (BTW, no-one seems to question the validity of his marriages, either), no-one comments on the polygamous Ygon Oldfather even though practically every other Wildling custom gets trashed.

Why would anybody care about the validity of his marriage? Behind the Wall the laws and customs of the Seven Kingdoms don't apply. Free Folk are viewed as lawless savage rabble.

Besides, calling polygamy "dead" in the series where we see both dead folks as well as dead customs revived is not exactly the best figure of speech

You're right that Joffrey attempting polygamy would cause an uproar... just like Jaime and Cersei's coming out would. As Cersei puts it, they are not Targaryens, they can't do what Targs did. 

Well, Joffrey was officially descended from the Targaryens, so as opposed to his biological parents, he could have tried.

I don't have TWOIAF, can you provide the quote about polygamy? Even though, I am not sure why such a rule should apply three hundred years after the fall of Valyria when Targaryens are pretty much the last of Valyrian blood and when their ancestor himself set a precedent for not following.

Well, the wording is such that it is not clear as to whether all dragonlords were sorceror princes or just some.

Either way, I don't see why Westeros should tolerate their strange (and harmful) behaviour.

Wait a sec, as I said I don't have TWOIAF but I seem to recall from previous discussions that the Faith's uproar was indeed over the incest (and as for Maegor's polygamy, wasn't the "spurned" wife HS's relative?)

OK, you're right about this.

It is not stated. He said he wanted to marry Rhaenyra, and Viserys told him nope because of the existing marriage. He never declined a request for annulment.

No, I checked. It says he asked Viserys to set aside his wife long before he has shown any interest in Laena. Given that he seemed to find her boring and ugly from the start, it's likely their marriage was never consumated.

You're mixing up two different things - validity of marriage, and punishment for not obtaining the king's permission. The king doesn't have the power to dissolve the marriage vows, he can only make the newlyweds' lives miserable, disinherit their children etc., but the marriage holds.

Yes, that's true. I did say that Daemon and Laena's marriage was valid although Viserys didn't give his permission. Only that the children their union produced weren't in line of succession.

It was you who was mixing two things together. Daemon didn't already have a wife upon his marriage to Laena. Rhea died.

Rhaegar DID already have a wife upon this supposed marriage to Lyanna.

The proceedings definitely wouldn't be smooth but you cannot claim that the marriage would be invalid from the get go, there is no textual support for this. You see, if a polygamous marriage is automatically invalid, then the whole royal line is descended from an invalid marriage, and that's a can of worms that would be quite problematic to open.

Let's just say that vast majority would have still regarded Lyanna as his whore, and even if Rhaegar managed to sweet talk them into accepting it as long as it suits their interests, should Jon ever inherit, the likelihood is, his claim would have been very easily contested by Uncle Viserys.

Not worth all the complications, imho. Just legitimize the damn kid.

Because, as was stated with Aegon, it was alwas an unusual solution? Or because it wouldn't solve the problem with Jenny's low birth?

Who would have cared? Queen would have been Laughing's Storm's daughter, not Jenny. Anyway, if it was possible, so why not go for it? I'm sure that original Valyrian laws don't say that you can only take a second wife if you want to breed a saviour of the world.

Because it doesn't fit with your claim that a three hundred years old custom cannot be revived?

It can be revived, in theory (assuming Jaehaerys the Conciliator didn't officially outlawed the practice, which I think is very possible). But Rhaegar would have faced a FIERCE oposition on the topic. Oposition he could not possibly afford. He wanted the lords' help in deposing his father. And it would be greatly irresponsible of him as far as the future of the Targaryen line was concerned. I write about it at the end of my last comment to Lord Varys.

To show how people's perceptions of necessary action are formed by the customs and prejudices of the society they live in? To break the trope of a secret rightful heir coming out with his birthright and everybody falling on their asses singing halleluyah? To show that in that big mess Westeros has become, such claims are totally insubstantial and someone else gets to sit the ugly chair while Jon dies doing his duty, unknown or perhaps even villainized?

