Erkan12

Mad King is Jon's Grand Father

29 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, falcotron said:

Think about what you're saying here. Aerys kept the annulment secret from the Dornish so they wouldn't know their grandkids had been disinherited. And then he had to publicly disinherit their grandkids in favor of Viserys because he'd kept the annulment secret. How does that make any sense to you?

It all makes sense. And this is how:

Rhaegar is gone for nearly a year. Robert's Rebellion with each day is becoming more critical. Finally Rhaegar returned, and explained to his father everything about Lyanna, and Elia. Now Rhaegar has to go and fight against Robert's troops. Aerys needed help of Dornishmen, so he didn't tell anyone about annulment. And he also convinced Rhaegar not to tell anyone about Lyanna. Because at this point in conflict it won't change anything, furthermore it could make things even worse. Aerys wanted Dornishmen to support Rhaegar during his battles. So he held Elia and her children as hostages, but he still pretended that those children are his successors.

But then Rhaegar was killed, and his people, including Dornishmen lost, and majority of them were killed. They can't provide any help to Aerys, they became useless to him, so there's no more reason for any pretense. Thus he officially 'disinherited' Elia's children, and proclaimed Viserys as his heir. But he still didn't tell anyone about annulment, or Lyanna. Because he didn't knew where Lyanna was, didn't knew whether she already gave birth to his grandchild. So for the safety of that child, Aerys named Viserys as his heir, and didn't told anyone about existance of another Targaryen.

He made Viserys his heir by the very end of rebellion. Declared him heir, and sent him to Dragonstone. Though he still didn't let go Elia and her children, because her brother still was interested in her safety and survival. But he was away in Dorne. And Dornish troops that supported Rhaegar, were shattered. So Aerys kept Elia as his hostage, until the very end, because he hoped that Oberyn will send more troops from Dorne, to save Aerys from approaching enemies.

5 hours ago, falcotron said:

If you're not even going to read anything I say in reply to this and just post it again, what's the point of me replying to it yet again?

I have read what you wrote.

Read my post to the end. I wrote additional information there. I'm not ignoring what you wrote, I'm not posting the same thing again. There are specifications and evidences how Mary and Elizabeth became illegitimate even BEFORE release of that decree.

15 hours ago, falcotron said:

And even after writing that decree, and having Parliament certify it, Henry still wasn't sure whether it was legal. This is the same Henry who defied the Pope and set up his own religion, he wasn't sure whether his religion or his crown could legally declare a child of an annulled marriage illegitimate.

Henry was the King, his word is the law. When Pop (or Archbishop) didn't agree to annul his marriage, he additionally set up his own religion. Now both civil law and Church law proclaimed that his marriage is annuled, and his children are illegitimate.

Quote

So he spent years negotiating with both of them to get them to declare their own illegitimacy, believing that they would otherwise be his heirs if he couldn't produce a son.

When he was forcing Mary to sign document about her illegitimacy, Henry already had a male heir. He didn't thought that if his daughters won't sign those documents, they won't be illegitimate. He wanted them to sign those documents, because he wanted the two of them, to officially accept their illegitimate status. Whether they signed them, or not, to everyone else, including Henry, they were already illegitimate.

https://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/1-july-1536-elizabeth-and-mary-declared-illegitimate/

"On this day in history, 1st July 1536, Parliament declared that Henry VIII’s two daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, were illegitimate. This meant that the King had no legitimate children, just three bastards, so the pressure was now on the King’s new wife, his third wife Jane Seymour, to provide a legitimate heir, and preferably a male one.

Trivia: The very first Parliament of Mary’s reign passed an act which overturned the annulment of Mary’s parents’ marriage, making her legitimate. Elizabeth, however, never overturned her parents’ annulment or made herself legitimate."

Overturning annulment made Mary legitimate again. She didn't annulled that decree from July of 1536, nevertheless, she became legitimate again, just by officially restoring her parents' marriage.

While Elizabeth remained illegitimate, even though she didn't sign any documents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England

Parliament signed that decree on July 1st of 1536, but even before that Mary was already illegitimate. Elizabeth was born on 7 September of 1533, two and a half years before signing of that decree, nevertheless Mary was ALREADY illegitimate because of annulment of her parents' marriage.

