frenin

Oh I know that she wanted to provoke a war. I'm simply asking why would the Lannisters give then the war they wanted at all. It's simply not worth. He def could if Tywin was ever interested in something that wasn't might makes right. Ned's and Robert's dead saved him from a lot of trouble, he gave the Starks the perfect scape goat when he decided to send Gregor to the Riverlands.

I still don't know why there would be a war... The Lannisters would be content with ignoring them till the situation was calm enough to attack. If it ever got to that, since as long as their taxes came in time... The Lannisters weren't silly enough to attack the Vale.

Eh, I think that Aerys thought that as long as he had Elia and the kids hostage, he could do whatever or say whatever to Dorne, Aerys had at least a two weeks to send any raven and prepare everything. If the proclamation was widely known because Aerys had made sure it was, there is little reason to assume the loyalists at whole didn't know it. Viserys is after all one of the last rallying figures around. I don't really think this has much to it imo, Rhaegar told them to stay put and they did so. Doubtful, Elia's situation prevented any hostilities from the entire duration of the war. They wouldn't have fought at all if not for her. Just wanted to leave thoughts on this, not really going to engage further than this.

I was answering your claim that everything was over after the Bell, I've already answered the Bell's thing. Cos she didn't... Besides chronological reports are easier than pyschological aspects of abuse. Monumental as it may have been, the battle didn't decide the war, it only took it to a different level with very different stakes. Because rescuing Robert was kinda relevant.

For the Targs, sure. But not for the war, 9 months passed from the Bells to the Trident. It wasn't, literally by word of god. The siege of Storm's End Almost impossible. Especially the 14 days part. that's just impossible to believe, the wedding simply had to be after the Bells.

There are some things that we can infer rather easily, Cat remembers that Ned and her spent 14 days together before the war resumed. The wedding had to happen after Robert was rescued, not only because him being touch and go must've been well known. Robert meant too much, both to Ned and old Jon and to the rebel war effort in general for Ned to be kicking in in Riverrun while his best pal was being hunted down.

It happened before the wedding. - Jon Arryn and Ned had to look for Robert, so they agreed to marry both Cat and Lysa. - The battle of the bells happened. - the wedding occurs.

Fair enough. The other way it's true too, just because you believe them logic doesn't mean they really are. They are untrue because the construct of the very sentence makes clear it's unlikely. Suit yourself. Ditto. I'll spare you the trouble. Ned already told Robert the name of the mother of his bastard but Robert forgot her and now he is demanding again said name. Indeed. The previous time Ned didn't do more than telling a name. "You never told me what she looked like". This time Ned also does nothing more that telling a name. He asks for Jon's mother. "The mother of your bastard", has only one meaning. Robert was remembering the name given and associated with Jon's mother but he couldn't do it. It's not a logical assumption that Ned denied his best friend of a random name that wouldn't make a difference whether he told it or not. And Ned does tell Robert a name 15 years later so it makes zero sense that he wouldn't in the past.

There really aren't, i know you've made the arguments several times, several people, me among them, have also disagreed with you several times before. No, i know Ned told Robert more than we know because Robert knows more than we know and he does know Jon's mother according to Ned's info. The thing we know Ned told Robert is the mother of his bastard's name. That's not the correct logical construct, not now not ever. Robert would ask directly who the mother was and Ned would give him a name. We already had this chat, Ned told him that the name of Jon's mother was Wylla, not that Wylla, wetnurse in Starfall was Jon's mother. There are likely thousands Wyllas in Westeros, besides Ned has no reason to suspect that that info he is sharing with Robert is not going to stay between Robert and him. But he has also demonstrated that he is more than capable of giving him a name. Ditto, is what you want to believe, but we have no reason to believe otherwise. Robert asks for Jon's mother, Ned says Wylla. At all, the most logical assumption is that Ned told Robert some bs that he knew that could be verified if someone was curious enough. Since looking for other bastards is impolite, he knew that the mater would rest soon.

