R+L=J v.162

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Thus I suggest that if the theorised polygamous marriage occurred, it was for Lyanna's sake not Jon's, and it's Lyanna's attitudes we have to speculate on. 

That sounds remarkably like what we were doing. Of course, Rhaegar's wishes, as close as we can figure out what they might be, play a role in this and might be important as well.

[J. Stargaryen]

Rhaegar honored Lyanna at HH with the crowning. If that's a symbolic rendering of RLJ, which some of us think it is, then we should remember that you can't honor a highborn girl by putting a bastard in her belly.

[purple-eyes]

19 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Rhaegar honored Lyanna at HH with the crowning. If that's a symbolic rendering of RLJ, which some of us think it is, then we should remember that you can't honor a highborn girl by putting a bastard in her belly.

Well, house Blackwood disagree.

They put a statue for Missy in their Godwoods (like what Ned did for Lyanna, coincidence?)

I guess they feel it is an honor that king put a bastard (actually three bastards) in her belly.

 

[SFDanny]

41 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

Well, house Blackwood disagree.

They put a statue for Missy in their Godwoods (like what Ned did for Lyanna, coincidence?)

I guess they feel it is an honor that king put a bastard (actually three bastards) in her belly.

 

I think what House Blackwood did under the reign of Aegon the Unworthy tells us next to nothing about what Rhaegar and Lyanna decide to do within their limited options. What do we know about these two people, their character, their wants, their beliefs? Those seem to me to be the appropriate questions to ask.

[SFDanny]

4 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Maybe Rhaegar could have got away with polygamy the way some Targaryens had got away with in the past, but at the very least this would be controversial. 

Rhaegar would have assumed that one day, possibly quite soon, he was going to be king.

Kings can legitimise bastards.

If Rhaegar felt it was for some reason important that his third child be legitimate, marriage was not the most secure and reliable way to ensure the child's legitimacy, decreeing it would have been. Why risk dispute and controversy to achieve something you can achieve far more simply and uncontroversially anyway?

Would Rhaegar just have "assumed" that he would be king? There is every possibility that when he left with Lyanna, members of the small council would be screaming that it was proof of treason on Rhaegar's part. That is what happened after the crowning at Harrenhal. There would likely be a push from the same forces to disinherit Rhaegar and make Viserys Aerys's heir.

I think Rhaegar takes a huge gamble with his father when he takes off with Lyanna, but I also think he believes Aerys knows the meaning of his crowning of Lyanna at Harrenhal. As I've said before, I think it is primarily a political act of consolidation with his father stating to the Starks and the Baratheons and the whole of the growing alliance that he stood against their aims of removing Targaryen power. He honors Lyanna, like Aerys did with Jaime, by stating his own princely interest in between the plans of Lord Rickard and Robert to join their houses in the marriage.

Nonetheless, Rhaegar takes a huge gamble that his mad father will not turn on him in his absence .It seems to me that assuming he will become king and can legitimize his child with Lyanna at that time is a huge jump. He has, as I've said before, very limited options and for his plan to work he needs to push his father off the throne and reign himself, but that does not mean he can assume it will happen. The interesting question with the possible polygamous marriage is it is one of the few options Rhaegar and Lyanna actually have in their control while in hiding. If it reflects the needs and wants of the two of them as i think it does, it makes little sense for them not to seize the chance to wed when they have it. It makes much more sense for them to do so, than to wait assuming Rhaegar will someday sit the throne and then legitimate his child.

[J. Stargaryen]

2 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

Well, house Blackwood disagree.

They put a statue for Missy in their Godwoods (like what Ned did for Lyanna, coincidence?)

I guess they feel it is an honor that king put a bastard (actually three bastards) in her belly.

That's an interesting point, and I don't dismiss the parallel out of hand. However, I have my doubts because the circumstances between the two situations are markedly different for a number of reasons, which I'm sure you don't need me to list. And regardless of what those Blackwoods who built the statue might have thought -- perhaps they were honoring her not for the bastards, but for her role in the acquisition of the Teats from their rivals, the Brackens -- custom in the 7K says that highborn ladies are dishonored by premarital sex.

