If Rhegar left a will??

[Clegane'sPup]

6 minutes ago, zandru said:

Well, King Robb immediately sent a copy of HIS will to Oldtown. It names Jon Snow as the next Lord of Winterfell, and specifically disinherits Sansa (and thus, the Lannisters). By some odd chance, Jon Snow has sent Samwell Tarly to Oldtown...

Damn, Westeros has lawyers in Oldtown. Well, good. They'll be able to figure it out.

 

[Tom Cruise]

I really don't think we'll see anything like a will from Rheagar. 

 

BUT - I actually am anticipating that we find a song that he had written.  I think the foreshadowing exists in the books.  I forget who said it (Cat or Brienne) but it was something like "people don't sing songs for women who die in childbirth."  Also, the whole thing about Rheagars Harp seems pretty pointless unless we find it - and the song he wrote for Lyanna... who died in childbirth.  I don't expect we see this until the last book. 

GRRM probably understands this story is long enough without putting in useless information about a dead characters musical instrument from the past without it actually being a part of the main story.

[zandru]

33 minutes ago, Tom Cruise said:

GRRM probably understands this story is long enough without putting in useless information about a dead characters musical instrument from the past without it actually being a part of the main story.

Tell me about it! How often have I gone back to re-read (in this case, re-listen) to some long shaggy dog passages about the days of yore, only to find it filled with enlightening information about things that only later became important - or were only hinted at earlier. No wonder poor George is taking so long to put this zillion-piece puzzle together.

Now it's a harp mcguffin. But note - apparently songs are never written down. (Well, why should they be? Nobody in Westeros is literate.) They'll have to find someone who remembers the words. Unless Rhaegar was into documentation. (And even then - they still have fires.)

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Wasn't Viserys also named King by the Targaryen loyalist after news of Aerys death reached Dragonstone and Rhaella crowned him?  So he went from Prince of Dragonstone to King and then Daenerys became the Princess of Dragonstone. 

Viserys was named Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne by Aerys II and then crowned King Viserys III by his mother Queen Rhaella upon her brother-husband's death, yes.

7 hours ago, zandru said:

I still think Robert's Targaryon justification was a fig leaf for what he won by conquest. And I agree - the record of the Baratheons, Lannister-"Baratheons" and Lannisters on the Iron Throne is a good argument for a return to Targaryon rule. Even if "mad." (Heck, Joffrey seemed to be as bad as Aerys at his worst, and him just a little kid.)

'Right by conquest' usually only applies if a monarch or king fights another monarch or king (or if there is war between two states, etc.). 

But Robert was a rebel and traitor, not a sovereign monarch from another country. Even if we concede that he had a right to rebel against Robert and depose him (which I actually do - Aerys II was mad and unable to rule properly) then this still doesn't give him the right to claim the throne. The Targaryens were the rightful royal dynasty, and Aerys II had heirs of his own body. Rhaegar, and after Rhaegar's death Viserys, Rhaegar's children, eventually Daenerys and his sister-wife Rhaella. They would all have come before Robert. Or at least the men (Rhaegar, Viserys, and Aegon) would have come before him.

Even Robb recognizes this, later in AGoT, when he points out that his beef with the false king and tyrant Joffrey Baratheon doesn't mean that Tommen loses his claim to the Iron Throne. Once Joffrey is deposed/killed the Iron Throne must by right pass to Tommen, not Stannis or Renly. Robb is then operating under the assumption that Cersei's children are Robert's, of course.

5 hours ago, LyrnaSnowBunnyAvenger said:

I think I'm probably not reading your comment correctly, but Roose legitimized Ramsey and he certainly was no king.  I would think that Rhaegar would have the right to legitimize Jon, but not necessarily put him in the line of succession.  Obviously a moot point though since he didn't.

As has been pointed out already, King Tommen legitimized Ramsay, not Roose. Roose cannot do that.

3 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

But it isn't at all clear that only a king can legitimize a bastard. We have so few examples, most from Aegon (blackfyre, bittersteel, bloodraven, seastar, etc.). However, while this gives precedent that a kin has the power to legitimize someone, it doesn't mean the king is required.

For instance it seems clear a Lord can name his own heir. It follows that they could legitimize their own bastards I feel they so choose. This is more realistic as well. Though of course laws and traditions vary wildly.

As far as we know only kings can legitimized bastards. Naming an heir is different, though. A lord who only has bastard sons and no known relations whatsoever might very well name one of his bastards his heir. And perhaps the king would even legitimize such a bastard. But he cannot do the legitimizing part himself.