I suppose that because polygamy thing was only supposed to do by Targs. I don't really see if they are used interchangeably but that both terms are used, but yes i think that it's obvious that absolut kings can and have the power of annulling the marriages of their children and kin. Idon't really know why it would be a bad move, Aerys is against Rhaegar regardless of his move, the Martells are against Rhaegar regardless of his moves. The only reason the Martells sent men is because Elia and the children were hostages, had that not happened, the Martells wouldn't have sent any men to die for the Targ cause. When someone uses that phrase, more often than not, they are without arguments and grasping straws. Exhibit one. No, polygamy does not count, there is a very very simple reason for that polygamy stopped being practiced in the mainland and is a sin in the Faith eyes. The custom of setting aside one's wife is Westerosi tradition. Hell not even only Westerosi tradition. From the first First men kings and lords to Tommen Baratheon, setting aside one's wife is custom and law in Westeros, that's simply not the case with polygamy. What wishes?? Seems like you're trying to make the rules. There are no wish for polygamy, at the very best, there is a rumour that says that Daemon may have wanted to practice polygamy and his father, the one who didn't do polygamy although he had clear motives means and opportunity, may have considered to indulge him. Yeah. the very same. Who?? All the people quoted consumated the marriage and most if not all of them had children, even in Aerys 1 case the notion that he didn't consumate the marriage is a rumour. Cersei would not have been set aside due her incest, Cersei would have lost her head due her incest, not only Cersei honestly, a lot of Lannisters, including Tywin, were losing their heads because of the twincest. Pycelle knew about but he himself makes no mention of it but he does mention the incest when he talks about Jon Arryn, Renly didn't know about the incest. Re Already done that, you're refusing to read what you don't like. But just for you. He wouldn't, so what, what is he going to do?? His grandchildren are going to inherit regardless so that's cool and he doesn't have more option than sulking, he can't rebe, he is going to be slaughtered, so... You don't really read what i'm posting. Ah, the coded words and the smoke bomb i missed them, i wondered what you were lasting so much, you were clearly at the end of your wits. Whatever. Hmm no, we know that Robert knows Wylla is the name of the mother of Ned's bastard because Ned told him that, there is no logic jump from Wylla to Jon's mother without Ned's aid. Robert makes no assumption but demands the name of the mother of Ned's bastards, mother that Ned explicitly had already given him before. The most and logical assumption?? You don't know what Robert and Ned talked the first time, Robert does, if Robert demands the mother of his bastard and Ned says Wylla, is that Wylla is the name Ned gave him the first time regarding the mother of his bastard.

