Ygrain

Oh, come on. 1) Lyanna in her bed of blood - a phrase with a specific but unclear meaning because it lacks context 2) bloody bed = birthing bed - most likely the same thing but the different wording of the phrase allows for some doubt 3) women bring forth children in beds of blood - the meaning of the phrase is clarified by providing context, and it also confirms the assumption that bed of blood and bloody bed refer to the same thing How do we know it's a phrase with a specific meaning? Because it is never used in any other context, even though there are situations involving beds and blood

Fever had taken her strength points to the fever mightily contributing to her demise. If she bled to death, no need to mention the fever. Also, postpartum bleeding is a normal part of the birthing process (and puerperal fever actually makes it worse) Oh? How can you be so sure, if she herself is not sure when her last period was? She can't recall, it seems it has been a while, and she gets an unusually heavy flow after bad stomach cramps and diarrhoea... there has been a theory that she miscarried, and I consider it quite plausible. But that's not the point - Dany is never described, nor thinks about herself, as in "bed of blood", so her condition and Lyanna's are not the same. There was certainly blood on Robert's bed but GRRM doesn't describe it as "bed of blood/bloody bed". Nor does he use the term about any other bed soaked in blood. it is a specific phrase, with a limited use - he has "Lyanna in her bed of blood", and he has Mirri Maz Duur claim that she knows the secrets of the "bloody bed", which, from the context as well as from a clear reference later on , means "birthing bed". It used to be argued by some that we don't know for sure if "bed of blood" is really the same as "bloody bed", until that AFFC quote which made the connection explicit.

See the comment above. Plus, Lyanna had been weak from fever, meaning, suffered from infection. Birthing bed + infection points to childbed fever, and that allows for weeks, not months.

Add to it the public knowledge of Ashara's dishonour, and people thinking 1+1=2 makes a lot of sense. We don't know if Cat knew about Ashara's pregnancy, though.

Agreed that rumours are most likely multiple, and different people may believe different rumours. I don't recall the particulars of previous conversation(s), so let me reiterate. The rumours explixitely mentioned are: 1) Jon's mother was commonborn 2) Ned and Ashara had a fling at HH. However, not everyone believes it Curiously, these two rumours are in line with what Ned Dayne tells Arya: that Ned and Ashara were in love but Ned fathered Jon on Wylla. It is possible that some speculated Ashara was Jon's mother but this is not on the list of gossip that Cat hears, and nowhere does it state that those spreading the gossip believe that the conception took place at HH, and not at a later point when Ned was in the South. Not sure what exactly you are reading into Harwin's discomfort with the topic, other than that it is a sensitive matter and Cat wouldn't want to hear about Ned's supposed old flame.

You may disagree on what exactly Cat heard but you can hardly dispute that Sansa overheard a rumour that Jon's mother was commonborn: Jon's mother had been common, or so people whispered (Sansa I) Note also that it's "people", not just one particular person.

Except, we don't have any Winterfellian perpetrating this gossip - the gossip we are provided via Cat is that her husband killed Arthur Dayne in a single combat, and then travelled to give Dawn to the beautiful Ashara Dayne at Starfall. It was one hell of a trip only to return a sword, albeit a famous one, so she reasonably thinks there might be more to it. Winterfellians think what Harwin tells us - that Ned and Ashara had a thing at HH (and I guess the people think that's why he went to Starfall, whereas there is nothing pointing to Cat being aware of the HH rumours as she wasn't there.). The actual gossip about Jon's mother is the one mentioned in Sansa's PoV - that Jon's mother was commonborn. Plus, as has been pointed out, no harm in kisses or perhaps more as long as there is no baby, because that is bloody harm, as we can see with poor Ashara.

Not necessarily. Bastards sired during the war is such a common occurence that no-one ever bats a lash about it. Those who know Ned think he never ever lies. Those not from Winterfell may not really care, and especially, not even know how old Jon supposedly was. Also, I think it depends a lot if Jon and Lyanna's bones arrived at the same time. If I was Ned, I would use the detour to Starfall as means to pay passage on a ship for Howland and baby Jon with his wetnurse, and send them North. Meanwhile, I'd return via KL with Lyanna's bones, have a teary reunion with Robert, and continue North. The baby and the bones then arrive separately at different times, which pretty much muddies the connection and establishes in people's minds that those are two separate events. And the news that Ned has a bastard would also take some time to spread from Winterfell, putting further distance between the events. Not saying that this is necessarily the only way, only that there are ways to pull wool over people's eyes. As we know from Alayne chapters, people do not even pry into the origins of bastards much, so for the majority of Westeros, this is really non-issue.

And it's all even curiouser that Ned apparently cares for Jon very much and is willing to go into quite some lengths to provide for him far beyond the standard. Jon should be on the list, he should be "my son" instead of "my blood" when Ned flies off the handle.