[Lord Varys]

On 14.11.2016 at 11:41 PM, Rippounet said:

This is a fair point. But since Rhaegar himself never considered Viserys was a possibility, there is little reason to think that Lyanna (who would have all her information from him) would.

Well, you are the guy who assumes without good evidence that Lyanna might have decided to believe on her deathbed that her son rather than Prince Aegon was the promised prince. Why do you think Lyanna had 'little reason' to not instead conclude that Viserys III - much safer on Dragonstone and protected by Targaryen loyalists - was the real savior (or at least the father or grandfather of the promised prince)? After all, her child was likely to die soon considering that the rebels had won and it was rather unlikely that anybody would take it in or raise it.

She could just as easily have reached that conclusion as she could have reached the one you seem to prefer.

In addition, you have to keep in mind that Rhaegar's weirdo belief that he or his children would be the promised prince and his companions are nowhere actually justified. There is no prophecy stipulating any of that - which is why it is exceedingly unlikely that Lyanna would just believe stuff like that. Even if she believed in 'the prophecy' she could just as well have tried to talk sense to Rhaegar, pointing out that he had no reason to believe his children were those prophesied saviors but merely their ancestors (or perhaps not even that, considering that Viserys was out there to produce offspring, too).

On 14.11.2016 at 11:41 PM, Rippounet said:

Also, you kind of provide me with the answer to your own point: assuming Rhaegar told Lyanna what he knew about the prophecy, it's possible she did see something very specific when Jon was born.
And yes, we have zero textual evidence of that at the moment. However, assuming Jon is tPtwP (or shares the honor with Dany), there should have been some of the signs announced by the prophecy.

Not necessarily. Keep in mind that the red comet only heralded the return of the dragons. Nothing important happened in Jon's life at that point. And the storm doesn't seem to have been an event foretold in prophecy. It could still herald Dany's birth but it isn't an element people knowing prophecies would look for.

Regardless who Jon is, Dany clearly is the more important element in the entire thing because she brought the dragons back. And the dragons will be important.

On 14.11.2016 at 11:41 PM, Rippounet said:

Except we don't even know that. We generally assume Lyanna was afraid for Jon's life because we use the information we have as a reader. Yet, for all we know, Ned was the one who chose to hid Jon from Robert, not Lyanna.

I once considered something like that as well, suggesting that Lyanna might have asked Ned to put her son on the Iron Throne, or something along those lines. But if you actually reread the sections in AGoT then it is pretty obvious that she was afraid that Ned would not do as she asked of him, and it makes much more sense to assume this was about the life of her child rather than his status in life.

On 14.11.2016 at 11:41 PM, Rippounet said:

All of this is possible... But I don't see why it would be certain. I believe it would be better if some things were left to be debated... Forever.

That wouldn't be good writing. The core mysteries and riddles of such a series have to be answered. That's what the series is about. Some minor details not connected all that well to the plot might remain unclear but we can be pretty sure a lot of the important things will be answered.

[Ygrain]

A bit off-topical, but worth checking, IMHO, as a further proof of Ned's underestimated subtlety : 

Also, nice to see that people can still pick on new stuff.

[purple-eyes]

how come some people think it is much harder for rhaegar to become king and legitimize his bastard by Lyanna (his birth right and a super easy thing for king), than to make a polygamy marriage work (first case within last a couple centuries, and make anemies with half of country, highly pissible to make him be disinherited and exiled) ? 