Saw it and answered it. Polygamy is a sin, hence heresy, polygamy was never regularized, never accepted and never made legal and its use was dependant of bigger army diplomacy. This is all in the text. Again, i'm not giving quotes again. Mithras post was based on the idea they would do it, regardless of it been legal or not, which i don't argue. I'm arguing its legality of a marriage like that. Whether they had a ceremony and they called each other hubby and wifey is not really what i'm arguing. Apparently not, tell me. Why does he need to remarry instead of fathering a bastard with any girl and then legitmized the kid once he is King. Done that, again. Not only this is textually unsupported, but also it is irrelevant even if we assume that it is true. Polygamy being illegal does not mean that Rhaegar and Lyanna did not marry. Rhaegar might have still married Lyanna even if he, for some reason, considered it illegal. The proposition is about only the existence of this wedding, not its legality. Hence, this is strawman fallacy. Again, a very popular strawman. The proposition does not have anything to do with whether Rhaegar actually could get away with it or he thought he could. We don't know Rhaegar's thought process until further material is published. Also similar to the point above, it might be revealed that Rhaegar still married Lyanna even if he thought, for some reason, he could not get away with it. Are you just redirecting me because you're out of arguments?? Are you even reading mine?? I'm not arguing whether Rhaegar and Lyanna had a marriage and considered themselves wife and husband, i never did, i've been clear that i don't know nor i care if they did. I'm arguing the validity of said hypothetical marriage. You were also arguing the validity of said hypothetical marriage. Since Mithras post about fallacy rest on the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a marriage regardless of its legality, this is the very definition of a strawman. Ditto. Oh, being polygamist. Ditto. I doubt Dany is going to consider her ancestors in anything, she will do it because she needs it, because she want and ofc yes, because she can. You asked about why would Martin make Aegon polygamist... Well Dany is Aegon come again, that's simply undeniable. She will enter to a new land, she will need allies and what better way to seal that with marriages, she may fall in love and she can get away with murder. It doesn't matter how many times Rhaegar dreamed about Aegon, ¿Rhaegar was obsessed with his ancestors?, he simply doesn't have the tools necessary to pull that off, Dany does. Which is something Rhaegar would have noticed if he was as fixated in his ancestors as you want to believe he was, Rhaegar needed bigger army diplomacy and or dragons to get his marriage to be accepted. He had neither and the lords of the Realm had little reason to indulge him. Kings can set aside their wives and they don't really need great motives to do so, we know that setting aside wives has been done and suggested a lot of times in history. However, marriages in the Seven Kingdoms can be ended in several ways. A king is able to put his queen aside – even if she has given birth to his children – and marry another In the Faith of the Seven, a marriage that has not been consummated can be set aside by the High Septon or a Council of Faith. Even a marriage that has been consummated can be set aside, even a marriage of many years with children. Neither bride nor groom needs to be present for an annulment; however, it must be requested by at least one of the wedded pair. The role and procedure of a Council of Faith has not yet been stated. This great excerpt makes a great case about how setting aside Elia was not only feasible but also quite easy and there is no need many grounds to do it. Rhaegar could not annul the marriage once consumated, but he sure as hell could set her aside. Annulment does damage his children status, Setting aside Elia doesn't. And sure, Rhaegar would have to kiss goodbye any goodwill with Robert and the Martells but that was a given from the very beginning if he was worried about that he shouldn't started the charade. He would lose the good faith of two kingdoms but he would have the Realm, and if he marries Viserys to Cersei, there is Robert and the Martells have no other choice but sulking, as usual the easy way was to not exciting enough for Rhaegar. Marriages can be set aside, that's a fact, Robert himself would've set Cersei aside had he wanted it, he had zero reasons to do it... until Margaery came at play. Setting aside wives is indeed custom and tradition in the seven kingdoms that has its roots in the First Men and no no one but the aggreviated parties would be outraged. And there is no word about children being bastards or whatever. Cersei is the clearest example, Pycelle and her talking about Robert setting her aside but they don't ever utter that Joffrey's position would be at risk. Polygamy is a very weird way of complicating his life, unless of course, he wanted to be honorable and keep banging both Elia and Lyanna, that's a possibility. Annulments happened during the Middle ages, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Louis VII for example, even in Henry VII case, the Pope did grant him the divorce not so much because it couldn't be done but because Catherine of Aragon was Charles's V aunt and after the Sack of Rome, he was shitscared of going against him ever again. Nor children became bastards after the marriages were declared void from the beginning, they were still legit. 1) Irrelevant, he is the hidden prince. 2) None as good as Rickon, who again is the hidden heir of Winterfell.

The people that learned GRRM's secrets made several mistakes GRRM pointed out, while it's obvious that Rhaegar and Lyanna fathered Jon and they did get that part right, the manner and the context is anything but unconfirmed. Calling strawman the arguments you don't like is a really bad move. It really isn't, polygamy was never made legal, nor its status was ever regularized as incest was, its use was also always dependant of having dragons, so there you go. I'm not giving quotes again, it has been done enough. To the rest i do agree, they could have a sham of a marriage,knowing full well it was a sham of a marriage but still wanting that sham of a marriage. Crazier things happen everyday, but most of the time people marry to actually being legally married, not to feel themselves a married couple.Even in the show, he had his previous marriage annulled first.

Robert did because that's the name Ned had given him before. Ned did say a woman named Wylla was the mother of his bastard. We're back to the square of it being heresy and him being armyless, crownless and dragonless. Half the Realm would be looking for his head just for the fact that he disappeared with Lyanna, the other half would not be so much happy with heresy, who he was trying to convince?? - The fact that he needs a child doesn't mean he has to remarry. He can simply legitimized a bastard he could have with any average girl. And be done. - He needs armies to pull all that off, regardless of popularity. Access to them become increasingly difficult with every step he makes. - He has to convince the Major houses and a father he is trying to oust... Well good luck with that. You keep bringing Aegon and his sisters time after time and is clear that if anyone is going to follow his steps is Dany,she even has a black ride, since Dany is quite literally Aegon reborn. And i think that she's going to remain married to Hizdahr when she lands in Westeros and she'll need an ally there so. - Dany has been raised up in Essos, where polygamy is absolutely common. (Unlike Rhaegar) - Dany is mostly ignorant of Westerosi customs and laws. (Unlike Rhaegar). - Dany has a very powerful standing army. (Unlike Rhaegar). - Dany would come as a Re/Conqueror, which means that she can and will dictate her own terms. (Unlike Rhaegar). - Dany has dragons to intimidate people. (Unlike Rhaegar). The odds are stacked in Dany's favor, the odds are stacked so heavily against Rhaegar that instead of a convenient loophole, it becomes a convenient rope. I think he planned to legitimized Jon, set Elia aside an marry Lyanna once he became King (changes will be made) and a hammer robbed him the time. Polygamy can backfire in so many ways and Rhaegar situation was already very very delicate without adding heresy. Young G is already said hidden prince etc etc etc, even my poor Rickon is already playing that role. The idea of Jon being trueborn and heir to the Throne, regardless of he is ever going to sit his ass there, it's a fan desire rather than a narrative necessity.

