Blueroses

Jon legitimacy foreshadowing ?

202 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, purple-eyes said:

No actually I will be happy to see it if they propose there is a secret annulment of his first marriage and a secret second marriage to Lyanna. 

Why? 

Because this will make Rhaegar an even bigger jerk than he is right now. 

He secretly divorced and abandoned his sickly wife right after she almost died to give him a son. 

He made his two young children bastards by annuling his marriage and even gave his name to his new son. 

And he left his exwife and bastard children under the control of Mad king. Should not he send his ex-wife and bastards back to her home? 

He did not even bother to announce this annulment, otherwise Tywin/Robert/or any of his enemies would not need to hurt any of them. 

He led a Dornish army of his exwife's house to fight for his new wife. 

He chose to become enemy with his brother in law in stead of trying to make peace with them (Lyanna is now future queen of Westeros, is not she?) 

 

As far as our universe medieval history goes...after annulment of a royal marriage children of that marriage did not become bastards, they were still considered trueborn and their birthright to the throne was legit in succession. Just look at Henry VIII myriad of wives and their children: neither Mary nor Elizabeth should not have been legitimate. I know, Henry was an ass...but that is a real example.
Although, I agree that for commoners marriage annulment meant exactly what you said.
By the way, as much I love Jon, but I really do not want to see him legitimate, just a bastard as he is, because it doesn't matter really. 
 

Edited by Gala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

Well, I can see how badly you want Rhaegar divorce his sickly wife and mother of his two young children secretly and pursue his true love with a 15 year old teenager. Plus makes his firstborn son to Aegon Waters/Sand so that his son with Lyanna can be named as Aegon Targaryen. 

I don't want anything, but now that you touched on the subject, my preference would be that Rhaegar had stayed with Elia, she seems to have been a lovely woman according to those who knew her, Rhaegar was fond of her as well. Their marriage seemed fine before Harrenhal, and Harrenhal happened not long after they married, roughly a year later.

One does wonder if Rhaegar and Elia could have had a longer marriage before the tourney, they could have created a deeper bond; I ask myself if he would still go after Lyanna if he had a loving relationship with Elia? I say no, but we will never know, especially with the prophecy business running strong. All in all, i have to say, i really like this match, the sensible guy and the delicate girl, i genuinely thought that Rhaegar and Elia were a good match for each other, but i fear i'm alone in this one.

 

As for Lyanna herself, she seems trouble to me, it would be better if she had married Robert and made his life a living hell, so he could see that his manic pixie dream girl was nothing but a dream of his, and that he was sharing his bed with a wild wolf, no less. Now this would be so sweeeeeeet.

 

As for my comment about the divorce/annulment, I'm trying to argue with these people who believes that Jon is legitimate, and the only scenario where i can see that Jon is legitimate, is if Rhaegar has married Lyanna and put Elia aside, because i don't see Lyanna entering in a polygamous marriage, and Jon cannot be legitimized by Rhaegar, only the King can legitimize a bastard.

 

No, Elia's children wouldn't be bastards, even if her marriage with Rhaegar had ended. Elia's Aegon would always be Rhaegar's heir, Lyanna's children would always come after him, and i don't believe Rhaegar named his child with Lyanna as Aegon. I doubt Rhaegar knew it was a boy, he died before he could see the child, if anyone named the child as Aegon, it was Lyanna by her own will, as for the reason, i have no idea.

 

1 hour ago, purple-eyes said:

Please stop using Jaehaerys II and his sister as justification for R and L. Both of them were single persons before marriage. In fact, this is a perfect example to prove that it is impossible to annul marriage of Rhaegar and Elia. 

 

It's not about annul anything, it's about the fact that you can do anything in Westeros, save for the consequences of course. If you read an earlier comment of mine, i mentioned how Barristan was dismissed from the Kingsguard, and such a thing has never happened before. Robb Stark used Barristan's dismissal as a reason to try and take Jon out of the Watch.

 

Anything can be done in Westeros, if you have the courage and influence to make it possible. The problem is the consequences of these actions, but ultimately, anything can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

6 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

No actually I will be happy to see it if they propose there is a secret annulment of his first marriage and a secret second marriage to Lyanna. 

Why? 