"At birth, Elizabeth was the heir presumptive to the throne of England. Her older half-sister, Mary had lost her position as a legitimate heir when Henry annulled his marriage to Mary's mother, Catherine of Aragon, to marry Anne, with the intent to sire a male heir and ensure the Tudor succession." <- this if from Elizabeth's page on Wikipedia, part Early life, fourth sentence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England

"In early 1533, Henry married Anne Boleyn, who was pregnant with his child, and in May Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, formally declared the marriage with Catherine void, and the marriage to Anne valid. Henry broke with the Roman Catholic Church and declared himself Supreme Head of the Church of England. Catherine was demoted to Dowager Princess of Wales (a title she would have held as the widow of Arthur), and Mary was deemed illegitimate. She was styled "The Lady Mary" rather than Princess, and her place in the line of succession was transferred to her newborn half-sister, Elizabeth, Anne's daughter. Mary's own household was dissolved; her servants (including the Countess of Salisbury) were dismissed and in December 1533 she was sent to join the household of the infant Elizabeth at Hatfield, Hertfordshire."

Parliament decree was signed in 1536, but Mary became illegitimate in 1533, immidiately when her parents' marriage was annuled, she became illegitimate as result of that annulment.

Which means 'annulment = illegitimation of children'.

That decree was just additional paperwork, because English people are bureaucrats and paperpushers, Westerosians wouldn't bother with any additional paperwork and officialdom.

https://children-laws.laws.com/legitimacy/history/history-legitimacy-overview

Part Hereditary Titles:

"Some important royalty is noted to be illegitimate. One such case is Elizabeth I of England: she became illegitimate following her parents’ annulment. Under Catholic Canon Law, if a couple has an annulment, then the children they had during the marriage become illegitimate. One cannot remarry in the Catholic Church unless they get an annulment from all previous marriages."

Since then Church and civil laws changed. Now annulment of marriage doesn't affect status of children, but previously it did - they became illegitimate.

Quote

Declaring Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate required a special decree, separate from the annulment.

Westerosian laws are simpler. They don't even make marriage sertificates. Thus if Rhaegar's marriage with Elia was annuled, and in that world annulment is equal to kids becoming illegitimate, then there will no any additional documents or declarations.

But because that annulment was kept in secret, then Aerys had to specifically proclaim, that his successor is Viserys, and not Aegon Martel, who was next in succession line, as son of Crown Prince.

 

I remember where else I heard/read/watched 'marriage annulment = illegitimation of children'. The White Queen, TV series about War of the Roses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Queen_(TV_series)

Episode 8: " Richard's wife Anne Neville (who fears Elizabeth will eventually work to have Richard, her, and their son executed as traitors) instead persuades him to have his nephews declared illegitimate, on the grounds of a previous promise of marriage made by Edward to another woman. He and Anne are then crowned instead of his nephew."

Based on previous promise of marriage, Edward IV's marriage with Elizabeth Woodville was annuled, and his children from that marriage became illegitimate, all 10 of them.

Historical info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Woodville

"By an act of Parliament, the Titulus Regius (1 Ric. III), it was declared that Edward IV's children with Elizabeth illegitimate on the grounds that Edward IV had a precontract with the widow Lady Eleanor Butler, which was considered a legally binding contract that rendered any other marriage contract invalid. One source, the Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines, says that Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells, carried out an engagement ceremony between Edward IV and Lady Eleanor."

Marriage was declared invalid = children became illegitimate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titulus_Regius

"The act ratifies the declaration of the lords and the members of the House of Commons, in the year before, that the marriage of Edward IV of England to Elizabeth Woodville had been invalid, and consequently their children, including Edward, Richard and Elizabeth, were illegitimate and, therefore, debarred from the throne. Thus Richard III had been proclaimed the rightful king. But as the Lords and Commons had not been officially convened as a parliament, doubts had arisen as to its validity, so when Parliament convened it enacted the declaration as a law. Following the overthrow of Richard III, the Act was repealed, which had the effect of reinstating the legitimacy of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's children."

 

If GRRM used European history as source of his inspiration, specifically Elizabeth and Edward from War of Roses, and era of Mary and Elizabeth, then the same as there, in ASOIAF universe annulment of marriage = illegitimization of children from that marriage.

And details of how many additional document were signed, or how many additional declarations were made, are insignificant. The core basis remains the same - annulled marriage = illegitimate children.