Honestly, i've always wanted that Jon was Ned's and Ashara's, i do think that that makes a better story but the Jon beinf Rhaegar's, however that happened, seems pretty flawless and whatever one might think about the showm they at least didn't botch that. If Martin starts cracking the wall. that is one thing but until then...

That family tradition does not exist. an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (such as a religious practice or a social custom) There is a tradition of incest, but 2 people doing polygamy in 300 years it's not really a tradition. A tradition would've been done more than twice. - I wonder he would remain a superpopular man once he involves himself with heresy, Aenys was a well liked dude at the beginning and people were cheering for him right until he married his children with each other. - That's why bastards are a thing, that's why legitimized bastards are a thing. You don't need to remarry to pull that off. You just need the Throne... Which oh, becomes more and more unreachable with every step he makes. He needs armies to do all that, he needs armies to oust his father, to quell rebellions and to shut dissenters that call him sinner. He needs armies to get Westeros to accept polygamy since he doesn't have dragons. How is he going to get them?? How is he going to get the Lords to accept heresy?? What's in it for them?? What's in it for the Martells, the Tyrells, the Arryns, the Baratheons, the Tullys and the Greyjoys?? What's in it for Aerys?? Nothing. What's in it for the minor lords?? Nothing. What's in it for the Faith?? Nothing. What's in it for the Starks if people treat Lyanna as a whore?? Nothing. I think Dany is going to be polygamist, if anyone is Aegon the Dragon come again is her. Or ofc it can be just worldbuilding. I doubt that the fact the First Men and the Andals were slavers in the past means that they will do it again. Or the Martells know how to use water magic. Polygamy and incest was also a pain in the ass to the early Targ kings so... Hard disagree. It is, i said it was a wild idea. The idea that Jon needs to be Aragorn or his necessity as a character is wasted does seems ludicrous tho.

Because unlike the Targs, they weren't raised believing that sister fucking it's ok. Look at the trouble Cersei and Jaime are in. I don't understand why are you focusing in this, it's just a wild idea. If Arya was a Targ then you may be right, she wasn't tho.

I don't consider it ok, just something that happens, just like real life incest. I doubt that many people see the Bourbons or Habsburgs as great. Inbreed isn't a nice term. Since the Targs are just that weird i don't dwelve in that, but others doing it, it's kind of revolting. I don't really follow you here. Jon and Arya were atracted to each other but only got together once they knew they were cousins instead of siblings. People don't like to bang the siblings, even in Martin's world. Is that so?? I hadn't realized.

Meh, Dany found my poor Q ugly, had it been Oberyn the one being sent, i doubt she would've thought it too much. It's a very nice twist and in the early idea, it served the purpose of getting Arya and Jon together without Martin having to throw up, why did he think that people raising as siblings banging was somehow more okey is a question for another day. The rest, I have never read the Lord if the Rings, but i shipped Aragorn and the blonde one in the movies so... Asoiaf is not Tolkien world so, what's the point??