But the (petty) kings of old most likely could and did that.

 

[Wm Portnoy]

7 hours ago, Stormking902 said:

What most of you are forgetting is Rhegar was the king all of Westeros wanted not Viserys or Danny so if a son of the beloved prince Rhegar shows up he will be welcomed far more then any other claimant. 

This is not true.  Some people may want somebody like Prince Aegon and Queen Daenerys to take the throne.  No one would want a Night Watch traitor to get near the throne and rule over them.

[Wolf's Bane]

It would not matter.  Aerys disinherited Rhaegar's children.

[Dragonsmurf]

I do buy that Rhaegar and Lyanna was in love (definitly now when R+L=J is confirmed) in some way or another, and perhabs they even had a ceremony. I don't think that is seen as a valid marriage in Westeros though, so he would still be illegitimate. Daenaerys is the only one who has a real claim to the throne, as Aerys made Viserys his heir and Daenerys was Viserys heir.

[Tom Cruise]

16 hours ago, zandru said:

Tell me about it! How often have I gone back to re-read (in this case, re-listen) to some long shaggy dog passages about the days of yore, only to find it filled with enlightening information about things that only later became important - or were only hinted at earlier. No wonder poor George is taking so long to put this zillion-piece puzzle together.

Now it's a harp mcguffin. But note - apparently songs are never written down. (Well, why should they be? Nobody in Westeros is literate.) They'll have to find someone who remembers the words. Unless Rhaegar was into documentation. (And even then - they still have fires.)

Ah that's a great point.  I think I overlooked the fact that songs usually aren't written down because I had already convinced myself that we would eventually get a song about a heroic maiden dying during childbirth.  I think there are ways to still get a song from Rhaegar without it being painfully shoehorned in, but you've given me a lot of doubt now.  I guess there are a few characters that might still remember a song some dead prince wrote about a girl he fell in love with and caused a big war... but even that kinda sounds like a stretch.  Maybe we get to see/hear the song in real time via Bran and the wirewood net.

[Graydon Hicks]

On 6/2/2017 at 7:56 AM, Dragonsmurf said:

I do buy that Rhaegar and Lyanna was in love (definitly now when R+L=J is confirmed) in some way or another, and perhabs they even had a ceremony. I don't think that is seen as a valid marriage in Westeros though, so he would still be illegitimate. Daenaerys is the only one who has a real claim to the throne, as Aerys made Viserys his heir and Daenerys was Viserys heir.

well,it might depend on the ceremony itself. and who were witnesses. if they were married by a septon, with witnesses, then it would be considered legal, if scandalous, anywhere in the realm. if it was as simple as vows exchanged before a faced weirwood, with witnesses, then it would be considered legal north of the neck, and likely by any First men blood families in the realm, but not by Andal families. its that difference of of culture.

now would rhaegar have considered a will of some sort? or a documentation of marriage? maybe at the time of marriage. its hard to consider a will, mainly cause lyanna wouldnt have been pregnant yet, and he was hoping for a girl, but shouldnt have been writing a will under the assumption it was a girl. but a documentation of marriage, i can see that. and having it sent on to the citadel. maybe its just been lost in the paperwork of their library of legal documents.

[Bernie Mac]

4 minutes ago, Graydon Hicks said:

well,it might depend on the ceremony itself. and who were witnesses. if they were married by a septon, with witnesses, then it would be considered legal, if scandalous, anywhere in the realm.

Would it?

And of course why would Rhaegar not share this news with anyone in Kings Landing?  Why have septons and witnesses if he was going to continue to keep it a secret?  And why have these witnesses kept quiet all these years? 

4 minutes ago, Graydon Hicks said:

if it was as simple as vows exchanged before a faced weirwood, with witnesses, then it would be considered legal north of the neck, and likely by any First men blood families in the realm, but not by Andal families. its that difference of of culture.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing in the text to back this up. In the realm Westeros we have heard of zero polygamous marriages in the North or the South not involving a King. 

If it was a case of the North simply accepting that some dude has five wives because the words were said before a tree I think we may have heard of it by now. The lack of examples is pretty telling.

4 minutes ago, Graydon Hicks said:

now would rhaegar have considered a will of some sort? or a documentation of marriage? maybe at the time of marriage. its hard to consider a will, mainly cause lyanna wouldnt have been pregnant yet, and he was hoping for a girl, but shouldnt have been writing a will under the assumption it was a girl. but a documentation of marriage, i can see that. and having it sent on to the citadel. maybe its just been lost in the paperwork of their library of legal documents.

