R+L=J v.164

[The Twinslayer]

On 8/26/2017 at 5:49 PM, SFDanny said:

I see it as simpler than that. Dany will be more interested in who her dragons accept, than the legal questions of inheritance. If Jon, or Aegon, or someone else is accepted as a rider, then she won't give a damn about legitimate or illegitimate. She needs family, and family she trusts.

From a legal point of view, I agree Dany's claim is better than Jon or Aegon's because of Viserys, Aerys's named heir, has named her his heir. Although that was done without knowledge of any other family being alive, Viserys still has the right to name his heir. Does Aegon try to push his claim over hers without dragons to support him? It will be interesting to find out. I don't see Jon doing so.

I generally agre with this.  

8 hours ago, Khal Pod said:

I think it's pretty well established by Nettles and others in The Princess and the Queen, as well as The Rogue Prince, that dragon riding does not prove heritage. I don't need to beat this dead horse, as Lord Varys has already made this point IMO.

In my last post I said that I didn't think Jon's legitimacy or lack thereof would matter, what I mean is that I don't think he will have any time to concern himself with the power struggle in the south, as he will have a far more important struggle on his mind. I do however believe it would matter to him as he deals with the inner struggle of who he is and his identity.

I also think it goes without saying that the dragons will be used against the Others in the Battle for the Dawn. So if Jon still lives by the time Dany joins the fight, then I think there is a chance they will have romantic relationship, potentially before any of his parentage is even revealed. And who's to say that his parentage will be revealed to anyone other than us the readers? I would personally like Jon to know who his parents are, but I certainly think it's possible that Bran is the only person who ever knows the truth. However, I only think this works if things end well for Jon. If things go poorly for Jon, and he dies with out ever knowing who he truly is, then I think it would be a waste.

I think what we learned from The Princess and the Queen and the Rogue Prince is that there is a general belief in Westeros (that may or may not be correct) that only those with Targaryen blood can be dragonriders.  Indeed, that is why A Dance With Dragons suggests that Tyrion -- who has read as much as anyone in Westeros about dragons -- believes this too.

So that is one of the reasons for the discussion of the dragonseeds--it is suggested that Nettles, Hugh and Ulf may have been dragonseeds, or descended from dragonseeds, and that that is why they were able to bond with dragons.  There are also hints that they may not have been seeds, so for the reader there may be some ambiguity.  But for Dany, who grew up believing that the dragon does not mate with lesser beasts, and for Tyrion, the ability to claim a dragon could be evidence of a Targaryen ancestor.  

On the topic of legitimacy, is there any reason to think that Jon would believe that a Rhaegar-Lyanna wedding ceremony would render him trueborn?  Rhaegar was already married to Elia, which presents all the issues relating to polygamy that have been discussed ad nauseam on this thread.  There is also the issue that Lyanna was betrothed.  Recall that Joffrey was the king but he could not marry Margaery without first getting his betrothal set aside by the High Septon.  Robb Stark apparently set aside his own betrothal but then his banner men killed him for it.  In light of that, why would Jon think that Lyanna -- who was not a monarch -- had the ability to break the betrothal that Lord Rickard had made for her by marrying someone else?

Remember too that Jon slept with Ygritte without marrying her.  He even openly discussed the fact that any children they had would be bastards.  Ultimately, he concluded that that would not matter. 

I think it is unlikely that Rhaegar and Lyanna went through some kind of secret marriage ceremony (that even Jon Connington, the "next best thing" to Rhaegar, did not know about).  But even if they did do that, Jon would think it was a pretend ceremony and that he is still a bastard.  He might even think that his father dishonored his mother by tricking her into a sham marriage that no one would recognize as legitimate.  That would be a bit of a blow if you grew up thinking Ned Stark was your father.

[Eira Seren]

It's always possible Jon doesn't need to be a Targaryen to ride a dragon.  Particularly since after an event that happened Sunday evening, I'm more sure than ever that he doesn't have a Targ parent.  It's doubtful to me that a non-Targ would want to ride a dragon at all (no-one not named Tyrion, anyway), but I suppose this also depends on the method of controlling one, which may depend a lot less on Targ heritage and a lot more on methods only vaguely hinted at so far.