Because this will make Rhaegar an even bigger jerk than he is right now. 

He secretly divorced and abandoned his sickly wife right after she almost died to give him a son. 

 

I don't know, i think if going after Lyanna was something he really wanted/needed/had to do, it would be pretty dishonest to do it while he was married to Elia. If he put an end to his marriage with Elia, at the very least he was honest with her and did not went running with another behind her back. This of course, is taking into account that Elia knew about this divorce/annulment.

 

 

6 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

He made his two young children bastards by annuling his marriage and even gave his name to his new son. 

Aegon and Rhaenys were conceived during a legitimate union, they can't be made bastards. Rhaegar himself refers to his son with Elia as a king, that's all you need to know.

 

6 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

He led a Dornish army of his exwife's house to fight for his new wife. 

The dornish were fighting for Elia and her children, and one of her children was the heir to the Iron Throne after Rhaegar. It's not as if the dornish were fighting in a war where they had nothing to gain.

 

 

Edited by theMADdestScientist_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, purple-eyes said:

No actually I will be happy to see it if they propose there is a secret annulment of his first marriage and a secret second marriage to Lyanna. 

Why? 

Because this will make Rhaegar an even bigger jerk than he is right now. 

He secretly divorced and abandoned his sickly wife right after she almost died to give him a son. 

He made his two young children bastards by annuling his marriage and even gave his name to his new son. 

And he left his exwife and bastard children under the control of Mad king. Should not he send his ex-wife and bastards back to her home? 

He did not even bother to announce this annulment, otherwise Tywin/Robert/or any of his enemies would not need to hurt any of them. 

He led a Dornish army of his exwife's house to fight for his new wife. 

He chose to become enemy with his brother in law in stead of trying to make peace with them (Lyanna is now future queen of Westeros, is not she?) 

 

k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

No actually I will be happy to see it if they propose there is a secret annulment of his first marriage and a secret second marriage to Lyanna. 

Why? 

Because this will make Rhaegar an even bigger jerk than he is right now. 

He secretly divorced and abandoned his sickly wife right after she almost died to give him a son. 

He made his two young children bastards by annuling his marriage and even gave his name to his new son. 

 

You mean annulling a marriage that Aerys used as a means to keep her family in line and subservient to his wishes during the war? How terrible of him. 

Also bastardy is determined at birth, so no they wouldn't be bastards. 
 

 

Edited by Nic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, theMADdestScientist_ said:

 

 

I don't know, i think if going after Lyanna was something he really wanted/needed/had to do, it would be pretty dishonest to do it while he was married to Elia. If he put an end to his marriage with Elia, at the very least he was honest with her and did not went running with another behind her back. This of course, is taking into account that Elia knew about this divorce/annulment.

 

 

Aegon and Rhaenys were conceived during a legitimate union, they can't be made bastards. Rhaegar himself refers to his son with Elia as a king, that's all you need to know.

 

The dornish were fighting for Elia and her children, and one of her children was the heir to the Iron Throne after Rhaegar. It's not as if the dornish were fighting in a war were they had nothing to gain.

 

 

Well, I am by no means an expert on medieval customs. But this topic was raised before multiple times. According to people who were more familiar with history than me and probably you, "put aside" is different from "annul". 

"Put aside" means marriage was valid but the wife was "divorced", therefore children are still trueborn. Renly wanted to "put aside" Cersei. In other words, Joff will still be prince. (well if they were found to be children of Jaime that is another story) 

"annul" means this marriage was never ever valid thus all children became bastards. If Rhaegar pulled up "annul", this means his first marriage was never true. 

Henry Viii did annul his marriage with Catherine of Aragorn and declared their daughter illegitimate. She became lady Mary in stead of princess. same thing happened with Elizabeth by Anne after Henry killed her. (Later they were restored back to their royal titles due to inheritage issue though) 

It was a very serious issue if you want to annul a royal marriage because your children will become bastards. The reason Catherine of Aragorn insisted she was still queen was likely more for her daughter's status, not for herself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, theMADdestScientist_ said:

I don't want anything, but now that you touched on the subject, my preference would be that Rhaegar had stayed with Elia, she seems to have been a lovely woman according to those who knew her, Rhaegar was fond of her as well. Their marriage seemed fine before Harrenhal, and Harrenhal happened not long after they married, roughly a year later.