Not really. He can only make these kind of provisions once he is King as the Citadel is powerless to enforce a dead Prince's will. If he is keeping this a secret from his father why would he send evidence to the Citadel who could give this information to his father? Or even share it with the rest of the realm?

A will left at the Citadel does not serve Rheager or Lyanna at all, all it does is give a cheap reveal to the book readers.

[Graydon Hicks]

23 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Would it?

And of course why would Rhaegar not share this news with anyone in Kings Landing?  Why have septons and witnesses if he was going to continue to keep it a secret?  And why have these witnesses kept quiet all these years? 

I'm sorry, but there is nothing in the text to back this up. In the realm Westeros we have heard of zero polygamous marriages in the North or the South not involving a King. 

If it was a case of the North simply accepting that some dude has five wives because the words were said before a tree I think we may have heard of it by now. The lack of examples is pretty telling.

Not really. He can only make these kind of provisions once he is King as the Citadel is powerless to enforce a dead Prince's will. If he is keeping this a secret from his father why would he send evidence to the Citadel who could give this information to his father? Or even share it with the rest of the realm?

A will left at the Citadel does not serve Rheager or Lyanna at all, all it does is give a cheap reveal to the book readers.

to your first point, it very simple why he would have kept it scret at the time. aerys was still king, and was insanely paranoid, pun intended. according to the AWOIAF, he was already starting to suspect rhaegar of  treason against his person, even before harrenhal. hell, that why he left the red keep for the first time in years in the first place. if any word of rhaegar's true actions made it to the king, especially if aerys already suspected lyanna of being the KOTLT, aerys would have sent legions of hired killers after them.

second point, i wasnt talking about the legality of a polygamous marriage, i believe my point was about what constitute a legal ceremony, not necessarily the whole marriage. and he was a targaryen, so they might have just run with it. the faith might have thrown a tantrum, but i dont think the targs have been particularly pious in their devotion, excepting baelor.

third point, actually lots of history of First Men kings of the north having multiple marriages. now, they dont say if they were simultaneous, but its in the AWOIAF. and again, my point was about the ceremony, not the marriage as a whole. and by the way, wasnt there talk that rhaegar may have had his marriage to elia annulled? its been done. we might find more information in future book, while sam is in the citadel, going through their records over the course of his studies.

fourth point. the citadel, as an organization, is neutral in affairs of the realm. yes, individual maesters may have their own sense of loyalties based on birth, family, and respect for the lord they serve. luwin seems a good example of that, and pycele served the lannisters cause he was as corrupt as the rest of them. the citadel as whole, was neutral. they wouldnt have enforce the princes will, if he had one, they would have only kept a copy, a record, of the will.  

[Bernie Mac]

8 minutes ago, Graydon Hicks said:

to your first point, it very simple why he would have kept it scret at the time. aerys was still king, and was insanely paranoid, pun intended. according to the AWOIAF, he was already starting to suspect rhaegar of  treason against his person, even before harrenhal. hell, that why he left the red keep for the first time in years in the first place. if any word of rhaegar's true actions made it to the king, especially if aerys already suspected lyanna of being the KOTLT, aerys would have sent legions of hired killers after them.

So then why do anything until he is in power? Once he is King he has the legal power to change laws and legitimise any bastards he has. There is no need to marry Lyanna at that point, unless she only accepted to sleep with him on the grounds that he put a finger on it. 

8 minutes ago, Graydon Hicks said:

second point, i wasnt talking about the legality of a polygamous marriage, i believe my point was about what constitute a legal ceremony, not necessarily the whole marriage. and he was a targaryen, so they might have just run with it. the faith might have thrown a tantrum, but i dont think the targs have been particularly pious in their devotion, excepting baelor.

George is pretty clear on this, only Kings (and Kings with dragons) get to make that kind of change. In three hundreds years of Westeros we only hear of two polygamous marriages, both by King and both committed 250 years ago. 

In fact we hear of two other cases, of Prince Daemon Targaryen and Prince Dameon Blackfyre needing to ask permission to have second wives and both being told no by their Kings. 

The realm, as far have we seen, does not accept polygamy. Rhaegar can sanction such a marriage only when he is King, not before. 