I think it is clear that nobody in Westeros would care - in fact the way things are set I don't think they would believe him he's the disastrous couple's son in the first place, bastard or not.

But I wouldn't be afraid that he dies unknown. Villanized... perhaps. (Trying to pretend I haven't watched the show is sometimes hilarious, lol.)

And if Jon earns recognition through hard work and then learns, does it spoil anything?

It kinda spoils the thematic of cripples, bastards, broken things. All our main characters are misfits in some way - a cripple, a dwarf, a bastrad, and traumatozed women. Westeros doesn't view them as worthy heroes, but that's what they are to us. If Jon learns that he wasn't arguably a bastard after all, it kinda breaks the spell, even if the Seven Kingdoms at large remain ignorant. His character is fundamentally tied to his bastardy. This is why I mind it.

Not the narrative flow as such but there would remain the loose ends and missing pieces. It is not much of a problem to steer the present storyline but the past that keeps being hinted at should remain the way past normally is - unchanged.

That depends. GRRM originally wanted to put more polygamous Targaryens on the family tree, then he changed his mind.

Quite possible. I'd even say, highly probable. "I will always remain Ned Stark's son, no matter how many swords the give me" - methinks that this, along with the gift of Longclaw, might be foreshadowing of Jon turning down the Targ heritage along with Dark Sister.

At least on something we agree. Well, mostly. ;-)

 

 

[MtnLion]

Ygrain said:  Wait a sec, as I said I don't have TWOIAF but I seem to recall from previous discussions that the Faith's uproar was indeed over the incest (and as for Maegor's polygamy, wasn't the "spurned" wife HS's relative?)

lojzelote Said:  OK, you're right about this.

2 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Not worth all the complications, imho. Just legitimize the damn kid.

Only the king can legitimize, so the easiest way for Rhaegar to legitimize Jon is for him to marry Lyanna.  We don't know what kind of arrangement that Rhaegar may have had with Elia, but it is clear that polygamy could have been a topic after the birth of Aegon.  Some of the things that you attribute to the people is very suspect, BTW.  I mean, how outraged were the people about Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella being the product of incest?  Again, refer back to incest being more of an outrage than polygamy, the latter being more or less acceptable, the former is labeled a sin.  Also, there doesn't seem to be any public revolt because the current king (either Joffrey or Tommen) is a bastard. 

[lojzelote]

49 minutes ago, MtnLion said:

Ygrain said:  Wait a sec, as I said I don't have TWOIAF but I seem to recall from previous discussions that the Faith's uproar was indeed over the incest (and as for Maegor's polygamy, wasn't the "spurned" wife HS's relative?)

lojzelote Said:  OK, you're right about this.

Only the king can legitimize, so the easiest way for Rhaegar to legitimize Jon is for him to marry Lyanna.  We don't know what kind of arrangement that Rhaegar may have had with Elia, but it is clear that polygamy could have been a topic after the birth of Aegon.  Some of the things that you attribute to the people is very suspect, BTW.  I mean, how outraged were the people about Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella being the product of incest?  Again, refer back to incest being more of an outrage than polygamy, the latter being more or less acceptable, the former is labeled a sin.  Also, there doesn't seem to be any public revolt because the current king (either Joffrey or Tommen) is a bastard. 

Not sure if serious or merely trolling, but I will go with trolling. At this point Tommen is the king only because the High Septon has no other viable option.*sigh*

As for that statement of mine you've quoted, please, I was answering exactly to impotence of that action (ie, marrying or 'marrying' Lyanna). Simply repeating it again is hardly going to convince me.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, lojzelote said:

(Sorry, had a busy day yesterday. And excuse the wacky quoting. Never really used it before.)

Well, I don't think that you need to be a good politician in order not to lack general awareness of societal norms and what disastrous consequences their breach may have for you.

It's like if your ordinary guy from the West travelled to the Saudi Arabia and married another woman or women there under the traditional Islamic law, and upon his return to his homeland expected for it to be recognized as legitimate by the Western courts or even the Catholic church itself. I'm sure your average Joe is aware it wouldn't work out for him.