One does wonder if Rhaegar and Elia could have had a longer marriage before the tourney, they could have created a deeper bond; I ask myself if he would still go after Lyanna if he had a loving relationship with Elia? I say no, but we will never know, especially with the prophecy business running strong. All in all, i have to say, i really like this match, the sensible guy and the delicate girl, i genuinely thought that Rhaegar and Elia were a good match for each other, but i fear i'm alone in this one.

 

As for Lyanna herself, she seems trouble to me, it would be better if she had married Robert and made his life a living hell, so he could see that his manic pixie dream girl was nothing but a dream of his, and that he was sharing his bed with a wild wolf, no less. Now this would be so sweeeeeeet.

 

As for my comment about the divorce/annulment, I'm trying to argue with these people who believes that Jon is legitimate, and the only scenario where i can see that Jon is legitimate, is if Rhaegar has married Lyanna and put Elia aside, because i don't see Lyanna entering in a polygamous marriage, and Jon cannot be legitimized by Rhaegar, only the King can legitimize a bastard.

 

No, Elia's children wouldn't be bastards, even if her marriage with Rhaegar had ended. Elia's Aegon would always be Rhaegar's heir, Lyanna's children would always come after him, and i don't believe Rhaegar named his child with Lyanna as Aegon. I doubt Rhaegar knew it was a boy, he died before he could see the child, if anyone named the child as Aegon, it was Lyanna by her own will, as for the reason, i have no idea.

 

 

It's not about annul anything, it's about the fact that you can do anything in Westeros, save for the consequences of course. If you read an earlier comment of mine, i mentioned how Barristan was dismissed from the Kingsguard, and such a thing has never happened before. Robb Stark used Barristan's dismissal as a reason to try and take Jon out of the Watch.

 

Anything can be done in Westeros, if you have the courage and influence to make it possible. The problem is the consequences of these actions, but ultimately, anything can be done.

of course anything can be done in Westeros, but not by Rhaegar. Annul his fruitful royal marriage secretly and pretend nothing happened? Even king can not do this. Not to mention Rhaegar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 6:57 AM, Krishtotter said:

 

Well, he already discovered that Dragonstone was built atop Dragon-glass. 

Perhaps you are spot on here though, maybe it will be another Whitewalker reveal.

But I wouldn't be surprised, that's all I'm saying, if Sam is able to corroborate one of Bran's visions with information he has uncovered - albeit not as blatant as I suggested earlier.

They seem to be doing a lot of reunions this season, Bran and Sam have met before so I wouldn't be too surprised if Sam is the one who learns something at the Citadel that explains or confirms the existence of the Three Eyed Raven and the connection to Bran Stark. Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:

Just thinking about it... it's a wonder Cat never figured it out... Ned brings home the bones of his sister and an infant. Cat should have known first, it was Lyanna's, then she'd know Ned's lying, then she'd realize why - to protect her. 

I don't remember is this was established in the show universe, but in the books is clear that when Cat arrived to Winterfell, "Jon and his wet nurse" were already there. Cat married Ned at Riverun, then he left her there to go to war and they didn't see each other again until the war was over. It's not so uncommon for a man that had been a whole year far from home, to father a bastard, even one as "honorable" as Ned. Why would she think of Lyanna in relation to a boy Ned said was his own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Gala said:

As far as our universe medieval history goes...after annulment of a royal marriage children of that marriage did not become bastards, they were still considered trueborn and their birthright to the throne was legit in succession. Just look at Henry VIII myriad of wives and their children: neither Mary nor Elizabeth should not have been legitimate. I know, Henry was an ass...but that is a real example.
Although, I agree that for commoners marriage annulment meant exactly what you said.
By the way, as much I love Jon, but I really do not want to see him legitimate, just a bastard as he is, because it doesn't matter really. 
 

Actually in our universe, Henry VIII did declare Mary and Elizabeth to be illegitimate (bastards) at the Parliament of July 1536. It was really only a late formality, since they had already become de facto illegitimate children after his respective annulments. As another poster mentioned earlier, Catherine of Aragon would not consent to an annulment, not because she was obsessed with her legitimate station (as she saw it) but rather due to the fact that it would make her daughter, Mary, illegitimate. And that she could not stomach, understandably. 