8 minutes ago, Graydon Hicks said:

third point, actually lots of history of First Men kings of the north having multiple marriages. now, they dont say if they were simultaneous, but its in the AWOIAF. and again, my point was about the ceremony, not the marriage as a whole. and by the way, wasnt there talk that rhaegar may have had his marriage to elia annulled? its been done. we might find more information in future book, while sam is in the citadel, going through their records over the course of his studies.

I said the history of Westeros, a realm that has existed for three hundred years. The laws and customs of the time seem like polygamy is not allowed. 

8 minutes ago, Graydon Hicks said:

fourth point. the citadel, as an organization, is neutral in affairs of the realm. yes, individual maesters may have their own sense of loyalties based on birth, family, and respect for the lord they serve. luwin seems a good example of that, and pycele served the lannisters cause he was as corrupt as the rest of them. the citadel as whole, was neutral. they wouldnt have enforce the princes will, if he had one, they would have only kept a copy, a record, of the will.  

Oh come on, this is silly. The idea that Rhagear would keep this a secret from the entire Kingdom but at the same time write it all down and send it to a city that is loyal to his father. 

The show may do something that absurd, I'm am 99%  confident that GRRM would not. 

 

If Rhagear is scared of his father finding out what happens should he die? And what is the Citadel waiting for in regards to this information?

[Wolfgirly]

On 02/06/2017 at 1:56 PM, Dragonsmurf said:

I do buy that Rhaegar and Lyanna was in love (definitly now when R+L=J is confirmed) in some way or another, and perhabs they even had a ceremony. I don't think that is seen as a valid marriage in Westeros though, so he would still be illegitimate. Daenaerys is the only one who has a real claim to the throne, as Aerys made Viserys his heir and Daenerys was Viserys heir.

Can you explain why you don't think there was any love between Rhaegar and Lyanna?

There's too many wild views flown around on here atm.

[Graydon Hicks]

11 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

So then why do anything until he is in power? Once he is King he has the legal power to change laws and legitimise any bastards he has. There is no need to marry Lyanna at that point, unless she only accepted to sleep with him on the grounds that he put a finger on it. 

George is pretty clear on this, only Kings (and Kings with dragons) get to make that kind of change. In three hundreds years of Westeros we only hear of two polygamous marriages, both by King and both committed 250 years ago. 

In fact we hear of two other cases, of Prince Daemon Targaryen and Prince Dameon Blackfyre needing to ask permission to have second wives and both being told no by their Kings. 

The realm, as far have we seen, does not accept polygamy. Rhaegar can sanction such a marriage only when he is King, not before. 

I said the history of Westeros, a realm that has existed for three hundred years. The laws and customs of the time seem like polygamy is not allowed. 

Oh come on, this is silly. The idea that Rhagear would keep this a secret from the entire Kingdom but at the same time write it all down and send it to a city that is loyal to his father. 

The show may do something that absurd, I'm am 99%  confident that GRRM would not. 

 

If Rhagear is scared of his father finding out what happens should he die? And what is the Citadel waiting for in regards to this information?

because the citadel is not obligated to give that kinda of information. they are neutral. and why marry lyanna when he did? because rhaegar was still susceptible to his family tendency to madness, in his case, he was obsessed with prophecy. he saw in lyanna the answer to his dreams, to his fears. the dfragon must have three heads, and elia could no longer produce children. he felt he needed that child soon.

maybe he thought that if he could wait until he had produced a child with a second wife, then his father would have no choice.

 and just because there hadnt been any polygamous marriages in 250 years, doesnt mean they could have done so again, a precedent did exist, was just a long time ago. and the targaryens didnt seem to care about what the laws say. they were the royal family, they freaking made the laws. the only group that truly fought the crown over the issues of marriage was the faith of the seven, the septs and clergy. and the targs have a habit of not really caring too much about with the faith wanted.

and its not the silly. this is the game of throne, politics at its most cut throat. he had to kepp this stuff secret until the realm would ahve no choice but except it, so he was likely waiting for the safeest time to share the knowledge. and aerys was very likely just to kill the both of them if he knew. he would have likely seen it as rhaegar building sort of alliance with the starks against him.

[John Doe]

Rhaegar was in no position to leave a will. His father was the king, until after Rhaegar died. Rhaegar was only a prince. 

[James West]

On 6/1/2017 at 8:17 AM, Lord Varys said:

Dragonstone is the seat of the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. It is not an independent lordship. It is the king's to give and withhold, as he sees fit. For instance, when Prince Aemon, the eldest son and heir of Jaehaerys I, died, his royal father did give Dragonstone to his second son, Baelon, not to his granddaughter by Aemon, Rhaenys. 