[J. Stargaryen]

58 minutes ago, Eira Seren said:

It's always possible Jon doesn't need to be a Targaryen to ride a dragon.  Particularly since after an event that happened Sunday evening, I'm more sure than ever that he doesn't have a Targ parent.  It's doubtful to me that a non-Targ would want to ride a dragon at all (no-one not named Tyrion, anyway), but I suppose this also depends on the method of controlling one, which may depend a lot less on Targ heritage and a lot more on methods only vaguely hinted at so far.

3

Would love to hear more about this event I must have missed. Was busy that evening watching Twin Peaks and GoT.

[IceFire125]

1 hour ago, Eira Seren said:

It's always possible Jon doesn't need to be a Targaryen to ride a dragon.  Particularly since after an event that happened Sunday evening, I'm more sure than ever that he doesn't have a Targ parent.  It's doubtful to me that a non-Targ would want to ride a dragon at all (no-one not named Tyrion, anyway), but I suppose this also depends on the method of controlling one, which may depend a lot less on Targ heritage and a lot more on methods only vaguely hinted at so far.

uhhh....  

[Shmedricko]

12 hours ago, Khal Pod said:

And who's to say that his parentage will be revealed to anyone other than us the readers?

GRRM, for one:

[Alaurian]: I have a million questions, but the one that I really am most wanting to know is .... will Jon ever find out about  his parentage? 

[GeorgeRRMartin]: Eventually, yes.

-Barnes & Noble Q&A

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, Khal Pod said:

I think it's pretty well established by Nettles and others in The Princess and the Queen, as well as The Rogue Prince, that dragon riding does not prove heritage. I don't need to beat this dead horse, as Lord Varys has already made this point IMO.

You cannot beat that horse to death. I just finished reading the comic version of TMK and there we have a variation of that entire theme with Glendon Flowers/Ball. The Blackfyre loyalists do not men of his skill yet the men around Daemon the Younger simply can't bring themselves to see beyond their prejudices - which is doubly odd and hypocritical considering that Daemon Blackfyre himself was a bastard.

The idea that people are just eager to see a prince in a bastard because somebody tells us a fancy tale is not very likely.

The other side of the coin is Daemon II's own belief in the importance of a dragon. I'm sure that being a dragonrider is going to win you a lot of support in Westeros as soon as you show up there and present your dragon to the people. If Daemon the Younger had hatched a dragon from the egg Bloodraven and Aerys I would have lost everything rather quickly because it would have been seen as a divine sign that the Blackfyres were the true royal line of Westeros.

But Dany's dragons were not hatched in Westeros, nor are they likely going to come to Westeros as riderless dragons or dragons that have never been ridden before.

If Dany has issues with the first riders of Viserion and Rhaegal the chances are about zero that she - or anyone around her - is going to trust Jon Snow simply because he becomes a dragonrider. In fact, it is just as likely that she - if she doesn't love or like Jon Snow by that point - and her advisers - will perceive Jon as a potential danger and traitor, just as Rhaenyra came to see Addam Velaryon and Nettles after the treason of the Two Betrayers.

Being a dragonrider can do something to your head.

Quote

In my last post I said that I didn't think Jon's legitimacy or lack thereof would matter, what I mean is that I don't think he will have any time to concern himself with the power struggle in the south, as he will have a far more important struggle on his mind. I do however believe it would matter to him as he deals with the inner struggle of who he is and his identity.

It certainly will. I don't think it will fuel his ambitions in the present all that much but I'm reasonably certain it will open a lot of old wounds, especially where his memories of Winterfell and his life there are concerned. How different could things have been had he and his Stark kin known who he was? How different could his life have been had he searched Dany/Viserys earlier? How different could have things been had he come to the Wall to defend it as a dragonrider?

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I think what we learned from The Princess and the Queen and the Rogue Prince is that there is a general belief in Westeros (that may or may not be correct) that only those with Targaryen blood can be dragonriders.  Indeed, that is why A Dance With Dragons suggests that Tyrion -- who has read as much as anyone in Westeros about dragons -- believes this too.

But the Targaryen ancestor can be unknown or somewhat further down in the past. Jon doesn't have to be Rhaegar's son to be a dragonrider. And the fact that his mother is conveniently unknown in the 'Jon Snow story' of his parentage the woman who gave birth to Ned Stark's bastard could very well have been a Targaryen descendant.