[The Twinslayer]

On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 1:36 AM, SFDanny said:

My apologies, my friend, I should have replied sooner. Again, I must say I think Ygrain has a critical point about the double standard set for men and women in Westerosi societies. With the exception of the Free Folk of the far north, and to a much lesser extent in the culture of Dorne the difference from what happens to men who do not live up to the standard of virginity before marriage and fidelity within a marriage is profound when compared to what happens to women. I just don't think there is any argument this difference exists. The most glaring example, being Robert and Cersei. Robert can screw anyone or anything he wants, but Cersei's crime is punishable by death and the deaths of her children. I know, he's the king and there are special rules for kings. That doesn't change the fact these difference are real throughout Westerosi societies from top to bottom. A sexually permissive woman loses everything. A sexually permissive man is thought to just be doing what a man does, even if it is not nice to flaunt it in front of the women and children.

But once again, let me point out these realities are not carried out collectively, at least not for the whole of society. So setting aside the occasional orgy, we have these decision taken within the context of couples and how they respond to societies norms. We have to ask not what a list of many people who engage in sexual infidelities tells us about societies hypocrisies, but what are the likely response by the couple in question - Lyanna and Rhaegar? The obvious conclusion is that Rhaegar is already being unfaithful to Elia, but that doesn't tell us if he is likely being unfaithful to Lyanna. I've already said why I think the characters as we are given them in the text leads me to believe these two are likely faithful to one another. That doesn't make them unique. It just make them somewhat different than many of the people on your list

I don't think the double standard relates specifically to gender.  I think it relates to inheritance.  Cersei's infidelity matters and Robert's does not because the right to the throne runs through Robert.  Similarly, no-one cares that the widow Hornwood is not a virgin -- it is precisely because of her status as a lord's widow that other men want to marry her.  And no-one cares that Dany had a prior husband (Drogo) and a prior lover (Daario). 

I also don't think that Westerosi womens' pre-marital activities matter very much because there is no husband who will worry about another man's bastard inheriting his lands and titles.  And that is where I disagreed with Ygraine.  Ygraine suggested that because Craster says that if a man wants to bed a woman, he should marry her, that this is the common view in Westeros.  It isn't.  It isn't even a common view among the wildlings, as Jon's discussion with Tormund demonstrates.  Tormund thinks that because Jon "stole" Ygritte, he wants to bed her, and the fact that any resulting children would be bastards is no problem at all. 

And, even if there are some Westerosi who pay lip service to the idea that people should have no lovers before marriage, we are told that almost every character in the book did have take lovers before (or outside) marriage.  And as Tormund tells Jon, if that results in a pregnancy, it is up to the woman to decide whether to give birth to a bastard (like Daena Targaryen or Delena Florent) or take some moon tea (like Cersei or Lysa). 

So if you think that Rhaegar and Lyanna wouldn't have sex outside marriage, you have to have some reason to think that they were very different from almost everyone in Westeros -- that their views about this are more like Craster's than Davos'.  And you would have to think that their desire to avoid extra-marital sex (something everyone in Westeros was doing) was stronger than the taboo against polygamous marriages (which only Aegon, Maegor and a couple of wildlings ever tried to do).   

[J. Stargaryen]

3 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

how come some people think it is much harder for rhaegar to become king and legitimize his bastard by Lyanna (his birth right and a super easy thing for king), than to make a polygamy marriage work (first case within last a couple centuries, and make anemies with half of country, highly pissible to make him be disinherited and exiled) ? 

How can some people think Rhaegar would just assume he's definitely going to be king, considering the way his relationship with his father had deteriorated?

Though it might seem counter intuitive, marrying Lyanna might have been the better option for avoiding war with half of the kingdom. As opposed to just taking her for a mistress.

"Lord Rickard, would you prefer to have royal grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc., or risking the existence of your house in a war you're unlikely to win?"

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I don't think the double standard relates specifically to gender.  I think it relates to inheritance.  Cersei's infidelity matters and Robert's does not because the right to the throne runs through Robert.  Similarly, no-one cares that the widow Hornwood is not a virgin -- it is precisely because of her status as a lord's widow that other men want to marry her.  And no-one cares that Dany had a prior husband (Drogo) and a prior lover (Daario).