Oh, that wasn't the point there. I was more trying to point out that while Rhaegar looked much better than Aerys in the public we have no good reason to believe he would have been a good ruler had he have taken the crown.

I agree that Rhaegar should have known that his actions would have dire consequences.

Quote

While nobility might be scandalized, I have my doubts that any of them would be willing to rebel because Lord Stark's daughter turned out to be a whore. After all, their society is very misogynistic, and if they can blame something on a woman instead of a man, they will.

The Starks would be obviously pissed, but even that might not last forever, especially if Lyanna's position gave them some advantages in the end. The Hightowers certainly don't seem shy about using the connections Lysenne's position gives her in their favour, and the Blackwoods seem quite proud of Missy to the point of building her a statue on their lands. Missy having the Unworthy's ear and her son getting important positions at court during reigns of three kings must have surely improved their lot significantly.

It isn't just the Starks. It is Lord Robert Baratheon, too. Lord Rickard had his southron ambitions so he might have found the idea of his daughter being the mistress of the Prince of Dragonstone to be not such a bad idea (but I actually doubt that considering Brandon and Ned's behavior at Harrenhal) but Rhaegar still dishonored his daughter by abducting her and made it impossible for them to keep the marriage contract with Robert. Rickard would have looked very bad had he actually accepted this whole thing. He would have been the laughingstock of the Realm and Robert may have demanded satisfaction for the humiliation (challenging him to a duel or something of that sort).

I think there is a reason why we never read anything about a Stark daughter being somebody's mistress, nor is there any hint that the Bracken and Blackwood mistresses of Aegon IV were betrothed to some important lord when Aegon took them. And Lord Lothston who allowed Aegon to fuck his wife (and later his legal daughter) is still known as 'the Pander'. Lord Rickard most definitely is not likely to have done something that would earn such a moniker.

More later.

[MtnLion]

1 hour ago, lojzelote said:

Not sure if serious or merely trolling, but I will go with trolling. At this point Tommen is the king only because the High Septon has no other viable option.*sigh*

As for that statement of mine you've quoted, please, I was answering exactly to impotence of that action (ie, marrying or 'marrying' Lyanna). Simply repeating it again is hardly going to convince me.

You insist that the people are not going to accept Rhaegar's marriage to Lyanna, but continue to ignore that they did accept the incestuous marriage of Aerys and Rhaella.  The people are not in an uproar about anything as far as we see.  Further, we know that the people cheered for Aerys, they cheered twice as loud for Tywinn, and redoubled that for Rhaegar.  It just is not sound reasoning to say that Rhaegar's actions would be rejected by the people. 

No, I don't troll.  I usually ignore those that I believe are trolls, though.  Feel free. 

Before you do, you might want to review what went on at the tower of joy.  (There is a link in my signature to my analysis of the dialog.)  It is very plain that the disposition and dialog of the Kingsguard at the tower of joy can only make sense if Jon is legitimate. 

[Ygrain]

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Bloodraven and CotF don't seem to give a fig that the next greenseer's parents had been married in the Light of the Seven, though. Bran's not disadvantaged in any way.

Bran is not supposed to be a PTWP, though.

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

That's what ignorant humans say. I doubt that Cley Cerwyn's men-at-arms actually talked to any greenseer.

I meant the ban on incest.

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Nobody ever brougths it up like this. Anyhow, this idea that heroes can be only dashing trueborn princes and knights is exactly what the narrative goes against.

That certainlyy does, but I am talking not about the narrative but of an inside-the-world character's perception.

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Why would anybody care about the validity of his marriage? Behind the Wall the laws and customs of the Seven Kingdoms don't apply. Free Folk are viewed as lawless savage rabble.

Did you even read what I wrote? The Wildlings get a lot of bashing, practically anything they do. And then comes this guy who has basically painted a target on his back, with his shamefully high number of wives, and no-one says a word even though the situation is asking for a negative comment

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Well, Joffrey was officially descended from the Targaryens, so as opposed to his biological parents, he could have tried.