If Dany and her people didn't care about that story they sure as hell could explain Jon the dragonrider that way. Especially if the likes of Brown Ben Plumm claim one of her dragons before Jon Snow ever gets his chance. He is no hidden prince, either. Even Tyrion wouldn't be a hidden prince. He would be just be a Targaryen bastard.

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

So that is one of the reasons for the discussion of the dragonseeds--it is suggested that Nettles, Hugh and Ulf may have been dragonseeds, or descended from dragonseeds, and that that is why they were able to bond with dragons.  There are also hints that they may not have been seeds, so for the reader there may be some ambiguity.  But for Dany, who grew up believing that the dragon does not mate with lesser beasts, and for Tyrion, the ability to claim a dragon could be evidence of a Targaryen ancestor.  

See above. It could be anyone.

In fact, the funny thing is that Dany could declare any man or woman claiming one of her dragons a hidden Targaryen (prince or princess). And the story is going to touch on the 'what to do with one of the dragonriders?' question long before Jon Snow ever gets near a dragon. 

If Dany ennobles or even legitimizes the likes of Brown Ben Plumm and Tyrion as Targaryens and they end up betraying her Jon Snow isn't going to get the same treatment unless she is deeply personally invested in him and his well-being. But then she cares for him as a person anyway, never mind whether he is Rhaegar's son or a dragonrider.

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

On the topic of legitimacy, is there any reason to think that Jon would believe that a Rhaegar-Lyanna wedding ceremony would render him trueborn?  Rhaegar was already married to Elia, which presents all the issues relating to polygamy that have been discussed ad nauseam on this thread.

That would depend on the context. I don't think anyone is going to think Jon Snow has a shot at the Iron Throne considering his looks and the fact that he grew up a Stark bastard. You just don't forget stuff like that. But I think Dany's people might certainly be willing to see him as Rhaegar's trueborn son. It is not that many Targaryens are still running around there, and they could need him.

If Jon buys the idea that he is Rhaegar's son by Lyanna and he has reason to believe that they had some sort of marriage he is also not likely to see himself as a bastard. But I doubt he is going to see himself undoubtedly as a prince, either. Those precedents for polygamy are very far in the past and the last dude doing it was Maegor the Cruel, someone you don't want to be associated with.

Still, Daenerys should have little issue with the whole thing. She believes in the Rhaegar-Lyanna love story already, and she knows about Aegon and Maegor's polygamy. She is not likely going to condemn a practice the famous founder of her house did unless it suits her - which it only would if she saw Jon as a rival for the Iron Throne. Which he is most likely never going to become anyway.

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

There is also the issue that Lyanna was betrothed.  Recall that Joffrey was the king but he could not marry Margaery without first getting his betrothal set aside by the High Septon.  Robb Stark apparently set aside his own betrothal but then his banner men killed him for it.  In light of that, why would Jon think that Lyanna -- who was not a monarch -- had the ability to break the betrothal that Lord Rickard had made for her by marrying someone else?

It is proper procedure to dissolve a betrothal before you marry another woman but hardly necessary. Aegon V's sons never formally dissolved their betrothals (aside from Daeron, of course), they just wed different women.

If Jon learns the entire Rhaegar-Lyanna love story along with the story of his parentage he is most likely going to be more concerned about all the lies and fiction Ned and the other created around Robert's Rebellion rather than the question whether Rhaegar and Lyanna did the right thing. They are his true parents, and I doubt he is going to be in a mood to judge or condemn them.

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Remember too that Jon slept with Ygritte without marrying her.  He even openly discussed the fact that any children they had would be bastards.  Ultimately, he concluded that that would not matter. 

That is a different culture. One really wonders why the wildlings should even care about that concept. Marriage should essentially be a man and a woman living together (after the man has stolen/abducted the woman, of course). And all children of such unions would be legitimate in any case.

Only in a society where illegitimate children are treated as shitty as they are in the Seven Kingdoms - especially in relation to all those inheritance laws - would it matter on which side of the blanket you are born.

10 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I think it is unlikely that Rhaegar and Lyanna went through some kind of secret marriage ceremony (that even Jon Connington, the "next best thing" to Rhaegar, did not know about).  But even if they did do that, Jon would think it was a pretend ceremony and that he is still a bastard.  He might even think that his father dishonored his mother by tricking her into a sham marriage that no one would recognize as legitimate.  That would be a bit of a blow if you grew up thinking Ned Stark was your father.