It actually seems Aerys II gave Dragonstone to Prince Viserys after Rhaegar's death. We know he made him his new heir, and he did send him to Dragonstone. That strongly suggests that Viserys was Prince of Dragonstone when his royal father died.

This is so.  The monarch owned the land in a feudal system.  Just see how Robert gave Storm Lands to Renly and gave Dragonstone to Stannis.  Only the monarch can give the land as it is the monarch's to give.

[James West]

Rhaegar could will his harp and his sword (as long as it's not one of the family's ancestral swords) to his son.  He could will just about anything except lands, titles, last name,  and real property.  He could leave behind his bank account/golden dragons, his clothes, horses, books, and armor. 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Peter Peckerton said:

This is so.  The monarch owned the land in a feudal system.  Just see how Robert gave Storm Lands to Renly and gave Dragonstone to Stannis.  Only the monarch can give the land as it is the monarch's to give.

Sure, but the Prince of Dragonstone is different still in the sense that it is the seat of the Heir Apparent of the Iron Throne. Whenever an Heir Apparent predeceases a king it reverts back to the Crown and the king then decides whether to grant it to his new heir or not.

And if there is no heir to be found - as may have been the case during the early years of the reign of Aegon III - there simply might have been no Prince of Dragonstone.

Dragonstone only became an independent lordship when Robert made it Stannis' seat.

[Bernie Mac]

On 2017-6-7 at 7:13 AM, Graydon Hicks said:

because the citadel is not obligated to give that kinda of information.

Are they? 

Then what is point of Rhaegar sending them a will if they are not obligated, nor have the power, to do anything about it?

Why would a Prince send his will to the Citadel? Why would he feel  the need to  mention an unborn child or a marriage he was unwilling to tell anyone at the Capital about? What could they have possibly done?

And why has the Citadel done nothing about this will in the last twenty years? What are they waiting for?

On 2017-6-7 at 7:13 AM, Graydon Hicks said:

 

they are neutral. and why marry lyanna when he did?

No one in Westeros claims that he did marry her. Unless Lyanna refused to sleep with him till they were married there is no real reason to assume that they did so. 

On 2017-6-7 at 7:13 AM, Graydon Hicks said:

 

because rhaegar was still susceptible to his family tendency to madness, in his case, he was obsessed with prophecy. he saw in lyanna the answer to his dreams, to his fears. the dfragon must have three heads, and elia could no longer produce children. he felt he needed that child soon.

eh? Rhaegar can have as many children with Lyanna without having to marry her. 

More importantly he does not have the authority to, his father does. Yet Kings Landing seems to be in the dark about this 'second' marriage. 

 

On 2017-6-7 at 7:13 AM, Graydon Hicks said:

 

 and just because there hadnt been any polygamous marriages in 250 years, doesnt mean they could have done so again, a precedent did exist,

A precedent that  Kings with Dragons could take second wives. Rhaegar had neither a Crown or a Dragon. More importantly once he was King he could  legitimise any bastards he had if he wanted. He did not need to marry. 

On 2017-6-7 at 7:13 AM, Graydon Hicks said:

 

was just a long time ago. and the targaryens didnt seem to care about what the laws say. they were the royal family, they freaking made the laws.

Kings make laws, members of the Targaryen family don't. That is why Princes Daemon Blackfyre and Daemon Targaryn asked permission from their King to take second wives. 

And actually the Targaryens seemed, by and large, to respect both the law and the power of the King. 

On 2017-6-7 at 7:13 AM, Graydon Hicks said:

 

the only group that truly fought the crown over the issues of marriage was the faith of the seven, the septs and clergy. and the targs have a habit of not really caring too much about with the faith wanted.

Except they clearly did otherwise polygamy would have continued. The incest they hung onto as it appears they believed they needed that to control the Dragons (and possibly hatch the Dragons) but they did abandon polygamy. 

Apart from incest can you name other ways in which the Targs did not care about what the faith wanted?

 

On 2017-6-7 at 7:13 AM, Graydon Hicks said:

and its not the silly. this is the game of throne

Sure it is. It only makes sense if Rhaegar knew that both he and Lyanna would die while Jon was too young to know who they were and that Lyanna, on her deathbed, would order Ned to raise him as her own. 

If Rhaegar knew all that why keep  Lyanna in the country at all? Send her to safety.