Incidentally, I believe GRR Martin always planned to reveal that Rhaegar had had his marriage to Elia annulled, thereby rendering her one surviving child, Aegon, a bastard since an annulment was not like divorce - it actually was and remains to this day a lot more severe than a mere divorce: being a legal recognition that an authentic marital union had never been created at all in the first place, due to some impediment unforeseen or forced upon the parties at the time of the wedding or betrothal, such as lack of consent. When he received his annulment, Rhaegar would have had it noted in writing with his seal that Elia had never been his true wife, thereby rendering all his children with her illegitimate and taking them out of the line of succession.

Rhaegar must have claimed that his marriage to Elia had been compelled upon him through threats from his "Mad" father or something, which would have amounted to a valid marriage impediment if so, given that it is a contract which has to be freely entered into.

I do honestly feel that GRR always intended Jon to be the only trueborn son of Rhaegar. The whole Harrenhall affair is only comprehensible if one understands it as a show of public defiance on the part of Rhaegar before his father, an attempt to demonstrate to the world that he didn't see Elia as his true wife and was probably then meaning to acquire an annulment when it was safe to do so. He was saying loud and clear for all to see, "Elia (in my understanding) isn't my wife, its a sham arranged marriage".

The showrunners will likely still have gone with the annulment narrative rather than divorce, even though Aegon never survived (presumably) in the TV version and Arianne Martell doesn't exist in it. So they won't be contriving this, I believe it stems from Martin's plot outline. In the novels, annulment would be a far more incendiary, not to mention meaningful, plot device given the apparent survival of Elia's son Aegon and Arianne's machinations for the throne.

 

Edited by Krishtotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2017 at 10:35 AM, Heavy D said:

He's still a bastard.  Rhaegar was already married to Elia.

Jon is legitimate. He is just the son of Rheagar and Elia, not Rheagar and Lyanna.

Lyanna's role is the same as Brienne's, she was a knight sworn to protect her charge at any cost.

To understand why, the show will have to explain the real cause of Robert's rebellion and why Lyanna went missing. Expecting it to be simple is to misunderestimate GRRM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hallam said:

Jon is legitimate. He is just the son of Rheagar and Elia, not Rheagar and Lyanna.

Lyanna's role is the same as Brienne's, she was a knight sworn to protect her charge at any cost.

What?  Seriously.  What?  You're going to need to provide some evidence to support that theory.  

Unless you're just trolling.  Are you just trolling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

of course anything can be done in Westeros, but not by Rhaegar. Annul his fruitful royal marriage secretly and pretend nothing happened? Even king can not do this. Not to mention Rhaegar. 

 

Unless there was a valid impediment prior to their marriage. If you study medieval annulment procedures, the list of potential impediments was not negligible by any means:

 

http://www.historyextra.com/article/feature/love-and-marriage-medieval-england-customs-vows-ceremony

 

"...Divorce as we understand it today did not exist. The only way to end a marriage was to prove it had not legally existed in the first place. Christians could only be married to one person at a time and it was also bigamy if someone bound to the church by a religious vow got married. As well as being single and vow-free, you also had to be marrying a fellow Christian. Breaking these rules automatically invalidated the marriage.  ...

Couples who were already related were not to marry. The definition of ‘family’ was very broad. Before 1215, anyone with a great-great-great-great-great-grandparent in common was too closely related to get married. As this rule was hard to enforce and subject to abuse – the sudden discovery of a long-lost relative might conveniently end a marriage – the definitions of incest were changed by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, reduced to having a great-great-grandparent in common. 
 
As well as blood kinship, other ties could also prohibit marriage. For instance, godparents and godchildren were not allowed to marry as they were spiritually related, and close ‘in-laws’ were also a ‘no-no’.
 
Reading the ‘banns’ was introduced as part of the 1215 changes to try to flush out any impediments before a marriage took place. Nevertheless, until the Reformation there was no ‘speak now or forever hold your peace’.  In the Middle Ages problems discovered or revealed after the marriage could have an enormous impact. For example, Joan of Kent (who later married Edward the Black Prince and become the mother of the future king Richard II) was married in her early teens with full publicity and a church service to an aristocrat, but after about eight years this marriage was overturned in the papal court and she was returned to a knight she had secretly married without her family’s knowledge or approval when she was 12..."
 