I really don't think that's very likely. In fact, I think the chances are reasonably good that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a very public wedding and said wedding was then the reason why they had to hide - and the true reason why Aerys II executed Brandon and Rickard because he thought they were Rhaegar's accomplices in this marriage pact that was made to mark the beginning of Rhaegar's Rebellion against his royal father. That's what Aerys II thought Rhaegar crowning Lyanna at Harrenhal meant, and that's how he would have interpreted the abduction - especially if it was followed by a wedding.

Robert may have tricked himself into believing that Lyanna was forced into the whole thing - and even Ned may have believed (or chosen to believe) that at first. But once his brother and father were killed and the king was calling for their heads, too, he had to do something.

But a completely unresolved question in this entire thing is why Ned and Rhaegar never talked about this whole thing. Yes, Aerys II was a problem for the new Lord Stark, but so was Robert, basically. Ned must have been very concerned what to do with Lyanna after a King Robert sat the Iron Throne. Especially once he had figured out that she wanted to be with Rhaegar.

In addition, if Lyanna wasn't publicly married to Rhaegar then there is really no need to hide her child by Rhaegar. He could have made the child Lyanna's bastard instead of his own considering that bastards pretty much have no claims to anything. If there was a secret wedding the whole thing would be utterly meaningless.

And it would be today, too, if you think about it. If Rhaegar married Lyanna in secret with only a handful of people knowing about that the revelation of that nearly two decades later is not going to have any impact on Jon Snow's legal status. That knowledge could not even prove that Eddard Stark's bastard is truly a son born from such a union. After all, Lyanna's child could have died and Ned Stark could also have a bastard, right? 

[SFDanny]

14 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I think what we learned from The Princess and the Queen and the Rogue Prince is that there is a general belief in Westeros (that may or may not be correct) that only those with Targaryen blood can be dragonriders.  Indeed, that is why A Dance With Dragons suggests that Tyrion -- who has read as much as anyone in Westeros about dragons -- believes this too.

So that is one of the reasons for the discussion of the dragonseeds--it is suggested that Nettles, Hugh and Ulf may have been dragonseeds, or descended from dragonseeds, and that that is why they were able to bond with dragons.  There are also hints that they may not have been seeds, so for the reader there may be some ambiguity.  But for Dany, who grew up believing that the dragon does not mate with lesser beasts, and for Tyrion, the ability to claim a dragon could be evidence of a Targaryen ancestor.  

I'm not sure that is quite accurate. I would only point out the difference between being Targaryen or one of their descendants, and being a descendant of Valyrian ancestors. It may be that only House Targaryen formed bonds with their dragons in the way we see, but I doubt it. We know from Euron's horn that there appears to be other ways - through the use of sorcery - that dragons can be controlled, but the tradition of House Targaryen looking to old Valyrian blood in their spouses speaks to the idea that bonds were formed by other Houses than Targaryen. I don't think we can be sure.

I do think your point is generally correct. The discussion of "dragon seeds" does show the belief you speak of, even if it is wrong.

14 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

On the topic of legitimacy, is there any reason to think that Jon would believe that a Rhaegar-Lyanna wedding ceremony would render him trueborn?  Rhaegar was already married to Elia, which presents all the issues relating to polygamy that have been discussed ad nauseam on this thread.

Yes, in the eyes of the Targaryens. Jon's own religious thinking may run counter to this, but he would have reason to think such a ceremony would make him trueborn.

14 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

There is also the issue that Lyanna was betrothed.  Recall that Joffrey was the king but he could not marry Margaery without first getting his betrothal set aside by the High Septon.  Robb Stark apparently set aside his own betrothal but then his banner men killed him for it.  In light of that, why would Jon think that Lyanna -- who was not a monarch -- had the ability to break the betrothal that Lord Rickard had made for her by marrying someone else?

Martin has made it clear, in his remarks on the subject and in examples in the books, that people have the right to say no to a marriage. The Blackfish is just one example of this. So, too, are the sons of Aegon the Fifth. The power of their lord or king can be tremendous in applying pressure to do as they say, but, if they are willing to take the consequences, they can say no. Lyanna, like the Blackfish, had the right to refuse to marry the spouse her lord chose.