But even if GRRM will play it in the books differently, for example he will make Rhaegar bigamist with two wives, that just doesn't make any sense - Rhaegar was follower of Seven, and Faith of Seven forbid bigamous marriages. So in the book too Rhaegar had to cut ties with Elia, before marrying with Lyanna. And if in book version, he divorced with Elia, and D&D consulted with GRRM how should they reveal L+R=J, why would they choose different path, and instead made Rhaegar annul his first marriage? It doesn't make sense. If D&D in GOT made Rhaegar annul his first marriage, to marry with Lyanna, then that means that GRRM told them to do so, he will also do the same in the book. So if GRRM and D&D specifically chosen annullment and not divorce, then what could be the core reason for that? What's the main difference? We're talking about Medieval times world, based on War of Roses, and other similar events from our history. Based on examples from actual history, main difference between divorce and annullment, is that after annullment children become illegitimate. And why would Rhaegar do that to Elia's children? That's because he wanted his son Aegon Stark to become King, and not his son Aegon Martell. He knew that Jon is the Prince that was promised.

That's the only logical explanation, why Rhaegar annulled his first marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

More info about how marriage annullment can make children illegitimate:

http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2007/07/26/marriage_and_annulment/

"Canon 1137 states specifically that children who are born of a valid or of a putative marriage are ligitimate. A putative marriage is the one into which at least one of the spouses entered in good faith (canon 1061.3). In other words, if it was shown that bride and groom simply went through the motions at their marriage ceremony, without even intending to exchange consent in the Catholic sense of the word, their marriage would not be putative and their children would in fact be illegitimate.

it is incorrect to assume that all children born of invalid marriages are automatically illegitimate." 

Current Catholic Code of Canon Law was compiled in 1983, before that they used Code from 1917, and that one was the first official comprehensive codification of Latin canon law. But who knows what kind of Church laws were valid in 15-17 centuries, when War of Roses, and Elizabeth' reign took place.

But even according to currect Catholic Church laws, if marriage wasn't putative, then it's not only becoming annulled, but also children from that marriage are becoming illegitimate.

So if Rhaegar wanted to annul his marriage, and additionally make his children with Elia illegitimate, all they had to do, is to say that they didn't married willingly -> marriage void, children bastards. As simple as that.

Case closed ^_^

Edited by Megorova

Share this post


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

Henry was the King, his word is the law.

No, it isn't. England was never an absolute monarchy, and even less so by the time of Henry VIII. The law of the land is the Law of Edward, as supplemented by Acts of Parliament, as interpreted by precedent of past judgments as recorded in the plea rolls and year books. Special cases like the Treaty of Wallingford can make new law. The King cannot make new law, but the King can't.

For the rest, you're grasping at straws. You're picking out cases like the Titulus Regius and using them to try to argue that declaring a marriage annulled automatically make the children bastards. But the very fact that Parliament felt compelled to pass an Act making the children bastards is proof that it didn't happen automatically, that it required a separate Act. If they didn't need the Act, they wouldn't have passed it.

But rather than go point by point, let's just jump to the end:

3 hours ago, Megorova said:

"Canon 1137 states specifically that children who are born of a valid or of a putative marriage are ligitimate. A putative marriage is the one into which at least one of the spouses entered in good faith (canon 1061.3). In other words, if it was shown that bride and groom simply went through the motions at their marriage ceremony, without even intending to exchange consent in the Catholic sense of the word, their marriage would not be putative and their children would in fact be illegitimate.

I don't know where you found a summary of canon law that doesn't even spell things properly, but this is pretty much correct anyway. Only it doesn't say what you seem to think it does.

The traditional legal terminology is the distinction between voidable marriages and void marriages. A voidable marriage is one which can be canceled by one of the parties. A void marriage is one that never existed in the first place. A putative marriage is one that is not void, even if it is voidable, or in fact voided by an annulment.

Voidable marriages are the ones you get annulments for. One of the parties to the marriage has to go to the church (or courts, in the civil equivalent) and ask for an annulment—as Rhaegar went to the High Septon. After such an annulment, the children are still legitimate.

Void marriages do not exist in the first place. Anyone can demonstrate a void marriage. Under a void marriage, the children are, and always were, illegitimate. A marriage is only void if neither of the people believed they were married—because they were both tricked into it, or forced into it against their will, or someone entered a marriage into the records but they weren't even present, etc. This is clearly not what happened with Rhaegar and Elia. If it were, Rhaegar wouldn't have had to go to the High Septon in the first place. And if he did, he would have had to convince the High Septon that not only he, but also Elia, never believed they were married.

Again, this all comes down to something pretty simple: When marriages are annulled, normally the children do not become illegitimate. There are some special cases where it does happen, but it's not the normal thing. When you see an annulment, without any indication of it being a special case, you should assume the normal thing is happening.