 
If the marriage had not been properly consented to, for instance, then it would retrospectively  be deemed automatically invalid, null and void.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So personally I think it all boils down to two possibilities:

 

(A) There was a valid and incontrovertible impediment to Rhaegar and Elia's marriage that only came to light (at least fully) later on post-coitus; rendering their union automatically null and void, thereby making their children illegitimate without any need for a kingly grant or decree

 

Or 

 

(B) Aerys was determined to disinherit Rhaegar and name Viserys as his heir, because Rhaegar was resisting his madness. To avoid a succession crisis, he wanted to make it absolutely certain that Rhaegar's offspring had no contest to the throne if he named Viserys his heir apparent. And so he annulled Rhaegar's marriage with Elia in secret via royal prerogative or at least consented to it, with this goal in mind, making Rhaegar's children bastards so that they would no longer be royals and thus present a possible threat to himself/Viserys at the hands of pro-Rhaegar plotters.

 

Richard III annulled his brother Edward IV's marriage with Elizabeth Woodville on the basis that they had both secretly married while he was engaged to a princess of France, explicitly to disinherit her children and make them bastards. At that time, Elizabeth Woodville, her son Richard of York, and all her daughters were in sanctuary within Westminster Abbey. Much like Elia and her kids. See:

https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/even-by-tudor-and-stuart-standards-edward-ivs-marriage-to-elizabeth-woodville-was-invalid/

"...The historical events of June 1483 indicate that Elizabeth Woodville prepared no defense against the dissolution of her marriage. Nor did she offer any protest against the king’s council declaring her children bastards, nor against the council’s removing Edward V’s right to succeed his father. Elizabeth appears to have sat silent in sanctuary while witnesses were called and testified before the council, while the council’s archbishops debated, and while her marriage to Edward IV was dissolved..."

So (B) also has historical precedent in history, in the Wars of the Roses no less. If (B) is correct then Aerys either annulled the marriage to undermine his son (in which he was the motive force) or secretly consented to Rhaegar's wish only with the view of making his children bastards and exploiting his love for Lyanna (in which case Rhaegar was the motive force).

Edited by Krishtotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lurid Jester said:

What?  Seriously.  What?  You're going to need to provide some evidence to support that theory.  

Unless you're just trolling.  Are you just trolling?

No. Not at all. R+L = J is just a stupid theory. Yes it is obvious. So obvious in the books that it makes no sense.

The books leave a series of unsolved mysteries, any explanation of the backstory has to explain more than just Jon's parentage.

The clues that we are given are: Ashara Dayne's disappearance, the introduction of glamor magic in the books, fake Aegon who looks like a Targ but obviously isn't, the prophecy that causes Rheagar to vanish, Lyanna's disappearance, the tournament at Harrenfell, Ned's trip to house Dayne.

There is also a character called Jon Con who drops a red herring, he has it fourth hand that the maesters told R+E that Ellia could not have another baby. That is absolutely the only evidence against R+E = J and it is no evidence at all, not least the name of the character tells us that it is a red herring.

It all hinges on the 'three heads' prophecy which appears to predict that the prince who was promised will arrive, will be a third son and most likely slay the king and sit on his throne. Note that there are three sets of targs who might fit the prophecy.

1) Aery's children by Rhaella: Rhaegar, Vyseries, Danny

2) Aerys  children by Johanna Lannister: Cersei, Jamie, [Tyrion]

3) Rheagar's children by Ellia: Rhenna, Agon, Jon.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Tywin tried to murder Tyrion in the womb to deny the mad king his prince who was promised by his wife, Tywin being infertile. But the joke being that Tyrion was Tywin's only legit son. If so and if he hasn't just been killed, Jamie might be a dragon rider.

The sequence of events I see is Rheagar runs away to protect his third child when Elia gets pregnant again. Lyanna is put in charge of the child to hide it at the ToJ. Glamor magic from some handy red priestess being used to disguise the baby to look stark. A bastard by Ashara Dayne and either Ned or his brother being the swap. Then when there is no other way to protect the child, Lyanna sacrifices her life to make the glamor permanent, hence the blood.