TT, there is a clear sharp double standard relative to the sexes when it comes to sexual infidelities as defined by all the cultures we come into contact with south of the Free Folk and north of Dorne, and even in Dorne it is only a question of a lesser degree. The Free Folk have their own rules that give women power they experience no place else.

Regarding what are the formal sexual customs in Westeros, with the exceptions of the Free Folk and Dorne, it is clear that sex is supposed to be confined to marriage, but the consequences for men and women who violate this custom are vastly different. Pre-martial sex with other partners can result in women being ostracized and betrothals canceled. Such women can be forced into lives of prostitution, and worse, but it is up to the potential male partner to accept or reject such a woman. Jon Arryn's silence concerning Lysa's premarital sex with Littlefinger is one such of an example. Lysa has no such say over Jon's sex life prior to marriage. Yet both are from the elite of Westerosi nobility - members of the families of the High Lords of the Seven Kingdoms.

After marriage female infidelities are much more severe in their penalties, while male penalties are virtually nonexistent. And here, yes, one of the areas in which the double standard based on sex shows itself is through inheritance customs and laws. A women who is thought to sexually active outside of her marriage bed can be set aside by her husband, and her children disinherited. None of this happens to a man who sleeps around. There may or may not be some societal disapproval in some areas if the man makes this too obvious, but their are no consequences that must happen to him if the wife objects. There is even a question whether the wife has the right to deny sexual relations to her husband. 

3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I also don't think that Westerosi womens' pre-marital activities matter very much because there is no husband who will worry about another man's bastard inheriting his lands and titles.

If this were true then there would be no tests for virginity such as Margaery has to undergo. Again, if the husband doesn't object this is one thing, but a women who comes into a marriage as "soiled" is looked at as a deceiver and unworthy. Not least of all, because there is no telling how long ago she had sex before a marriage and thus no guarantee a child born after is the child of her husband. I'm sorry, but you are just wrong here.

3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

And that is where I disagreed with Ygraine.  Ygraine suggested that because Craster says that if a man wants to bed a woman, he should marry her, that this is the common view in Westeros.  It isn't.  It isn't even a common view among the wildlings, as Jon's discussion with Tormund demonstrates.  Tormund thinks that because Jon "stole" Ygritte, he wants to bed her, and the fact that any resulting children would be bastards is no problem at all.

Once again, set the customs of the Free Folk aside. They are very different from all of the rest of Westeros. The irony is that Craster is saying something that is the formal expected norm south of the Wall, while he practices something - father/daughter incest - that is rejected everywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think even the Targaryens allow this type of marriage. At least we don't see it in the entire rule of the Targaryens over Westeros.

3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

And, even if there are some Westerosi who pay lip service to the idea that people should have no lovers before marriage, we are told that almost every character in the book did have take lovers before (or outside) marriage.  And as Tormund tells Jon, if that results in a pregnancy, it is up to the woman to decide whether to give birth to a bastard (like Daena Targaryen or Delena Florent) or take some moon tea (like Cersei or Lysa).

And again, while it is right to point out when only lip service is paid to the expected custom, it is wrong not to note the very different abilities of women to do so, while it is indeed easy for a man to do so. 

3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

So if you think that Rhaegar and Lyanna wouldn't have sex outside marriage, you have to have some reason to think that they were very different from almost everyone in Westeros -- that their views about this are more like Craster's than Davos'.  And you would have to think that their desire to avoid extra-marital sex (something everyone in Westeros was doing) was stronger than the taboo against polygamous marriages (which only Aegon, Maegor and a couple of wildlings ever tried to do).   

I have never made such a claim. I think it likely Rhaegar and Lyanna become lovers before they are married, if they do so marry. The question becomes what would these two individuals want to do once this takes place. It is possible they wish to just remain lovers and scorn all convention. It is also, quite possible, especially if they know they are to have a child, that they take steps to marry, by whichever marriage rite or rites they do so, in order to protect themselves and their child. 