14 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Remember too that Jon slept with Ygritte without marrying her.  He even openly discussed the fact that any children they had would be bastards.  Ultimately, he concluded that that would not matter. 

I'm not sure he concludes this. It seemed to matter quite a bit to Jon, but he ultimately decided he had to do anything, as the Halfhand told him, that the Wildings expected of him. There is also the strong added incentive that he quite liked being Ygritte's lover once he started.

14 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

 

I think it is unlikely that Rhaegar and Lyanna went through some kind of secret marriage ceremony (that even Jon Connington, the "next best thing" to Rhaegar, did not know about).  But even if they did do that, Jon would think it was a pretend ceremony and that he is still a bastard.  He might even think that his father dishonored his mother by tricking her into a sham marriage that no one would recognize as legitimate.  That would be a bit of a blow if you grew up thinking Ned Stark was your father.

Connington's lack of knowledge is what we would expect. He is Hand of the King and then exiled for much of the time in which such a marriage could have taken place. We also have no reason to think he was with Rhaegar when the "kidnapping" occurred or in the aftermath of that up to when we know he was appointed Hand.

We don't know what Jon might think about such a ceremony. He would know from Aegon and his sister's example that it was possible for Targaryens, but would his own religious beliefs mean the would refuse to acknowledge the marriage personally? We will have to see. I think we will have a chance to do so because I think such a marriage likely.

[TMIFairy]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

Martin has made it clear, in his remarks on the subject and in examples in the books, that people have the right to say no to a marriage. The Blackfish is just one example of this. So, too, are the sons of Aegon the Fifth. The power of their lord or king can be tremendous in applying pressure to do as they say, but, if they are willing to take the consequences, they can say no. Lyanna, like the Blackfish, had the right to refuse to marry the spouse her lord chose.

Double standard for men and women?

[SFDanny]

23 minutes ago, TMIFairy said:

Double standard for men and women?

The double standard is there in the ability of women to have other viable choices than what their fathers, or lords, choose for them, but it is a choice to say yes or no. The Blackfish could go elsewhere and sell or pledge his sword as he saw fit. Lyanna would have to have chosen something like the Silent Sisters, or the benevolence of another house willing to anger the Starks, in order to find a living. Not good choices for someone like Lyanna, but a choice nonetheless.

[The Twinslayer]

11 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

The double standard is there in the ability of women to have other viable choices than what their fathers, or lords, choose for them, but it is a choice to say yes or no. The Blackfish could go elsewhere and sell or pledge his sword as he saw fit. Lyanna would have to have chosen something like the Silent Sisters, or the benevolence of another house willing to anger the Starks, in order to find a living. Not good choices for someone like Lyanna, but a choice nonetheless.

More on the other issues later, but I think there is a difference between Lyanna and the Blackfish.  The Blackfish refused to marry anyone.  He may even have been ordered to marry someone specific and then refused.  

But Lyanna, like Joffrey, entered into a betrothal.  We know that that involves taking a sacred vow. That is why Joffrey had to be released from his vow by the High Septon.

Now, it is possible that, after taking that vow, Lyanna could refuse to go through with the wedding to Robert.  But I don't think there is anything in the SSMs that says she could go a step further by marrying someone else while still betrothed to Robert.

Now, if Rickard had ordered her to become betrothed to Robert and she responded by refusing and then running away with another man, that would be different.  Provided the other man wasn't already married to someone else.

[Bael's Bastard]

I see no good reason to dismiss the possibility that Jon Connington was with Rhaegar what he abducted Lyanna. The World Book says that Rhaegar had set off with half a dozen of his closest friends within pages of singling out  Connington, Myles Mooton, Richard Lonmouth, Lewyn Martell, Arthur Dayne, and Oswell Whent among Rhaegar's chief supporters. Does this automatically mean that these six were definitely with Rhaegar at the time? No. But considering they are the six supporters named, we can't rule them out automatically.

[TMIFairy]

IMO you guys overestimate the degree of freedom a girl/woman had. She was property. She was chattel.

The SS as an alternative? Oh, fuck, I won't even comment on that ...

And Lyanna had been betrothed to Robert when she was what - 13? 14?

She was 14 at Harrnehall, wasn't she?