Let's look at an analogy where you don't have anything wrapped up in being right. When someone is attainted, does the corruption of blood apply to his nephews? Traditionally, no, it only applies to his sons. But there is at least one case where a nephew tried to claim the property of his attainted and executed uncle, and rather than finding that there was no inheritance to claim, they decided he was the heir after all and executed him. Does that mean that if I read about someone being attainted, I should assume that his nephews are also convicted traitors? No, of course not, I should assume it works the same as the hundreds of other attainders, not the one special case.

Share this post


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

I don't know where you found a summary of canon law that doesn't even spell things properly,

On that site, link to which I posted - http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2007/07/26/marriage_and_annulment/

Last paragraph there. Author of that site is canon lawyer.

Text there is protected from copying, so I had to rewrite it, and English is my 4th language, so I'm not very good with it, wrong spelling is my doing ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 1:14 PM, Erkan12 said:

What would Jon think about that ?

I think the line to Theon about being a Greyjoy and Stark hinted about how Jon would feel about it. He would accept both sides of his heritage, good and bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, given that he's in love with Danaerys, I don't think the thought of Aerys being his grandfather would bother him nearly as much as the idea of Ned Stark not being his father. Or Bran, Arya, Sansa, Robb, and Rickon not being his siblings, but his cousins. Or his name not actually being "Jon Snow." It would feel like his entire life was a lie.

Of course, Ned didn't actually lie to him. "You are a Stark. You may not have my name, but you have my blood." That's just as true now as it was before.

But anyway, I see him having an identity crisis for a while, especially if Bran forces the issue on him. And worrying that he doesn't have time for an identity crisis, with the Night King out there. It would take the family banding together to make him realize that, where it counts, he's still the same person he always was, and he's still their family.

I'm just worried, after hearing interviews with the writers, that they're going to use this as some bogus material for conflict between Dany and Jon, when the solution to any such conflict is really obvious, and if anything, this solves more problems than it causes. (The primary objection to Dany is that she is foreign. Jon grew up in Winterfell and lived at the Wall. Jon is a bastard, Aegon is not, and therefore he's a good candidate for Dany to marry. They're both good people and good rulers, who want what's best for the people. Dany has the strength, Jon has the legitimacy (especially in terms of not being foreign). And they really like each other, which isn't a prerequisite to marriage in that world, but it helps).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 9:14 PM, Erkan12 said:

What would Jon think about that ?

It could be good or it could be bad: "Madness and greatness are two sides of the same coin. Every time a new Targaryen is born, the gods toss the coin in the air, and the world holds its breath to see how it will land." (Jaehaerys Targaryen)

Speaking of which, in Dany's case the coin seams to have landed on the edge and keeps spinning showing greatness and somethingelseness alternatively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 8:31 AM, Katerine459 said:

 

I'm just worried, after hearing interviews with the writers, that they're going to use this as some bogus material for conflict between Dany and Jon, when the solution to any such conflict is really obvious, and if anything, this solves more problems than it causes. (The primary objection to Dany is that she is foreign. Jon grew up in Winterfell and lived at the Wall. Jon is a bastard, Aegon is not, and therefore he's a good candidate for Dany to marry. They're both good people and good rulers, who want what's best for the people. Dany has the strength, Jon has the legitimacy (especially in terms of not being foreign). And they really like each other, which isn't a prerequisite to marriage in that world, but it helps).

I think the writers are just blowing smoke to be honest. Prob get 1-3 episodes of drama before the eventual resolution. 

i saw this video that analyzed their theme song and its clear from that that these two are not meant to finish in conflict. 

Also there is this Alfie Allen quote from 5 years ago that seems like it clearly spoils them getting hitched:

What did you ask him [George] about in return?
You know, I asked him about who Jon Snow's real parents were, and he told me. I can't say who, but I can tell you that it involves a bit of a Luke Skywalker situation. It will all come to fruition eventually. The whole thing with all the fight over proper succession is partly inspired by the War of the Roses in the late 1400s, and back then, to ensure pedigree, the monarchies were kind of inbred. It's definitely fucked up, but it definitely happened back then, so that's why there's incest with the Targaryen line. It's toned down, though.

Share this post


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

...The whole thing with all the fight over proper succession is partly inspired by the War of the Roses in the late 1400s, and back then, to ensure pedigree, the monarchies were kind of inbred. It's definitely fucked up, but it definitely happened back then, so that's why there's incest with the Targaryen line. It's toned down, though.

More than for Yorks or Lancasters, for the Targaryens inbreeding is vital in order to keep the DNA as close to the original one as possible since their relationship with the dragons depends on the valyrian descendance. Perhaps that's what some of the "Blood" in "Blood and Fire" stands for. Of course, the downside is madness :).

 

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