Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 4

[WSmith84]

14 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Rhaegar was already married. To contemplate adultry is not keeping to his marriage bed, and Lyanna would be having relations with a married man. Both situations are just as bad if not worse than Robert's infidelities.

But that's only if you consider it to always be infidelity for a married man to sleep with a woman who is not his wife, even if he is separated from her in all ways but legally. If a person is not emotionally or physically involved with their wife (and the wife knows it), but keeps their marital status for the purpose of politics, is that infedility? Rhaegar would essentially be a separated man (divorced in all but law) taking a new lover. Is that infidelity?

Not that I deny possible hypocrisy (and I don't really see why people are opposed to the idea that a character might prove hypocritical, particularly when in love), in fact I think the whole affair was probably messy (morally speaking). I highly doubt Elia was on board with the whole thing. I suspect that Lyanna might have felt much like Jon does during his time with Ygritte; guilt, happiness, confusion. Isn't Jon being a hypocrite in that situation, betraying the things he stands for? Like mother like son, perhaps...

[IceFire125]

7 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Was Lyanna in the throne room? I wouldn't presume anything of a sort ( unless i was there and heard it) nor could Lyanna because she wasn't there.You can't just say something like that when the person wasn't there ,and there's no reason to believe telling a dying woman something like that would be helpful on her way out ....how? If you try to sell me Ned making that choice on his own based on what he's seen in the throne room.Very possible and works well with this theory.I don't see Ned telling her that while she was dying.

Sansa is pleading a lot of things,but her pleads were because the threat to Lady was imminent.A future threat that would only come to fruition if your brother tells doesn't jive with this.

Ned, never changed his mind about Robert having the capability to harm him or his.Never had that happened.

Well we are debating who Jon is aren't we!!

The whole point is,Ned has no reason to tell Robert about Jon even if Jon was Robert's himself.All around Jon would be in danger.

I get what you are saying believe me i do.I'm just saying that some take into consideration the unreliable narrator and the author's own ambiguity and assertion through various behaviors that this is a mystery.

Which brings me to this point and I'm not dismissing what the author said at all.I'am factoring GRRM's penchant for misdirection.The perception by a lot of fans is that he gave an answer which depends on Rhaella having been the person that Jamie saw.That's where the count begins.Readers i believe had been drawn into Jamie's expectation of the person being Rhaella.

But there is a way that it is written that calls into question the above being the case and if its thought through,a decoy being used to disseminate false information about the Queen having left when she probably left way before that is more likely the case.

Being an attentive reader is discerning that Jamie didn't actually see the Queen,he saw what he expected to see.

Well it depends on if the clues you speak of are clues,or one big misdirection and play on reader expectation.Expectation,the girl always runs off with prince,and they always have a secret baby who needs to be hidden from some big bad.

I've already considered your opinion a long time ago.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

6 hours ago, Voice said:

 

Did you forget your point?

Your statement:

Quote

That the Earth was flat, and that the Earth was the center of the heavens, were once very enduring theories. In fact, people who questioned these widely held and long sanctioned beliefs were dismissed as "heretics."

GRRM stated that the WOIAF planet is round in a Q&A.  Oh NO! does that mean RLJ is wrong?!

Should RLJers pack up and leave for the Wylla, Ashara, or Fisherman's Daughter camp?? Since those are the three options that are written in ink.  Because the last thing we need in westeros.org public forum is people's feelings and beliefs being dismissed as heretics. LOL!

[Melifeather]

34 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

But that's only if you consider it to always be infidelity for a married man to sleep with a woman who is not his wife, even if he is separated from her in all ways but legally. If a person is not emotionally or physically involved with their wife (and the wife knows it), but keeps their marital status for the purpose of politics, is that infedility? Rhaegar would essentially be a separated man (divorced in all but law) taking a new lover. Is that infidelity?

Not that I deny possible hypocrisy (and I don't really see why people are opposed to the idea that a character might prove hypocritical, particularly when in love), in fact I think the whole affair was probably messy (morally speaking). I highly doubt Elia was on board with the whole thing. I suspect that Lyanna might have felt much like Jon does during his time with Ygritte; guilt, happiness, confusion. Isn't Jon being a hypocrite in that situation, betraying the things he stands for? Like mother like son, perhaps...

There is no proof that Rhaegar and Elia were separated, nor that they were no longer intimate. You are basing your theory on emotional bias because it was said her last birth was difficult. 

Lyanna was concerned that Robert wouldn't keep to one bed. Why would she change her convictions based upon what Targaryens do? Polygamy is banned by the Faith and not practiced by the First Men, other than Craster, and anyone that knew him didn't view him in a positive light.

 

[Kingmonkey]

6 hours ago, Voice said:

 

Where we disagree, is in the heretical mathematics of infidelity:

Elia's Bed + Lyanna's Bed = 2 beds

Let n¹=the number of other women a man has shagged prior to hooking up with Lyanna, and n² be the number of other women Lyanna expects the man to shag afterwards.

For Robert, n¹ = 1 (Almost certainly more)

For Rhaegar, n¹= 1 (possibly more, but that's all we know)

For Robert, n² = many.

For Rhaegar, n² = ? 

Now clearly there is some similarity between Robert and Rhaegar for n¹. They are both positive integers, and that's important. However, we know that Lyanna was concerned with n² -- it wasn't the baby in the Vale that was the problem, it was that Robert would continue to do that. Is n² similar for Robert and Rhaegar? We don't know, but we have no reason to think so and every reason to think it wouldn't be. All we need to do is speculate a number such as zero for Rhaegar's n² value, and there is no equivalence.