No. If you want a longer answer, bring in some actual arguments.

The same here. It was one of the clues that brought me to RLJ - why doesn't he speak about Jon's mother? Because he cannot tell the truth but doesn't want to lie, and his status allows him simply not to tell anything, fullstop. So why can't he tell the truth and why is Jon "his blood", instead of "son"? Because he's not and Ned lies about it - so whose and why? Ned lies to protect his family, but why would he protect Benjen or Brandon - oh shit, Lyanna. That's what "promise me" means. GRRM has my admiration forever for this masterful characterisation.

Or he should have told Elia he was setting her aside right after she nearly died birthing his son, that would have been some brilliant timing.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the leg - if examples from the ancient times of the Andal invasion count as valid, so does polygamy - if examples of people wanting their marriages set aside count as valid, so do wishes for polygamy - examples of people who did not consummate their marriage hardly count - Cersei could easily have been set aside due to her incest, which Renly (and Pycelle) knew about. Show me that Robert would have been able to set her aside for no reason or that Tywin would be cool with it, just like you claim that Starks absolutely wouldn't approve of Lyanna's polygamy. Either way, this is the last post I am adressing, I don't have time for disingenuous claims and double standards. /Ignore/.

See Mithras' post about fallacy. See Mithras' post about fallacy. Are you reading the same books? See Mithras' post about fallacy. See Mithras' post about fallacy. But what are those steps See Mithras' post about fallacy. You're not adressing what I wrote in the least. So far, Dany has had zero drive to consider her ancestors' example as an inspiration for herself, while Rhaegar was obsessed with it, yet she will be the one to pull an Aegon? Why? Because she can? On what grounds would he set Elia aside? Show me some textual proof that he could get away with that and not lose the support of his lords. Show me that they would accept his marriage to Lyanna as valid and not consider her a concubine. Because all those arguments you are trying to heap against a polygamous marriage apply to dissolving his marriage to Elia, as well, and even worse, because he is harming both Elia and the status of her children. If marriages could be dissolved, quite a couple of kings would happily do that when their offspring married without the royal consent. (And if you need a RL example, look at Henry VIII setting aside Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn). 1) YG may be an impostor, 2) Rickon does not fulfill the trope because there are other heirs available

Nice one, but what narrative purpose does it serve? As a reversed parallel? Perhaps. But she would still need two Targaryen spouses for the parallel to work. Legitimate, if possible. You are aware that Rhaegar was called that for being bookish, not religious, right? Ah. So now you use as an argument that there can be times when the usual rules do not apply, but when it comes to Jon's possible, you keep insisting on the usual standards reasonings? You claiming something doesn't make it so. Certainly. But since we are not shown the contrary, it remains a possibility. Eh... do you think that Craster is presented as that one exception that is right in the books? I'll do some re-read but I am fairly sure that his version of worship is presented as corrupt. In case it escaped your attention, I'm not picking specific Wildling customs but looking at similarities between their customs and the customs of the North, which apparently stem from the same root. Nice strawman there, because that's not what I said. I wondered if the North remembered that there was a time when their ancestors also did polygamy. I said IF they married before weirwood. IF. As in, a possibility. After all, it is Lyanna's religion, you guys have spent ungodly time arguing that the Faith absolutely wouldn't allow it, and the Isle of Faces is right there under the nose. I'd say it binds the person who said the words, regardless of their identity, but since the problem can always be solved by relieving Ramsay of his ugly head, I don't think anyone is screwed. IIRC, the legality might rather be challenged because Jeyne didn't say the words of her free will, just like Lady Hornwood. Quite possible. It is definitely the South that would find his Targ heritage more appealing than his Starkness.

Sorry, really poor word choice on my part. I should have said "history" or "precedent". So now that we are done with wording, how about the fact that Rhaegar's ancestors' actions may have served as an inspiration for him? Again arguing something completely different. I never claimed that Rhaegar's popularity would have survived unscathed, only that being so popular could be something to rely on to pull something unpopular. Doesn't really adress what I wrote. Ah. So Dany is going to, though there doesn't seem to be any narrative need for her to (not counting Jorah), but the one guy for whom polygamy would have been a convenient loophole in his situation, absolutely cannot? Well, he sort of does - the hidden prince trope involves not just a prince, but the one who is an heir to the throne. So if GRRM intends to deconstruct this trope, he needs to build it first and then do something unexpected about it.

I guess now you know who JNR is. And let me tell you this: the argument "but Ned calls Jon son in front of people" has been refuted multiple times, it's not like the Heretics never heard.

