Iron Mother

[SPOILERS] The Marriage: Discussing Rhaegar, Elia, and Lyanna

132 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, SerJeremiahLouistark said:

If they do continue with the prophecy aspect I think it will be very watered down.  

That's putting it lightly.  It will be some Bran vision and explanation to the whole Great Hall in Winterfell in one fell swoop.

Bran has become simply a tool of extrapolation lol

If you need something clarified, you just go get Bran and he goes into greensight to explain it.  I wouldn't doubt if Bran in S08 will be in the vision and explaining what he sees simultaneously.  Less screen time to waste.  Less script.  Everybody believes Bran.  Win/Win.

Question: WHY do they believe Bran anyway?  He's telling all these things no one else knows, how can it be confirmed? 

Share this post


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

Or Lyanna and Rhaegar was set up by Robert and Tywin, and they prevented communication between Lyanna and Starks, and Rhaegar and Aerys. Tywin had Jaime intercepting any letters or messengers from Rhaegar getting to King, and Robert used his proximity to Starks to retrieve all ravens coming from Dorne with letters from Lyanna. It's called fox in a chicken coop.

When it all began, Lyanna and Rhaegar didn't knew anything, and by the time news about rebellion reached Dorne, it was already too late. Also by that time Lyanna was already "heavily pregnant", so it was out of the question for her to travel back North to stop massacre.

I'm pretty sure that if Robert had any clue as to where Lyanna was he would have hauled ass for that location no matter what. Tywin also didnt need to set anyone up, westeros was already at war and I dont think a letter from Rhaegar was going to stop it at that point. I think it's time to face the facts that Lyanna and Rhaegar were just selfish and hypocritical and only cared for each other.

Share this post


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

That's putting it lightly.  It will be some Bran vision and explanation to the whole Great Hall in Winterfell in one fell swoop.

Bran has become simply a tool of extrapolation lol

If you need something clarified, you just go get Bran and he goes into greensight to explain it.  I wouldn't doubt if Bran in S08 will be in the vision and explaining what he sees simultaneously.  Less screen time to waste.  Less script.  Everybody believes Bran.  Win/Win.

Question: WHY do they believe Bran anyway?  He's telling all these things no one else knows, how can it be confirmed? 

Good question, the only people who really have proof he isn't full of shit is Meera, Sansa, Arya, and Littlefinger's corpse, I guess Sam too, but he hasn't said anything to anyone else about their past to confirm he isn't full of it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2017 at 2:50 AM, dantares83 said:

well, he annulled their marriage meaning the children he had with Elia are not longer legitimate. they were born without their parents being properly married. annulled means the marriage was never there. it was 'fake'. 

I don't understand why people keep saying this, when it's not how annulments work legally speaking.

Henry VIII's annulment to Catherine of Aragon was a one-off, by a brand new Church of England, and declaring Mary illegitimate was a separate addendum/declaration than the annulment, which Anne insisted on.

Even the Catholic Church states the children stay legitimate, and the marriage in question only disappears for the two who were married *as a sacrament,* so they can be remarried in the Church. It doesn't affect the kids legally speaking, so they don't become "bastards after the fact."

In most states in the US, you can't have an annulment if there are kids and property. You have to have a divorce due to the legal ramifications of custody of children and joint property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

18 hours ago, Iron Mother said:

How do we know any of this tho ?  We don't know all these laws of westeros do we?

The story is loosely following medieval history, primarily that of English kings. So, the laws and customs in Westeros will loosely follow those in real history for that time period.

Anunulment is not a divorce, it is a legal ruling that the marriage was never legitimate to start with and consequently is treated as though it never happened. If Rhaegar's first marriage was annulled, it would immediately make his two children bastards and result in them losing all birthrights they previously had, including any inheritance.

Annulment in medieval times had specific requirements, namely non-consummation (which is the whole reason for the bedding ceremony btw - to provide witnesses for the validity of the marriage so that it can't be later annulled on those grounds), illegality (such as one party already being legally married to someone else), or the absence of any witnesses to the fact that it happened in the first place). In medieval times it was very hard to get a marriage annulled, because you would have to actually prove that one of those three things happened - which is difficult for normal marriages. The marriage to Lyanna would be easily annulled because it could be failed on all three of those charges, but Rhaegars first marriage would be far more difficult to get rid of.

Also, in medieval times, all nobles required the consent of the king to get married. All of them. Princes especially. So, Rhaegar running off and doing this in secret absolutely would be considered treason and in itself grounds for immediate annulment of any marriage he made.