Unlike Rhaegar, he was in no position to try, though.

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Either way, I don't see why Westeros should tolerate their strange (and harmful) behaviour.

Because they have for three hundred years?

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

No, I checked. It says he asked Viserys to set aside his wife long before he has shown any interest in Laena. Given that he seemed to find her boring and ugly from the start, it's likely their marriage was never consumated.

I'm talking about Daemon proposin for Rhaenyra after they were caught in flagranti.

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

It was you who was mixing two things together. Daemon didn't already have a wife upon his marriage to Laena. Rhea died.

See above - the Rhaenyra scenario, not Laena.

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Let's just say that vast majority would have still regarded Lyanna as his whore, and even if Rhaegar managed to sweet talk them into accepting it as long as it suits their interests, should Jon ever inherit, the likelihood is, his claim would have been very easily contested by Uncle Viserys.

Assuming and impending apocalypse, succession squabble or public outcry might seem a minor trouble, though.

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Not worth all the complications, imho. Just legitimize the damn kid.

You're forgetting Lyanna - dubious as the second marriage might be, Jon's legitimization doesn't change a thing about her being a concubine.

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Who would have cared? Queen would have been Laughing's Storm's daughter, not Jenny. Anyway, if it was possible, so why not go for it? I'm sure that original Valyrian laws don't say that you can only take a second wife if you want to breed a saviour of the world.

Because she would still be paired with a low commoner, and since Duncan would almost certainly prefer Jenny the way Aegon preferred Rhaenys (or more), it would still be one hell of a trouble.

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

It can be revived, in theory (assuming Jaehaerys the Conciliator didn't officially outlawed the practice, which I think is very possible). But Rhaegar would have faced a FIERCE oposition on the topic. Oposition he could not possibly afford. He wanted the lords' help in deposing his father. And it would be greatly irresponsible of him as far as the future of the Targaryen line was concerned. I write about it at the end of my last comment to Lord Varys.

 

See above - politics, or preventing apocalypse? 

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

I think it is clear that nobody in Westeros would care - in fact the way things are set I don't think they would believe him he's the disastrous couple's son in the first place, bastard or not.

That would be another trope breaking, I guess. The hidden prince always proves his claim, Jon may not. 

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

That depends. GRRM originally wanted to put more polygamous Targaryens on the family tree, then he changed his mind.

If he did, it would be a gotcha for R+L=legitJ, I guess. He claims not to read internet theories, but I don't think that RLJ being the worst kept secret has escaped him.

[SFDanny]

26 minutes ago, MtnLion said:

Before you do, you might want to review what went on at the tower of joy.  (There is a link in my signature to my analysis of the dialog.)  It is very plain that the disposition and dialog of the Kingsguard at the tower of joy can only make sense if Jon is legitimate. 

I posted this not long ago in the Heresy thread, but in response to the amazing bolded assertion let me also post it here.

Quote

The responses of the Kingsguard to Ned make perfect sense under the following circumstances:

• The responses are Ned's own thoughts of what he thinks the men would have replied in his dream. The responses are limited to Ned's own knowledge of the whereabouts of the Kingsguard. He knows they weren't at the Trident. He knows they weren't in King's Landing. He knows they weren't in Storm's End. He would have thought that meant they would have gone to Dragonstone with Viserys, but instead he finds them in the Prince's Pass in front of a desolate tower. His answers can't fill in the blanks of his knowledge, so it is absurd to think he will dream Ser Gerold would have responded "here" instead of the the "far away" he does dream because he doesn't have knowledge they were at the tower when Aerys died. He just knows they were far enough away that they could not save their king from Jaime's betrayal.
• If the response is based on a real conversation Ned had with the three Kingsguard, then the conversation shows a complete hostility to answering Ned's questions with anything other than the most perfunctory responses given to an enemy one thinks they are about to kill, and who they are under absolutely no obligation to inform that enemy of anything they seek to know. Indeed they are under an obligation not to give Ned the answers he wants.
• If the response is based on the continuing need to hide the identity of the person or persons in the tower behind them. Again assuming this is a real conversation, then if the Kingsguard are trying to block the passage of Ned and his friends to the tower, then their non-reponse responses make perfect sense in that they are hardly going to explain their duty to Ned. That is true if they are guarding Lyanna from Ned, and especially true if they are guarding Rhaegar's child from Ned.