Ah! But what about Elia? If Rhaegar sleeps with Lyanna, that shows that Rhaegar IS going to sleep with people after a marriage. If we apply the way Rhaegar behaved to the way he would behave with Lyanna, then that zero is impossible. Rhaegar's potential n² value must therefore be.... 1. As 1<many, the two still cannot be considered equivalent. 

In other words this attitude of Lyanna's is only a problem for the Rhaegar if you read it as Lyanna holding a principled objection to the morality of infidelity -- and that you believe her moral stance on fidelity to be so strict that she considers a single act of infidelity to be equivalent to serial infidelity over many years. 

I don't think that Lyanna comes across as that much of a nun. Isn't it more straightforwards to assume that Lyanna is objecting to the idea of being with a man who cheats on her? It's not  about the morals, she just doesn't want to be cheated on.

 

[WSmith84]

10 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

There is no proof that Rhaegar and Elia were separated, nor that they were no longer intimate. You are basing your theory on emotional bias because it was said her last birth was difficult. 

Lyanna was concerned that Robert wouldn't keep to one bed. Why would she change her convictions based upon what Targaryens do? Polygamy is banned by the Faith and not practiced by the First Men, other than Craster, and anyone that knew him didn't view him in a positive light.

I really wish you'd stop talking about my emotions with regards to theories. It makes it very hard to take your seriously. As I've said before, my preferred solution would be Ned as Jon's father, but I don't think that's what the evidence points to.

I have no idea what Lyanna's views on polygamy were and neither do you. Yes, culturally we'd expect her to be opposed to polygamy, but given Lyanna's opposition to other cultural norms I'd say that's not particularly strong evidence.

I also have no proof that Elia and Rhaegar were separated; as I said in the post you quoted, I think it was probably morally very messy. It is a possibility however, and I was asking if you'd consider it infidelity in such circumstances. Do you?

[Melifeather]

46 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

I really wish you'd stop talking about my emotions with regards to theories. It makes it very hard to take your seriously. As I've said before, my preferred solution would be Ned as Jon's father, but I don't think that's what the evidence points to.

I have no idea what Lyanna's views on polygamy were and neither do you. Yes, culturally we'd expect her to be opposed to polygamy, but given Lyanna's opposition to other cultural norms I'd say that's not particularly strong evidence.

I also have no proof that Elia and Rhaegar were separated; as I said in the post you quoted, I think it was probably morally very messy. It is a possibility however, and I was asking if you'd consider it infidelity in such circumstances. Do you?

I call it emotional bias because it's not even circumstantial evidence or heresay. It's completely fabricated and unsupported by the text. And yes, I think it would be infidelity, because marriage is more than just sex and child bearing. 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

There is no proof that Rhaegar and Elia were separated, nor that they were no longer intimate. You are basing your theory on emotional bias because it was said her last birth was difficult. 

There's also the maesters who told Rhaegar after Aegon was born that another pregnancy would likely kill Elia. It's not proof, but that makes it credible that any sexual relationship between them could have ceased after that.

 

47 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

And yes, I think it would be infidelity, because marriage is more than just sex and child bearing. 

With a political marriage, made for reasons of alliance and political considerations, which doesn't take into account the inclination of the participants, where they're just expected to get along and not embarrass each other or the royal family - is it possible that that kind of marriage pretty much is only about sex and child-bearing? I mean, we're not talking about the Victorians here. True love wasn't the goal of dynastic marriages; heirs were.

 

[Melifeather]

1 minute ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

There's also the maesters who told Rhaegar after Aegon was born that another pregnancy would likely kill Elia. It's not proof, but that makes it credible that any sexual relationship between them could have ceased after that.

 

With a political marriage, made for reasons of alliance and political considerations, which doesn't take into account the inclination of the participants, where they're just expected to get along and not embarrass each other or the royal family - is it possible that that kind of marriage pretty much is only about sex and child-bearing? I mean, we're not talking about the Victorians here. True love wasn't the goal of dynastic marriages; heirs were.

 

Rhaegar had heirs, and sex isn't only for producing children.

[wolfmaid7]

2 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

I've already considered your opinion a long time ago.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I wasn't responding to you here i think.

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Rhaegar was already married. To contemplate adultry is not keeping to his marriage bed, and Lyanna would be having relations with a married man. Both situations are just as bad if not worse than Robert's infidelities.

 

 

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

I call it emotional bias because it's not even circumstantial evidence or heresay. It's completely fabricated and unsupported by the text. And yes, I think it would be infidelity, because marriage is more than just sex and child bearing. 

 

26 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Rhaegar had heirs, and sex isn't only for producing children.

FC, I appreciate your views here, but understand they are your own bias is showing here about fidelity and what marriage is all about. I will absolutely say I have my own bias on the subject, so I'm not about to criticize yours. What i will say is that we are dealing with is very unique fantasy situation between two or three characters that may or may not share either of our views on the subject and what we are talking about is what possibilities we can glean from what little we know about the two. In particular we have to throw the issue of polygamy into the equation, not because either of us thought up the need to based on the real world variations of love and marriage, but because the author presents this as a possibility. The text shows us of this. No one is bringing it up to further an agenda or make anyone feel uncomfortable. It is just something that would be wrong to ignore.