 

Edited by tugela

Share this post


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

I don't understand why people keep saying this, when it's not how annulments work legally speaking.

Henry VIII's annulment to Catherine of Aragon was a one-off, by a brand new Church of England, and declaring Mary illegitimate was a separate addendum/declaration than the annulment, which Anne insisted on.

Even the Catholic Church states the children stay legitimate, and the marriage in question only disappears for the two who were married *as a sacrament,* so they can be remarried in the Church. It doesn't affect the kids legally speaking, so they don't become "bastards after the fact."

In most states in the US, you can't have an annulment if there are kids and property. You have to have a divorce due to the legal ramifications of custody of children and joint property.

That is not true. Annulments happened all the time in medieval times, particularly before the whole marriage process became a formalized affair. Do not confuse a medieval annulment with the modern version. Henry VIII split from the church because it would not grant an annulment. The marriage ceremony and subsequent bedding ceremony were implemented specifically to make it harder to prove grounds for later annulment because people were constantly coming to the church to annul marriages when the couple fell out with each other. The reason Henry claimed he was entitled to one was that Catherine was previously married to his brother, and legally that was supposed to make her Henry's sister, so the marriage was illegitimate to start with. And her daughter became a bastard when he did eventually force the annulment through. The same thing happened to Elizabeth, but both daughters later had their hereditary rights re-instated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2017 at 10:41 AM, tugela said:

A marriage can only be annulled if it was either not consummated or was illegal to start with. So, if Rhaegar really did do this, then there must have been something like that with his original marriage. It is possible that the real father of Elia's children was the mad king, and that is the reason he made them stay in King's Landing. Maybe Elia did not want to leave him, so she stayed even though it was clear the city would fall.

That would be grounds for annulment. Failing that, Rhaegar as crown prince would not have been able to do this on his own accord, he would have required his father's permission otherwise it would be an act of treason. That would make the annulment and subsequent re-marrying illegal and illegitimate.

When the marriage to Elia was annulled, her children would have become bastards. It is highly unlikely that Rhaegar would have done that to his own children (if they really were his) just to get in Lyanna's pants, given that he is portrayed as this noble character.

The whole annulment thing just does not ring true unless Rhaegar was not the father of her two children.

In any case, no one in Westeros is realistically going to believe some claim based just off some crazy dude's visions and a supposed transcribed diary. There are no DNA tests, no proper legal documents, no witnesses, just some ceremony held in secret that supporters and family members of the supposed king just happen to be aware of through third parties. Hardly a compelling argument and I have a hard time believing that any self respecting lord of Westeros would fall for that one.

Your definition of annulment is incorrect under both Civil law & Church law. 

I was granted an Annulment from The Vatican. The marriage was consummated. I'm not Catholic, and stated if I had children, I wouldn't raise them Catholic, and that was grounds enough for the Church. 

Neither The Church nor Civil Law does not declare the children of annulments bastards. 

Go here: How Marriage Annulments Differ from Divorces and the Grounds for Obtaining a Marriage Annulment

"Like in the court of law, the legitimacy of the children of an annulled marriage is not questioned."

Having said all of that.... those are still Earth 2017 Rules. The only thing we know about Westerosi annulments is what Sam states. No more, no less, unless we're given that information, if ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

I don't understand why people keep saying this, when it's not how annulments work legally speaking.

Henry VIII's annulment to Catherine of Aragon was a one-off, by a brand new Church of England, and declaring Mary illegitimate was a separate addendum/declaration than the annulment, which Anne insisted on.

Even the Catholic Church states the children stay legitimate, and the marriage in question only disappears for the two who were married *as a sacrament,* so they can be remarried in the Church. It doesn't affect the kids legally speaking, so they don't become "bastards after the fact."

In most states in the US, you can't have an annulment if there are kids and property. You have to have a divorce due to the legal ramifications of custody of children and joint property.

The Catholic Church often refuses to marry couples where the children are "bastards" for lack of a better term.  The Catholic Church here in Louisiana refused to marry my Cousin and her Fiancé because he had a child from a previous marriage that wasn't baptized.  When I got married I had to go through weeks of catholic school called Pre-Cana and my stepdaughter had already been baptized by the Catholic Church so we were allowed after my Pre-Cana.  

Share this post


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

The Catholic Church

HOW is this now drifting into the realm of real-life religion?  wow it's a fantasy fiction book with dragons and undead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Iron Mother said:

HOW is this now drifting into the realm of real-life religion?  wow it's a fantasy fiction book with dragons and undead.