While I agree it is likely Jon is the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, it is in no way certain this is so. Much less so that must be true based on your reading of the dialogue at the Tower of Joy. We don't even know if the conversation ever took place, or is only something Ned dreams. While the facts in Ned's questions and the Kingsguards supposed responses reflect the reality we see outside the dream, that could be Ned's understanding coming through. None of which points to Jon's bastard status or his been trueborn.

I think the real clues to Jon being legitimate, or, to put it another way, Rhaegar and Lyanna having been married, is the character we see developed in Lyanna, and the love we are told that exists between her and Rhaegar. I just don't see Lyanna consenting to have her child being born a bastard. I don't see Rhaegar forcing her to do so..

[Ygrain]

11 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I just don't see Lyanna consenting to have her child being born a bastard. I don't see Rhaegar forcing her to do so..

Neither do I. As I have posted multiple times, I believe that a part of the whole mess was Rhaegar doing exactly what Robb did - putting his beloved's honor above his, and doing himself as well as his cause quite some damage as a result.

[SFDanny]

11 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Neither do I. As I have posted multiple times, I believe that a part of the whole mess was Rhaegar doing exactly what Robb did - putting his beloved's honor above his, and doing himself as well as his cause quite some damage as a result.

Then we agree. I should add to the discussion about what the people of Westeros, or their High Lords, or anyone else would accept is a discussion about what would have been the balance of power in a hypothetical past had Rhaegar won at the Trident, and he had taken the throne from his father. As the victor, the balance would obviously change to Rhaegar having much greater power to say whether or not his polygamous marriage was valid or not. Would the Faith, or any other group, rebel against their new king? Who knows, but I like his odds of winning in that situation.

Ygrain, I do also very much agree with the tying of Robb and Rhaegar's situations with each other. Not everything one does for love is going to be political expedient. 

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

As the victor, the balance would obviously change to Rhaegar having much greater power to say whether or not his polygamous marriage was valid or not. Would the Faith, or any other group, rebel against their new king? Who knows, but I like his odds of winning in that situation.

I don't see the Faith which has been closing eyes to incest protesting too much, and while the Starks and Martells definitely wouldn't be happy with the arrangement, it would be in their best interest to suck it up. Martells wouldn't risk further weakening Elia's position by antagonising Rhaegar, and Starks would have to uphold the marriage for the sake of Lyanna. Personally, I think that the greatest danger would be poised by Tywin the Twice Spurned, who might start insisting that Rhaegar should take Cersei as a third wife

Quote

Ygrain, I do also very much agree with the tying of Robb and Rhaegar's situations with each other. Not everything one does for love is going to be political expedient. 

I would also add that in both cases, fallout had to be expected, and in both cases, it went way beyond any reasonable expectation. 

I am only wondering whether the beyond-the-scenes dealings between Tywin and Walder Frey orchestrating the RW (not to mention the machinations of Illyrio and Varys) might be paralleled by some yet unrevealed schemes of other shadowy players (again, Varys comes to mind) on the eve of the Rebellion.

[Rippounet]

On 09/11/2016 at 1:14 PM, Lord Varys said:

On that I agree with you. Just as Rhaegar talked about the prophecy with Elia he may have talked to it with Lyanna. The question is - did she take this whole thing seriously? Was it also important for her? I mean, not necessarily everything your lover or spouse is interested in (or obsessed with) is also important for you...