[Rippounet]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, you are the guy who assumes without good evidence that Lyanna might have decided to believe on her deathbed that her son rather than Prince Aegon was the promised prince. Why do you think Lyanna had 'little reason' to not instead conclude that Viserys III - much safer on Dragonstone and protected by Targaryen loyalists - was the real savior (or at least the father or grandfather of the promised prince)?

Assuming this is a possibility, Lyanna would only think back on the prophecy while on her deathbed if she felt personally concerned in some way.
She didn't have the luxury of weighing options and possibilities like we do.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In addition, you have to keep in mind that Rhaegar's weirdo belief that he or his children would be the promised prince and his companions are nowhere actually justified. There is no prophecy stipulating any of that - which is why it is exceedingly unlikely that Lyanna would just believe stuff like that. Even if she believed in 'the prophecy' she could just as well have tried to talk sense to Rhaegar, pointing out that he had no reason to believe his children were those prophesied saviors but merely their ancestors (or perhaps not even that, considering that Viserys was out there to produce offspring, too).

Well, the crux of the idea was that Lyanna would only take Rhaegar's ramblings seriously after his death (and while dying herself). There's an obviousl emotional component involved.
She doesn't even need to believe it all herself, just thinking about her dead lover's crazy beliefs could be enough to choose a prophecy-related name for their son.

Also we don't actually know what Rhaegar knew. As readers we have only had bits and pieces of prophecy. Rhaegar likely had access to scrolls, and perhaps even to the Ghost of High Heart.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I once considered something like that as well, suggesting that Lyanna might have asked Ned to put her son on the Iron Throne, or something along those lines. But if you actually reread the sections in AGoT then it is pretty obvious that she was afraid that Ned would not do as she asked of him, and it makes much more sense to assume this was about the life of her child rather than his status in life.

Yes, it makes considerably more sense. Which is precisely why I'm toying with a different idea.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That wouldn't be good writing. The core mysteries and riddles of such a series have to be answered. That's what the series is about.

How can you know, since it's not finished?

A lot of discussions would change if we knew for certain what kind of genre ASOAIF even belongs to...

[purple-eyes]

1 hour ago, J. Stargaryen said:

How can some people think Rhaegar would just assume he's definitely going to be king, considering the way his relationship with his father had deteriorated?

Though it might seem counter intuitive, marrying Lyanna might have been the better option for avoiding war with half of the kingdom. As opposed to just taking her for a mistress.

"Lord Rickard, would you prefer to have royal grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc., or risking the existence of your house in a war you're unlikely to win?"

if Lord rickard would be so happy to know this, how about telling him: hey, rickard, I am not kidnapping your 14 year old daughter. I am marrying her. your daughter will be future queen and your grandchildren will be royal kids! 

Therefore nobody would be worried and nobody would need to die. 

Why Rhaegat ran off and hid and shut off all contact with Stark? 

Because he does not have marriage to offer! 

[J. Stargaryen]

3 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

if Lord rickard would be so happy to know this, how about telling him: hey, rickard, I am not kidnapping your 14 year old daughter. I am marrying her. your daughter will be future queen and your grandchildren will be royal kids! 

Therefore nobody would be worried and nobody would need to die. 

Why Rhaegat ran off and hid and shut off all contact with Stark? 

Because he does not have marriage to offer! 

I'm pretty sure you've been around here enough to be able to figure out the answer on your own. But in case I'm being presumptuous, the marriage almost for sure couldn't happen if it was openly discussed. If Rhaegar asked permission to take a second wife, he risked being denied. Rickard couldn't be seen to openly negotiate a different marriage for Lyanna after accepting Robert's offer. So the marriage would have had to be done in secret, and only become known after the deed was done.

[SFDanny]

14 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

if Lord rickard would be so happy to know this, how about telling him: hey, rickard, I am not kidnapping your 14 year old daughter. I am marrying her. your daughter will be future queen and your grandchildren will be royal kids! 

Therefore nobody would be worried and nobody would need to die. 