 

 

[Maia]

37 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

But Lyanna, like Joffrey, entered into a betrothal.  We know that that involves taking a sacred vow. That is why Joffrey had to be released from his vow by the High Septon.

 

We know that people can set aside betrothals and/or marry other people without the release by the High Septon - the children of Aegon V, Ser Tion Lannister, Barristan Selmy, Robb ( he was a follower of the Old Gods, but so was Lyanna), the Blackfish - yes, he was betrothed to that Redwyne girl, etc. Ser Daven Lannister also spoke about his betrothal as something that he could break if he chose to, but he  knew better than to try it under the circumstances. It was just PR for Joffrey, not required.

And what do you mean by "entered a betrothal"? As far as we have seen people involved often aren't consulted. Certainly Cat, the Blackfish and Ser Daven were presented with a done deal. And yet, people do have a right to refuse marriage in Westeros, even women.

[TMIFairy]

10 minutes ago, Maia said:

And yet, people do have a right to refuse marriage in Westeros, even women.

Is Jayne Poole a good example ...?

[Khal Pod]

Well I guess everything I said has been pretty soundly refuted.

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, TMIFairy said:

Is Jayne Poole a good example ...?

If one is willing to threaten murder and torture, then legal niceties aren't really part of the discussion. Jayne Poole and Sansa both prove the extreme some are willing to go to stop little girls from saying "no." Tysha shows the extreme Tywin was willing to go because she said "yes" when he didn't approve. None of which shows the three didn't have the right to their choice.

[Aelle3]

I can't shake the feeling that a combined sigil of a dragon and a wolf is a luck dragon. 

 

House Falkor?

[The Twinslayer]

20 hours ago, Shmedricko said:

GRRM, for one:

[Alaurian]: I have a million questions, but the one that I really am most wanting to know is .... will Jon ever find out about  his parentage? 

[GeorgeRRMartin]: Eventually, yes.

-Barnes & Noble Q&A

Assuming that quote is accurate, he said that in 2008.  Several years before he killed Jon Snow, at the end of ADWD.  If Jon is really dead -- which is very possible -- then he won't ever learn his parentage.

It would not be the first time GRRM made an SSM that was contradicted in a later book.  

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

<snip>

That was a long essay, but my main response is that the general belief is that to be a dragon rider, you need Targaryen blood.  But having Targaryen blood does not make you a prince, since bastard/dragonseeds can ride dragons.  

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I'm not sure that is quite accurate. I would only point out the difference between being Targaryen or one of their descendants, and being a descendant of Valyrian ancestors. It may be that only House Targaryen formed bonds with their dragons in the way we see, but I doubt it. We know from Euron's horn that there appears to be other ways - through the use of sorcery - that dragons can be controlled, but the tradition of House Targaryen looking to old Valyrian blood in their spouses speaks to the idea that bonds were formed by other Houses than Targaryen. I don't think we can be sure.

I do think your point is generally correct. The discussion of "dragon seeds" does show the belief you speak of, even if it is wrong.

Yes, in the eyes of the Targaryens. Jon's own religious thinking may run counter to this, but he would have reason to think such a ceremony would make him trueborn.

Martin has made it clear, in his remarks on the subject and in examples in the books, that people have the right to say no to a marriage. The Blackfish is just one example of this. So, too, are the sons of Aegon the Fifth. The power of their lord or king can be tremendous in applying pressure to do as they say, but, if they are willing to take the consequences, they can say no. Lyanna, like the Blackfish, had the right to refuse to marry the spouse her lord chose.

I'm not sure he concludes this. It seemed to matter quite a bit to Jon, but he ultimately decided he had to do anything, as the Halfhand told him, that the Wildings expected of him. There is also the strong added incentive that he quite liked being Ygritte's lover once he started.

Connington's lack of knowledge is what we would expect. He is Hand of the King and then exiled for much of the time in which such a marriage could have taken place. We also have no reason to think he was with Rhaegar when the "kidnapping" occurred or in the aftermath of that up to when we know he was appointed Hand.

We don't know what Jon might think about such a ceremony. He would know from Aegon and his sister's example that it was possible for Targaryens, but would his own religious beliefs mean the would refuse to acknowledge the marriage personally? We will have to see. I think we will have a chance to do so because I think such a marriage likely.