Of course. But even if Lyanna didn't take Rhaegar's beliefs seriously she definitely would have listened. This is a girl who cried over a mere song by Rhaegar when she met him. She's not just the headstrong character some describe.

On 09/11/2016 at 1:14 PM, Lord Varys said:

What's problematic with that is the fact that Ned remembers that 'they' found him at Lyanna's bedside in the tower.

I think I always read this as meaning that Ned remained by the bed long after Lyanna had expired, grieving. The idea that Ned arrived just in time for her final moments stretches my suspension of disbelief.

On 09/11/2016 at 1:14 PM, Lord Varys said:

Oh, what we can get from Howland Reed or visions of the past is just what Howland knows and what Rhaegar and Lyanna talked about in private. Unless you think Lyanna's last words included something along the lines of 'The prophecy ... Rhaegar was wrong ... his Aegon wasn't the one. My son is. Aegon ... his name must be ... Aegon' we would never know why Lyanna named the boy Aegon if it was her lonely decision after pondering prophecy on her deathbed. Neither Howland Reed nor vision-Bran can read the thoughts of other people.

Not everything is clearly written in the books. There are many ways to have the readers guess.

On 09/11/2016 at 1:14 PM, Lord Varys said:

Or rather, the idea of Targaryen polygamy might have crept into the story when George was contemplating Dany's later moves. It is in her chapters that polygamy is discussed as a viable option, and it is she who has three dragons - as many as Aegon the Conqueror had. It is pretty obvious that Dany is going to become a female version of the Conqueror when she finally arrives in Westeros. And just as Aegon was married to two female dragonriders Dany might decide to marry two male dragonriders (who both might turn out to be closely related to her).

The idea that polygamy was introduced in the story to give the necessary background for Jon Snow's legitimate parentage has become rather unlikely in that light. We know the original outline already had Jon Snow as Lyanna's son by Rhaegar (implicitly at least, considering there is talk about his true parentage in the outline). Since was also know that George had finished barely ten chapters when he wrote and sent that outline it is pretty clear that the change from the Aegon-Rhaenys match in 'The Blood of the Dragon' to Visenya-Aegon-Rhaenys in AGoT was a later change.

This doesn't have to mean that George cannot also use the polygamy thing for Rhaegar and Lyanna but it is much more likely (as it always was) that this was included to foreshadow Dany's multiple husbands later on in the story. That's why she got the three dragons she has in the story and not the single dragon she hatched in the outline.

I completely agree.

On 09/11/2016 at 7:14 AM, Ygrain said:

So did Aegon dishonor Rhaenys?

Rhaenys and Visenya were Valyrians (with a Valyrian culture), were not betrothed to anyone else, and needed to keep their bloodline pure.
Also, could you provide me a quote saying that Aegon married Visenya first? I thought he married both at the same time...

On 09/11/2016 at 7:14 AM, Ygrain said:

And pray, what is the narrative point of Dany having more than one husband? I honestly don't see one.

I find that hard to believe, there have been tons of people talking about that on this forum.

On 09/11/2016 at 7:14 AM, Ygrain said:

Because there is no textual support suggesting that Rhaegar was going to repudiate the wife he was fond of.

And where is the textual support to say Rhaegar married Lyanna? The whole "KG guard the legitimate heir" refrain? That has so many holes I can't be bothered to list them all... Again.
But the point is, we have the books and an SSM shoying how unlikely polygamy was. And here is the passage from tWoIaF you asked for:

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

Mind you, a bit of research has shown me that repudiating a barren wife seems impossible in Westeros, so there's that...
 

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Neither do I. As I have posted multiple times, I believe that a part of the whole mess was Rhaegar doing exactly what Robb did - putting his beloved's honor above his, and doing himself as well as his cause quite some damage as a result.

That, on the other hand, weirdly enough, I can somehow believe.
That Rhaegar deflowered Lyanna and then decided he'd rather risk the political shitstorm that would ensue rather than leave her dishonored.
It's still a stretch imho, but if Martin does go for a "Return of the King " scenario... Well, it's a possibility I guess.