The Stark brothers are not deaf or blind to what has gone on between Lyanna and Rhaegar. The idea that Lyanna's objections to Robert's nature only reached Ned's ears does seem likely at all given what we know of Lyanna's sense of what's right and what's wrong. So, and I know this has been pointed out to you many times, it is likely there is no need at all for anyone to inform Lyanna's family what is going on. If it is not carried back from whom ever was her escort, it is likely they knew her intentions without anyone saying anything at all.

[purple-eyes]

23 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

The Stark brothers are not deaf or blind to what has gone on between Lyanna and Rhaegar. The idea that Lyanna's objections to Robert's nature only reached Ned's ears does seem likely at all given what we know of Lyanna's sense of what's right and what's wrong. So, and I know this has been pointed out to you many times, it is likely there is no need at all for anyone to inform Lyanna's family what is going on. If it is not carried back from whom ever was her escort, it is likely they knew her intentions without anyone saying anything at all.

After being around here for such long time, I am still surprised that some people can whitewash Lyanna and Rhaegar to this extent.

So according to your logic, Stark members already knew that Lyanna hated this marriage with Robert, so it is nothing secret for them and therefore there is no need for Lyanna to let them know about eloping. Like: Dad and brother, I already told you before that I hated Robert and loved my silver prince and willing to give him a baby, do not be surprised that I disappeared with him! Already told you, OK?

So convenient.

Then Ned was a biggest liar to hide the truth from Robert and whole country about that Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna to death if he knew this from the very beginning. In fact, I can understand he did not want to speak it out after Lyanna died and Jon needed to be protected, but pretended that Lyanna was kidnapped and needed to be rescued since the very beginning? most dishonorable liar no doubt.

Ha, if whole country knew that Lyanna is not in danger. And she left willingly and happily for her honeymoon.

I bet none of his friends would want to sacrifice their lives to "rescue" their beloved and poor victim lady Lyanna because when they were dying in the battlefield for the honor of this incredibly beautiful  northern rose, lady Lyanna was busy in having her little fun in Rhaegar's tower of Joy.

All those people who lost their beloved in the war would not forgive Lyanna ever.  

 

 

[purple-eyes]

And yeah, for some people here, only love matters.

Look, I have to pursue my true love. What? this will cause trouble to other people?

I do not care. That is their problem. Not mine.

Love is the most important thing. If I can have my silver prince, who cares how many people would get hurt!

 

[SFDanny]

The thing I love about your posts purple eyes is I can always count on you make up the tritest mischaracterization possible of any serious response some one tries to write to you. No one said any of those things.

hint: next time you feel need to start writing your own dialogue to make fun of others- stop and do something else

[purple-eyes]

1 hour ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I'm pretty sure you've been around here enough to be able to figure out the answer on your own. But in case I'm being presumptuous, the marriage almost for sure couldn't happen if it was openly discussed. If Rhaegar asked permission to take a second wife, he risked being denied. Rickard couldn't be seen to openly negotiate a different marriage for Lyanna after accepting Robert's offer. So the marriage would have had to be done in secret, and only become known after the deed was done.

That is the interesting point.

This marriage should only become known after the deed was done.

Let us say Rhaegar married Lyanna in front of a tree. Now princess Lyanna is happily carrying a royal prince.

Why did not Rhaegar inform this to Ned and try to seek peace?

By your logic, the marriage is already a done deal. So no matter what happened, Rhaegar is Lyanna's husband.

he can be exiled, he can be disinherited, he can be killed, but he will be Lyanna's husband forever.

Nobody can undo this. Everybody had to accept this truth, no matter how unhappy they are. Right?

How about talking with his new brother-in-law Ned and telling him that Lyanna will become the glorious queen of Westeros?

Why kept fighting with Ned and Robert?

They fight, then one of them will lose and likely die. So Lyanna either loses her brother, or loses her husband.

Does she want to see this happen? probably not.

Why rhaegar said nothing about this important thing?

Easy, he did not have a marriage to offer.