We really need to get back to the core of the whole issue, without getting it bogged down in the details. If two people want to be together and their families do not consent, the centuries, even millenia, old recipe is to make off, marry in secret, return when the girl gets pregnant and beg forgiveness. If Rhaegar was single, no-one would ever dispute that this is the way to go. However, Rhaegar's married status muddies the waters - but oh, gosh, what a bloody coincidence that just the one guy who would find it handy has a family tradition of polygamy. So he might actually try and go down this route if he thinks it necessary and that he might get away with it - and oh, my, he is the superpopular prince charming who has just found out his wife cannot give him the third child he believes he needs, what a yet another bloody coincidence. I just don't believe in such coincidences. Now, remind me again: why did GRRM make the founding father of the royal dynasty polygamous?

Because you either suck at reading comprehension, or simply don't want to see what people mean. You keep arguing points that no-one made, and even throw back at me arguments that I made myself. No-one ever claimed that Rhaegar was playing game of thrones. What I said is that a person raised in a certain culture automatically thinks in the confines and categories constructed by that culture. Westerosi culture is obsessed with legitimacy, therefore it is highly likely that Rhaegar as a product of this culture would seek the ways to make his relationship with Lyanna as well as their offspring legitimate. We are given examples of this way of thinking time and again, we are given moral norms through the Westerosi lens, we are given a certain insight into Rhaegar's character. Based on these, we are trying to deduce what Rhaegar would have done and why. Not because of some "Jon needs to sit the IT!" preconceived BS Which is what I said. The common perception among the people of Westeros, though, would be a stamp of legitimacy, of being a true Targ. Arthur's prophecy neither people interpreting it were from high feudalism era obsessed with legitimacy and lineages. Are you sure you have read the same books as the rest of us? Or even the posts in this thread? " incest was a monstrous sin to both old gods and new" First Men did polygamy but not incest. Wildlings do polygamy but not incest. Incest is forbidden by the old gods. Polygamy is not. The North abandoned the custom but does not put it on the level of incest. You're leaving out one great factor - how the marriage was officiated. If they said the words before weirwood, the vow is binding. That would create quite a conundrum: having more than one wife is not OK but the vow is binding, so what next? Does the North remember the ways of their ancestors? Does it matter that the marriage with Elia was officiated only in the sept? And what did I say on multiple occasions? - That some people would accept it, some would not.

Sure it has :-) I believe Jon's parentage will be revealed through Howland Reed and/or Bran sitting on the weirnet, to people who might possess the means and/or have the will to do something about it. To sway the general opinion, if that's the way the story will go, I lean towards riding a dragon as a proof of Jon's Targ heritage. It would practically equal pulling Excalibur out of stone because Targs are the only people believed to be able to ride dragons. Even the abomination hints at Jon riding a dragon as something huge (something like "What kind of man does that"), though the only thing they do with it is make Dany look miffed that she is not so speshul any more. And since GRRM gave them some broad strokes of what he was planning, Jon riding a dragon and people taking note might actually come from his points.

The problem with your quotes is that you don't consider the context. You give me quotes pre-exceptionalism. You also ignore what I said above - that some people would accept polygamy, others wouldn't (and the relative of the first wife is hardly an example of an objectivity) Again, the problem with quoting without actually giving it a thought. Yeah, polygamy is not done these days and the descendants of the Andals and the First Men in the Westerosi kingdoms have the same culture minus the religion. Yet, the olds gods, who don't have any priests or written doctrine, apparently were not concerned with legalities. The Wildlings, who never adopted the Southern way of life, still do polygamy, while they share the taboo on incest. If you entertain an idea, you think it's something you can go ahead with. An option. I never said it was regularized, not even among the prior Targaryens. It was certainly considered unusual when Aegon did it. Unusual but possible. Which is what I say even about the later Targaryens: unusual but still possible. Without the dragons, highly problematic, but not outright impossible. That is an artificial dichotomy. Aegon and his sisters founded the kingdom and the royal lineage in Westeros, they are part of it. Post-legitimizing Jon doesn't do the same for Lyanna's status, though.

Let me correct: a lot of people are aware that the Westerosi nobility is very concerned about the fundament importance of a legal legitimacy. Therefore, we assume that Rhaegar most likely would have, as well. See above. Seems like the cultures those mythologies arose from were not as obsessed as Westeros. Funny, I was just thinking I should edit this bit into my previous post - a public act that convinces everyone that XY is the king's heir. Kinda like riding a dragon. Robb right away deflowered Jeyne, and that is as dishonorable as it gets. Yet, by marrying immediately, he restored her honour. Hiding Lyanna away would have the same effect because people would automatically assume her deflowered, so if Rhaegar wants to something about that, he has to marry her, but polygamy is the best thing he can offer without harming Elia. It's not the best solution, but it is better than doing nothing. BTW, "minor" is modern concept, foreign to Westeros. By using it, you do what we assume Rhaegar did - let the cultural perceptions with which he was raised colour his judgement. Cherrypicking, with an occasional apricot in between. Revealing the marriage=/=revealing Rhaegar's need to fit into the prophecy. And the bit you have left out is that they may have married before the old gods, which stands a good chance to be considered binding. Then you're missing crucial information. When the Wildlings are being let behind the Wall, there is Ygon Oldfather, who has eighteen wives. No-one ever comments, just like they don't comment on Craster's many wives, other than that they are his daughters (and BTW, no-one thinks they are not wives). As our friend @frenin kindly quoted above, the First Men did polygamy. Seems like old gods don't really care.