Undead is kind of a Christian thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Iron Mother said:

HOW is this now drifting into the realm of real-life religion?  wow it's a fantasy fiction book with dragons and undead.

Because this is a fictional world whose rules and people's mindset is based on the middle ages, and real-life religion was a core part of it. So, for things we do not know because they have not been clearly stated neither in books nor show, it's not out of the reasonable to try to find some explanation in real earth history.

So, setting aside all we know only from the books, the show tells us that a High Septon of the dominant Westerosi faith, that of the Seven, (let's say, Pope of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages) granted an annulment to Rhaegar, and then he himself officiates the wedding ceremony of the Crown Prince to Lyanna. That is possible, there have been annulments in history,  and no matter the several possible legal arguments the person who asks the annulment may have, or have not (consent, consumation, legal impediments unknown at the moment of the marriage, etc.), the fact is that in the real world, annulments were granted (or not) mostly for political reasons, and not legal ones, particularly if royalty was involved. For example, the pope did not deny Henry VIII his desired annulment for legal or religious reasons, he did it mainly because it would have been highly inconvienent for him (at that time) to offend the family of Catherina. I'm sure that if he had found a way to settle the issue without going against Carlos I, he would have been more than happy to give the annulment he was being asked.

As for the story, I hope someday we'll get some better explanation from GRRM, because what we know seems contradictory or does not fit what we know about the characters. It never made much sense to me.
 I can imagine Lyanna eloping with her Charming Prince with no regards for the consequences, because I see her as an aged up Arya, and Arya would not accept meekly and obediently a betrothal she does not want, so it does not sound completely unbelievable for a reckless and impulsive 15 years old noble girl to run away,
I can imagine a High Septon granting the annulment, even without Aerys knowledge. Not the most likely thing, but not completely impossible, given Aerys madness and the possibility that the High Septon could be thinking that Aerys would not be king for long, and in short time Rhaegar, either as true king or as regent, could go public about the annulment and new marriage.
But no one can convince me that Rhaegar, an adult crown prince who was raised and educated to rule from the moment of his birth, would disregard so easily the political implications of what he was doing, particularly if he was, as we are told, both a good person and fully aware of his father's insanity.

Edited by LucyMormont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SerJeremiahLouistark said:

Undead is kind of a Christian thing

ACTUALLY if you want to get in the mud and mix it up, the "Christian thing" is actually Vampirism.

"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and will be saved from Death."
- John 6:54

And not to mention a reanimated corpse -- with the same wounds (like AeJon and Baeric) and a lot more

hmm :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, LucyMormont said:

Because this is a fictional world whose rules and people's mindset is based on the middle ages, and real-life religion was a core part of it. So, for things we do not know because they have not been clearly stated neither in books nor show, it's not out of the reasonable to try to find some explanation in real earth history.

So, setting aside all we know only from the books, the show tells us that a High Septon of the dominant Westerosi faith, that of the Seven, (let's say, Pope of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages) granted an annulment to Rhaegar, and then he himself officiates the wedding ceremony of the Crown Prince to Lyanna. That is possible, there have been annulments in history,  and no matter the several possible legal arguments the person who asks the annulment may have, or have not (consent, consumation, legal impediments unknown at the moment of the marriage, etc.), the fact is that in the real world, annulments were granted (or not) mostly for political reasons, and not legal ones, particularly if royalty was involved. For example, the pope did not deny Henry VIII his desired annulment for legal or religious reasons, he did it mainly because it would have been highly inconvienent for him (at that time) to offend the family of Catherina. I'm sure that if he had found a way to settle the issue without going against Carlos I, he would have been more than happy to give the annulment he was being asked.

As for the story, I hope someday we'll get some better explanation from GRRM, because what we know seems contradictory or does not fit what we know about the characters. It never made much sense to me.
 I can imagine Lyanna eloping with her Charming Prince with no regards for the consequences, because I see her as an aged up Arya, and Arya would not accept meekly and obediently a betrothal she does not want, so it does not sound completely unbelievable for a reckless and impulsive 15 years old noble girl to run away,
I can imagine a High Septon granting the annulment, even without Aerys knowledge. Not the most likely thing, but not completely impossible, given Aerys madness and the possibility that the High Septon could be thinking that Aerys would not be king for long, and in short time Rhaegar, either as true king or as regent, could go public about the annulment and new marriage.
But no one can convince me that Rhaegar, an adult crown prince who was raised and educated to rule from the moment of his birth, would disregard so easily the political implications of what he was doing, particularly if he was, as we are told, both a good person and fully aware of his father's insanity.