Unlike R_L = J which requires a whole series of additional events, this theory only requires events that we already know of or are hinted at. More importantly, it explains all the clues we are given. Ashara Dayne has to flee to protect her child who now looks like a Targ. JonCon's fourth hand account of the maester's talk becomes a repetition of a cover story. The mad king's madness is explained. Tyrion's deformity is explained.

It even goes further and explains why the show is different. Since the director's do not want to recast Jon Snow after he 'dies', the glamor spell is different, it does not require a second person in the show. There is no fake Aegon in the show. There is no Ashara Dayne clue.

Most important of all R+E = J means Jon is the rightful heir, the true prince. R+L=J takes away Jon's Stark heritage and makes him a Targ bastard. That really doesn't change Jon in a way that is meaningful to Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Krishtotter said:

Actually in our universe, Henry VIII did declare Mary and Elizabeth to be illegitimate (bastards) at the Parliament of July 1536. It was really only a late formality, since they had already become de facto illegitimate children after his respective annulments. As another poster mentioned earlier, Catherine of Aragon would not consent to an annulment, not because she was obsessed with her legitimate station (as she saw it) but rather due to the fact that it would make her daughter, Mary, illegitimate. And that she could not stomach, understandably. 

Incidentally, I believe GRR Martin always planned to reveal that Rhaegar had had his marriage to Elia annulled, thereby rendering her one surviving child, Aegon, a bastard since an annulment was not like divorce - it actually was and remains to this day a lot more severe than a mere divorce: being a legal recognition that an authentic marital union had never been created at all in the first place, due to some impediment unforeseen or forced upon the parties at the time of the wedding or betrothal, such as lack of consent. When he received his annulment, Rhaegar would have had it noted in writing with his seal that Elia had never been his true wife, thereby rendering all his children with her illegitimate and taking them out of the line of succession.

Rhaegar must have claimed that his marriage to Elia had been compelled upon him through threats from his "Mad" father or something, which would have amounted to a valid marriage impediment if so, given that it is a contract which has to be freely entered into.

I do honestly feel that GRR always intended Jon to be the only trueborn son of Rhaegar. The whole Harrenhall affair is only comprehensible if one understands it as a show of public defiance on the part of Rhaegar before his father, an attempt to demonstrate to the world that he didn't see Elia as his true wife and was probably then meaning to acquire an annulment when it was safe to do so. He was saying loud and clear for all to see, "Elia (in my understanding) isn't my wife, its a sham arranged marriage".

The showrunners will likely still have gone with the annulment narrative rather than divorce, even though Aegon never survived (presumably) in the TV version and Arianne Martell doesn't exist in it. So they won't be contriving this, I believe it stems from Martin's plot outline. In the novels, annulment would be a far more incendiary, not to mention meaningful, plot device given the apparent survival of Elia's son Aegon and Arianne's machinations for the throne.

 

Thank you for providing details for the case of Henry VIII. 

But I hold opposite opinion on GRRM's writing on Rhaegar and Elia's marriage. 

GRRM probably decided Jon should be a true born for whatever reason for the ending, but even himself can not find a reasonable solution to annul his first marriage. 

It is quite ridiculous to claim a royal marriage arranged by his king father and Elia's princess mother is a forced one even from Rhaegar's viewpoint. Most of noble marriages were did this way, like Ned and Cat. They had a lavish wedding in Baelor Sept. If Rhaegar wanted to be defiant, he had to behave like Tyrion-----no sex with Elia. Thus he could have reason to claim it so. But unfortunately he had sex with her and produced two children. Unless he become king and set up another religion like Henry, he has a wife. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Krishtotter said:

So personally I think it all boils down to two possibilities:

(A) There was a valid and incontrovertible impediment to Rhaegar and Elia's marriage that only came to light (at least fully) later on post-coitus; rendering their union automatically null and void, thereby making their children illegitimate without any need for a kingly grant or decree

Or 

(B) Aerys was determined to disinherit Rhaegar and name Viserys as his heir, because Rhaegar was resisting his madness. To avoid a succession crisis, he wanted to make it absolutely certain that Rhaegar's offspring had no contest to the throne if he named Viserys his heir apparent. And so he annulled Rhaegar's marriage with Elia in secret via royal prerogative or at least consented to it, with this goal in mind, making Rhaegar's children bastards so that they would no longer be royals and thus present a possible threat to himself/Viserys at the hands of pro-Rhaegar plotters.