Caring about the child's legitimacy =/=having only succession in mind. There are two other possible reasons why he might have wanted Lyanna's child to be legitimate: 1) the three dragon heads: there were four Targaryen siblings, but Orys didn't count. We from our current-day perspective would say that legalities don't matter, only blood and genes, but that would hardly be the mindset of someone raised in the Westerosi society. Therefore, if Rhaegar thought he needed three children to fulfill the prophecy, he would need the third child to be legitimate. 2) Lyanna's honour: you should marry the woman you want to sleep with, or else you're dishonoring her. Birthing a bastard is an even greater dishonor to her. If you love her, you shouldn't bring this on her, at least if you are a man of honour, which Rhaegar supposedly was. Sigh. I have adressed this in the previous post. Howland's word itself wouldn't be enough, of course, but there can be supportive... methods. Symbols. Hidden proofs. Incorrect, and I had quoted it. They didn't reject the Targs, they rejected Aerys. Robert's claim to the throne was based on his Targ ancestry. Because it is a widely spread belief that only Targaryens can ride dragons. WUT?! I'm saying that if Jon is offered the throne of the North, he will take it, vows or not, because it will enable him to defend the realms of men more effectively. The same applies to the IT. See above - Robert's claim of conqueror was supported by his Targaryen blood. I'm pretty sure that the North wouldn't give two shits about a Rhaegar's offspring by a Southerner. The son of Lyanna Stark might actually have some appeal for them. Also: the North doesn't bow to the Faith's doctrine, and I yet have to hear that the old gods consider polygamy a sin. The Wildings do not seem to think so. And if the marriage vows were exchanged before a heart tree... as they say, once you say the words, you are in. Have you forgotten about the part where various lords were offering their female relatives for polygamous marriages? As for the rest, see above. See above, multiple times already His identity is tied to being The Ned's son, and a bastard. Finding out that he is not a bastard but losing Ned as the father, will shatter him. His arc is learning to do what he must, not what he wants. If saving the realm means sitting the IT and losing Winterfell, then that's what he must needs to. FFS, of course you don't NEED to be king for that, but don't you realize that as a king, you can order people to do what needs to be done and they will obey, instead of arguing and pleading with them to do the sensible thing? But it's the SAME direction, the SAME motivation - sure he cannot leave his sister in Boltons' clutches, but the matter is not just about family ties, it's also about the Boltons ruling the North through fArya and representing a threat to the purpose of the Watch. Sooner or later, he would have to deal with the Boltons, anyway, because he has cast his lot with Stannis. No. Just like he was fulfilling his duty by marching with the Wildlings and sleeping with Ygritte. You don't need to be part of the Watch to fulfill the purpose of the Watch.

But they tolerated it for Targaryens, and we are talking Targaryens. Those are not facts but your assertions. The fact is that polygamy is not currently practiced in Westeros, except by Targaryens in the past, and Wildlings. The fact is that in the main series, no-one ever rants against polygamy, nor do they comment that it is a sin like they do about incest. The fact is that in the additional materials, we have the Faith stricly against both incest and polygamy and we have both characters considering polygamy an option as well as rejecting the notion. The fact is that there is no explicit statement one way or another on the legal status of polygamy. See above.

I know I've brought this up a couple of times already, but has anyone played, or at least heard about, Dragon Age: Origins? (other than from me) There is a similar setting (actually, sort of inspired by ASOIAF): a country split by a civil war, an old threat arising, and Grey Wardens, an ancient order fighting the very threat by any means necessary. The Wardens don't meddle in politics (and don't hold lands, rarely marry and usually don't have children, either. Chastity is not required). Unfortunately, the current situation requires to push the claim of your Warden buddy, the late king's bastard, to unify the land in defence. So, you spend a part of the game garnering support for this guy who doesn't want to be king but agrees to because it is the only way, just like he is willing to sacrifice himself to keep his oath. I can perfectly see Jon pursuing such a course not because he wants to be the king but because this position would give him the means and authority needed to achieve the main goal of the Watch; and just like in the game, I don't think it would be his own idea or that he would be happy about it.