This begs the question, when Ned entered the Tower of Joy, and found Lyanna there, did he not realize he was in the presence of the Legitimate King?  That's why Dayne and other Kingsguard were there.  They were protecting their King.  what if Ned raised Jon as a bastard partly to give what could be the future King a different outlook than most royal and even noble children get.  I know it was mostly to protect him, but it makes me wonder if this ever crossed his mind, that he was grooming what could be the future king of the 7 kingdoms.  

Edited by SerJeremiahLouistark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SerJeremiahLouistark said:

This begs the question, when Ned entered the Tower of Joy, and found Lyanna there, did he not realize he was in the presence of the Legitimate King?  That's why Dayne and other Kingsguard were there.  They were protecting their King.  what if Ned raised Jon as a bastard partly to give what could be the future King a different outlook than most royal and even noble children get.  I know it was mostly to protect him, but it makes me wonder if this ever crossed his mind, that he was grooming what could be the future king of the 7 kingdoms.  

That's a very interesting thought I have not heard before. 

It never seemed tho that Ned was doing this.... but perhaps there were other factors.  Such as Catelyn hated AeJon and Ned could never be seemingly treating him "well" in her presence.  And Ned never really tried hard to stop him from going to/wanting to go to the Wall.... which would nullify everything he was born to be (with the oath).  Ned never seemed to go out of his way to do anything different with AeJon but there could ne a number of logical reasons for it.

I do agree with what you said tho.  I can't think of it now, there are other shows and maybe a movie(?) that do this same thing where the "chosen one" is given a "normal life" to prepare him/her reasonably for their destiny in abnormality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Iron Mother said:

That's a very interesting thought I have not heard before. 

It never seemed tho that Ned was doing this.... but perhaps there were other factors.  Such as Catelyn hated AeJon and Ned could never be seemingly treating him "well" in her presence.  And Ned never really tried hard to stop him from going to/wanting to go to the Wall.... which would nullify everything he was born to be (with the oath).  Ned never seemed to go out of his way to do anything different with AeJon but there could ne a number of logical reasons for it.

I do agree with what you said tho.  I can't think of it now, there are other shows and maybe a movie(?) that do this same thing where the "chosen one" is given a "normal life" to prepare him/her reasonably for their destiny in abnormality.

Ned never really pushed him to take the black though and Benjen actually tried to stop him, saying "you may not know what you are giving up" or something like that.  He would have allowed Jon to make his choice, but at the time he made that choice he couldn't tell Jon who he really was it was still too dangerous.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, SerJeremiahLouistark said:

This begs the question, when Ned entered the Tower of Joy, and found Lyanna there, did he not realize he was in the presence of the Legitimate King?  That's why Dayne and other Kingsguard were there.  They were protecting their King.  what if Ned raised Jon as a bastard partly to give what could be the future King a different outlook than most royal and even noble children get.  I know it was mostly to protect him, but it makes me wonder if this ever crossed his mind, that he was grooming what could be the future king of the 7 kingdoms.  

Many times I had wondered what were Ned's thoughts and feelings at the Tower of Joy. 

The dialogue with the Kingsguards shows quite well his surprise and his doubts when he found  them there, like "WTF happening here?!? WHY on earth this honorable enemies of mine are HERE, of all the places where they should have been". He was baffled, but I think he entered the ToJ still completely ignorant of what he would found, with many questions in his mind but no answers. 

And let's not forget that he had left King's Landing in bad terms with Robert, but not before pledging himself and his house to him. When Ned entered the TOJ, Robert was his king. May be when the rebellion started the goal was just to get rid of Aerys, no to depose the entire dinasty, but in the course of the year that changed. 
And then, the horror, the shock beyond words for Ned: he found a dying sister, and a Targaryen heir. For the Targaryen loyalists, not just the heir, but the very true King, as the kingsguards set proof by fighting to the death. 
Lyanna makes him promise, we don't know exactly what, but we know at least, that he had to protect the child. He promised, and then... well, I think poor Ned did the best he could to be true to his word, both to Lyanna and to Robert, bending it but trying  to not break it. And he had to lie to everybody from then on.
From a strict point of view, he commited high treason to Robert by hiding Jon, and I have no reasons to think that he would not have been treated like a traitor had Robert ever found out that Ned was hiding Rhaegar's heir in his own home. When Robert went to ¨Winterfell, Ned received him bending the knee, that shows that he still considered Robert his king, Ned didn't have it in himself the duplicity to fake a knee bending. I'm sure it wasn't easy for him to lie, that's why he didn't want to talk about Lyanna. It's weird that the Stark children know that their father loved Lyanna very much, but he never talked about her. 