I am sure that Jon did not mind sleeping with Ygritte (on a physical level) but he did agonize about having bastard children. So he will understand the urge.  Just as Ned did -- which we know because he thinks about the fact that Jon is a bastard and that it is unfair that the gods give men such lusts.  

On Connington, the first thing I would say is that his POV proves that if there was a Rhaegar-Lyanna marriage, he did not know about it.  He thinks that Rhaegar died married (only) to Elia Martell.  

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I see no good reason to dismiss the possibility that Jon Connington was with Rhaegar what he abducted Lyanna. The World Book says that Rhaegar had set off with half a dozen of his closest friends within pages of singling out  Connington, Myles Mooton, Richard Lonmouth, Lewyn Martell, Arthur Dayne, and Oswell Whent among Rhaegar's chief supporters. Does this automatically mean that these six were definitely with Rhaegar at the time? No. But considering they are the six supporters named, we can't rule them out automatically.

I would go a little further.  It is not just that we can't rule it out.  The information from the World Book strongly suggests that Connington was one of Rhaegar's companions when Lyanna was kidnapped.  So I think it is fair to say that unless we get explicit confirmation that Connington was not there, we should assume he was.   

5 hours ago, Maia said:

 

We know that people can set aside betrothals and/or marry other people without the release by the High Septon - the children of Aegon V, Ser Tion Lannister, Barristan Selmy, Robb ( he was a follower of the Old Gods, but so was Lyanna), the Blackfish - yes, he was betrothed to that Redwyne girl, etc. Ser Daven Lannister also spoke about his betrothal as something that he could break if he chose to, but he  knew better than to try it under the circumstances. It was just PR for Joffrey, not required.

And what do you mean by "entered a betrothal"? As far as we have seen people involved often aren't consulted. Certainly Cat, the Blackfish and Ser Daven were presented with a done deal. And yet, people do have a right to refuse marriage in Westeros, even women.

Joffrey says that when he entered into his betrothal to Sansa, he took a solemn oath.  The parallel with Robert and Lyanna is obvious -- Robert took the same oath relating to Lyanna that Joffrey took relating to Lyanna.  The whole point of the scene where Joffrey seeks and obtains permission from the High Septon to end his betrothal to Sansa is to remind us that Robert and Lyanna were betrothed and to highlight the fact that Lyanna was still betrothed to Robert when she died.  That is why Robert thinks that if she lived, he would have gone through with the marriage to her.

Regarding Tion, Barristan, and the Blackfish, is there anything to suggest that the broke betrothals without getting absolution from the Faith?  I don't recall that they did.

Robb, of course, is different for two reasons.  First, he was a king (unlike either Rhaegar or Lyanna).  Second, his banner men killed him for it.  

Robb is also interesting for another reason.  If Aegon I set a precedent that a King (more so than a Prince, like Rhaegar) could take two wives, why did everyone think that his marriage to Jeyne Westerling automatically ended his Frey betrothal?  That does not make any sense unless polygamy is a non-starter.  Otherwise, the Freys would have assumed that Robb could marry Jeyne and a Frey at the same time.  

[SFDanny]

Quote

MARCH 16, 2000

SOME QUESTIONS

"I was his lord...My right, to make his match" says Lord Hoster about Brynden. Does it mean that the lord can force anyone under his rule to marry whomever he wishes? Can the people in question legally break the commitments made for them by the lord (i.e. promises, betrothals) and what penalty can the lord visit on them for this? What if they just refuse to exchange the marriage vows, etc?

They can indeed refuse to take the vows, as the Blackfish did, but there are often severe consequences to this. The lord is certainly expected to arrange the matches for his own children and unmarried younger siblings. He does not necessarily arrange marriages for his vassal lords or household knights... but they would be wise to consult with him and respect his feelings. It would not be prudent for a vassal to marry one of his liege lord's enemies, for instance.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1077

 

SSM on the subject under discussion

[Shmedricko]

6 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Assuming that quote is accurate, he said that in 2008.

And GRRM indicated he's known Jon was going to be stabbed since at least 2001 (and there are potential clues in the first three books):

[ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY]: How long have you intended for that incident [Jon's stabbing] to happen?

[GEORGE R.R. MARTIN]: For many years. Some of the stuff about Melisandre warning Jon of “daggers in the dark” was written 10 years ago.

-George R.R. Martin talks 'Dance With Dragons', 2011