I do consider the context but we're given no reason to infer anything changed regarding polygamy, i'm not giving you again the quotes that make clear that polygamy was never addressed in the Exceptionalism. Rest to say that, in the discussions about Exceptionalism, polygamy wasn't cited once, his own creator understood Exceptionalism as a tool that would make Westerosi accept incest. An unlike incest, polygamy simply stopped being done after Maegor, it's almost impossible that no one wouldn't ever become a polygamist in the scenario that it was ok for them to do so. You're not trying to prove that Exceptionalism was a game changer for polygamy, since right now that's impossible, you're assuming it had to be and that it had to affect how people saw Targaryen polygamy and basing your whole argument in a preconceived idea, Exceptionalism regardless wouldn't work, the very tenet of Exceptionalism was the fact that the Targs rode dragons, without dragons to ride... I didn't ignore what you said above, in the text it's made clear that people were terified of Aegon and her sisters but were determined to keep his descendants in check and unlike Maegor, Aegon and his sisters, Rhaegar has no stick to bully people around, there is no reason for them to consider it ok. And while incest is the main political question in Westeros thanks to Cersei and Jaime, no one has been a polygamist in the mainland for 250 years, what are the odds that people are going to address a practice that it's simply not done anymore?? You said that some people would be ok with it but you fail to answer why. Why would be your average Riverlord, Stormlord or Valelord be ok with it, polygamy is a sin on their eyes and a sin that benefits them in anything, so there is less reason for them to look the other way. The relative of the first wife wasn't the only one calling Alys Harroway a whore, it was a very widespread term, nor is Maegor's actions less of a sin because the High Septon may have a reason to be biased. I thought we were giving facts, when i give you my thoughts, you call them assertions and the play continues again and again. Customs are influenced by religion and religion is influenced by customs, they are communicating vessels, what the wildlings do and what the first men did a millenia ago is not relevant to the topic, they would not be judged by the First Men of old nor beyond the wall, the wildlings customs are not the first men nor they are a good example and the first men did a lot of awful things that stopped being done with the coming of the Andals, now, the first men are against polygamy. I don't consider that the first men see no problem with slavery now just because they once did, even when we have Jorah as counterargument. Outright impossible i would say, the Targs didn't regularize incest either until Jaeharys, i doubt they would've gotten away with murder without Maegor and Balerion, now they don't even have dragons to bully people, nor the people have any reason to accept polygamy. And what does that to say about how polygamy is viewed these days?? Because we know for a fact that Aegon his sisters were allowed to do a number of things that his descendants had to spill blood for. A fantasy i would say, like Jaime marrying Cersei and people being nonchalant or Aerion believing he would become a dragon by drinking wildfire. There is a pretty big difference between letting your fantasies take control of you and said fantasies being viable. I can entertain with the idea of being able to fly, that doesn't change the outcome if i were to jump from a tenth floor. A sham of a marriage does very little to Lyanna status, a marriage only recognized by Jon Connington is hardly a step up, if he was so worried about her, the annulment or setting Elia aside is the course to take. It's not like Dorne would continue to support him without encouragement so...

No, It doesn't work like that. People freely choose their religion.

No, they looked the other way for Aegon and his sisters, their descendants encountered fierce opposition for both until Jaeharys settled the issue of incest with the Exceptionalism and polygamy were never done again. If they would have tolerated Targ shenanigans there would've not been any problem whatsoever. No, these are facts. The very vows of the Faith make it very explicit. How many polygamist are in Westeros besides the wildlings who are considered odd by everyone and the Ironborn?? Incest is the main root of the series, the very plot starts with an incest affair and it's the incest affair the one that carries the plot. Incest is everywhere in Westeros, polygamy, again, simply isn't there, people don't talk about it because people simply don't engage on it. It's also a fact that while polygamy was a first man custom, It suddenly disappeared with the coming of the Andals... Wonder why would that be. Nope, the fact is that we have rumours about people entertaining on the idea. The fact is that the polygamy was never regularized as the incest was and its use was only done because of dragons. And ofc we have Jorah trying to get in Dany's pants and addresing Aegon and his sisters, not the polygamy in Westeros. Why would Alys Harroway be called a whore if all was fine and people didn't shrug when it came to Targs?? That's why legitimized bastards are a thing.

And it started with incest too but that didn't endear the Westerosi to accept it. The First Men practiced thralldom and then came to abhor it. No, we know it's forbidden however and we know the women in such unions are called whores instead of wives. The fact is that polygamy is forbidden and not even done in the North. Several?? That's more than Sir Jorah for sure. Since we were just repeating things over and over...

And yet it equals to more than one bed, which is what Lyanna was complaining about. Didn't realize that she was setting a minimum bar in her conversation with Ned. But ofc if you get to marry all your lovers ... Can't be called cheating if you marry all of them...

Because nothing we are told imply any change of heart. The only thing we're told about Lyanna and Robert is her concern about his womanizing behaviour, Ned doesn't imply anything new either.

Doubtful but weirdest things have happened. But the very core of the hypothesis discussed now is that she felt nothing for Robert and was crazy in love with Rhaegar.