For all this, I don't think that Ned was thinking he was raising a future king.  That ship had already sailed, that's why when he was in the dungeon "the thought of Jon filled Ned with a sense of shame, and a sorrow too deep for words".

Edited by LucyMormont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Iron Mother said:

HOW is this now drifting into the realm of real-life religion?  wow it's a fantasy fiction book with dragons and undead.

The only argument people are giving for "annulment means the kids are bastards" is "that's how it was in the real world". But that's not how it was in the real world. The real world followed the rules of the Catholic church,* which makes the Catholic church relevant to explaining why those people are wrong.

Sure, maybe the rules of Westeros are completely different, and "annulment" doesn't mean the same thing to them as it means to us. But if that's true, we can't conclude anything at all. Maybe "annulment" means that legally Rhaegar is no longer a human being and is now bound by the laws that apply to giant squid. But the obvious assumption is that "annulment" means the same thing in Westeros as it did in medieval Europe, and as it does in popular historical TV shows, and so on.

There's just no way to conclude that the annulment made Rhaegar's first two children bastards. The only people who think that are people with an irrational hate-on for either the show or Rhaegar that makes it impossible for them to even do 3 seconds of google research because they're absolutely sure they're right that Rhaegar sucks and therefore the show makes no sense.

---

* OK, parts of Europe were Orthodox, and even Muslim. If you want, I can explain their medieval rules as well, but it gets complicated (in large part because they, unlike the Catholics, didn't virtually ban divorce in the 10th century), and the result is still going to be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, falcotron said:

The only argument people are giving for "annulment means the kids are bastards" is "that's how it was in the real world". But that's not how it was in the real world. The real world followed the rules of the Catholic church,* which makes the Catholic church relevant to explaining why those people are wrong.

Sure, maybe the rules of Westeros are completely different, and "annulment" doesn't mean the same thing to them as it means to us. But if that's true, we can't conclude anything at all. Maybe "annulment" means that legally Rhaegar is no longer a human being and is now bound by the laws that apply to giant squid. But the obvious assumption is that "annulment" means the same thing in Westeros as it did in medieval Europe, and as it does in popular historical TV shows, and so on.

There's just no way to conclude that the annulment made Rhaegar's first two children bastards. The only people who think that are people with an irrational hate-on for either the show or Rhaegar that makes it impossible for them to even do 3 seconds of google research because they're absolutely sure they're right that Rhaegar sucks and therefore the show makes no sense.

---

* OK, parts of Europe were Orthodox, and even Muslim. If you want, I can explain their medieval rules as well, but it gets complicated (in large part because they, unlike the Catholics, didn't virtually ban divorce in the 10th century), and the result is still going to be the same.

I like this post.  lol

on with the bitchy quips!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What examples of wives do we have in Westerosi history whose actions indicated they were perfectly fine with their lawful husbands being with another woman? Instead, we have Cersei, Catelyn, and Lysa, who each made their feelings perfectly clear about threats to their position as wives. It's human nature and jealousy is a constant in RL and fictional worlds. Beyond Elia's personal honor, the consequences for relations with Dorne of Rhaegar's annulment are huge. Want to piss off the only enemy who's never bent the knee to your dynasty? Ooh, I know, annul your lawful marriage that's engendered two kids of Dornish blood with one of their women. Regardless of why he did it; prophecy or whatever, Rhaegar knew what he started hence secret annulment and re-marriage. As for Elia getting behind that idea, I can't see what Dornish woman subverts her interests, her children's interests because of a damned prophecy or worse. If Elia was the one woman from Dorne who didn't have a backbone and just submitted to Rhaegar's wishes for another kid (in show), well that won't be the silliest thing the showrunners ever cooked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sand11751 said:

If Elia was the one woman from Dorne who didn't have a backbone and just submitted to Rhaegar's wishes for another kid (in show), well that won't be the silliest thing the showrunners ever cooked up.

What makes you think the showrunners cooked this up?

Sure, in the books Rhaegar probably did something different from an annulment. Maybe a bigamous marriage. Or maybe they didn't even marry. But he definitely did run away with another woman and get her pregnant. GRRM cooked that up, not D&D.

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