Or (C) this is a terrible theory that has only survived so far because it is so full of holes.

We know from the books that the issue that divided Aerys and Rheagar was the prophecy but not what it said. We do have a clue in that Jamie sat on the iron throne after killing Aerys. The smile he gives when giving it up strongly suggests he had an unspoken reason. 

Why be so absolutely determined that Lyanna's involvement was as the mother when that only introduces an unnecessary complication?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

38 minutes ago, hallam said:

No. Not at all. R+L = J is just a stupid theory. Yes it is obvious. So obvious in the books that it makes no sense.

That's a lot to unpack, but I'll have to do that in a separate post.  

For now let me just point out that the R+L=J is not obvious for a large number of readers and show viewers.  It's obvious to us but we're the minority. Most readers and viewers don't go looking for forums to theorycraft and hypothesize. 

Hell, the first time I read Game of Thrones all those clues zipped right past me. I was like most people.  I wasn't looking for a deeper story, so I didn't see one. 

Also, maybe someone can correct me but hasn't R+L=J been confirmed?  Isn't it a little late in the day to cling to alternative theories?

Actually, you know what?  After reading your theory a few times I realized that it is so far out there on the fringes that nothing I say will be anything you haven't heard already.  Kudos for a creative theory though. It just depends on way too many assumptions.  

The one part I really like is that you believe that a Tyrion is Tywin's son.  That bit I agree fully with.  I hate the theory that Tyrion is another secret Targ.  It completely undermines the father son dynamic.  

 

Edited by Lurid Jester
Addendum at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lurid Jester said:

Also, maybe someone can correct me but hasn't R+L=J been confirmed?  Isn't it a little late in the day to cling to alternative theories?

Actually, you know what?  After reading your theory a few times I realized that it is so far out there on the fringes that nothing I say will be anything you haven't heard already.  Kudos for a creative theory though. It just depends on way too many assumptions.  

The one part I really like is that you believe that a Tyrion is Tywin's son.  That bit I agree fully with.  I hate the theory that Tyrion is another secret Targ.  It completely undermines the father son dynamic.  

No, the theory has not been confirmed. All that has been confirmed is that Jon is at the ToJ and Lyanna dies there. It is implied that she dies in childbirth but it was implied that Tyrion hired the assassin to murder Bran.

What has happened is path dependency and a lot of bullying. Another point to ponder is that until Jon Con arrived, there was absolutely no contrary evidence for R+E = J other than his looks which are known to be mutable in the Westeros universe. And JonCon only appeared after the dinner with D&D and GRRM at which the question of who Jon's father is was asked. Furthermore, GRRM has never said if D&D got the answer right or if their argument was merely good enough. They may not have even given a single possibility.

On the Tyrion thing, I think I would go further and suggest that Tywin's role in Robert's rebellion was essentially the same as Littlefinger's in the war of five kings, manipulating the forces into fighting to destroy each other and place his daughter and grandson on the throne.

I do think Cersei and Jamie turn out to be secret Targs though. It sets up a parallel, Jamie and Cersei the evil targ couple, Danny and Jon, the good targ couple. Furthermore it means Jamie's redemption arc has a point - he can ride a dragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Krishtotter said:

Actually in our universe, Henry VIII did declare Mary and Elizabeth to be illegitimate (bastards) at the Parliament of July 1536. It was really only a late formality, since they had already become de facto illegitimate children after his respective annulments. As another poster mentioned earlier, Catherine of Aragon would not consent to an annulment, not because she was obsessed with her legitimate station (as she saw it) but rather due to the fact that it would make her daughter, Mary, illegitimate. And that she could not stomach, understandably. 

 

 

Catherine of Aragon was a devoted Catholic and pure royal blood, of course, she could not stomach her child to be a bastard, it is indeed understandable. I always thought that it was irrelevant in matter of succession, since both Mary and Elizabeth did inherit the throne, their fathers name and were accepted by the people. I've never heard them to be called bastards, although, I must admit I am not an expert, just read few history books and articles.

Edited by Gala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now