Ygrain

17 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

An implication does not equal a confirmation.  I agree that there you have shown an implication.  Try to do better.

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

4 hours ago, Megorova said:

And even though she had a fever, the case of her death was not puerperal fever, but a bloodloss.

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)

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

After all we have Dany feverish and bleeding at the end of ADWD and it had been quite a while since she had been pregnant.

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.

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

Perhaps I need to reread the definition of confirmation, but I don’t this this serves as a confirmation.  There are numerous ways that beds can become bloody.

Robert died in a bloody bed and even extracted a promise from Ned, just like Lyanna.  That isn’t evidence that Lyanna died of a wound from a boar.

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.

9 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Well to be fair, then we "think this" as opposed to "know this".  First we have to assume that Lyanna died as a result of childbirth.  And even with that assumption we can't assume that she died immediately can we?  After all Elia was bedridden for about six months after one of her pregnancies.  Lyanna's health could have been shattered from her pregnancy but perhaps she didn't succumb until months later.  And I suppose depending on the timing, Lyanna's death bed could have occurred after a second pregnancy.

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.

5 minutes ago, lehutin said:

it's interesting that it doesn't explicitly confirm that Cat's maids gossiped about Ashara being Jon's mother. It only confirms that they heard a story from Ned's soldiers about how Ned killed Arthur and then brought his sword back to Ashara.

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.

15 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

While I think that’s a valid point, I also think it goes into the nature of rumors.  There are probably multiple rumors about Jon’s mother.  

I think it also points out that Ned (and/or perhaps Cat) were successful in quashing a lot of the talk about Ashara, at least a lot of the talk about Ashara that would have been heard by the Stark family.  

After all Arya seemed to have never heard the rumor about Ned’s relationship with Ashara.  And notably, Harwin was very uncomfortable when he was talking to Arya about it, and pled with her not to mention their conversation to her mother.

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.

36 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

No, I know we've been over this before.  I don't think that's an accurate reading of the text.  I think the meaning is very clear that Cat hears the rumor that Ashara is Jon's mom and confronts Ned about it. 

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. 

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

Sorry, that's simply not true.  Harwin certainly states that the rumour around Winterfell was that Ned and Ashara's affair ended before Ned was betrothed to Cat.  That there was no stain on Ned's honor because whatever he did with Ashara ended before even his betrothal to Cat.  The fact that the other rumour in Winterfell was that Ashara was Jon's mother certainly implies that at least some of the gossipers in Winterfell must have thought Jon was older.  The only one that we know of who definitely thinks Jon was younger than Robb is Cat.

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.

1 hour ago, alienarea said:

Lyanna goes missing, presumably together with Rhaegar, Brandon rushes to KL to die there with his father, and after the war Ned returns with a baby and refuses to talk about the baby's mother. But he brings home Lyanna's bones and buries them in the crypts.

And no one is Westeros is able to add one plus one? Really? They should all be dead from stupidity for a long time.

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.

22 hours ago, lehutin said:

Your response is basically the same as what I mentioned and addressed:

Cersei placed no restriction on the status of Ned's children. She didn't ask him

• "you love your children with Catelyn, do you not?"
• "you love your trueborn children, do you not?"
• "you love your highborn children, do you not?"

She just asked him

Based on that question wording, If Jon is one of Ned's children, his name should be on that list: "Robb and Jon and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon." Even if you want to argue that despite the question wording, Ned mentally separates his children by legitimacy, Jon's name should still be on that list: "Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon; or Jon."

 

But neither of those happened on the page. Ned does not think of Jon as one of his children, trueborn or bastard, when he thinks to himself,

 R+L=J easily explains this: Jon isn't one of Ned's children. R+L=J denial can't explain this without rewording Cersei's question; assuming that Jon's name is implied on the page; dodging it by saying that Ned still thinks of Jon from Cat's perspective; or worst of all, bizarrely claiming that Ned is the George Washington-Abraham Lincoln of Westeros and never lies.

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. 

3 hours ago, Bloodraven’s Spider said:

N + A = J

R + L = A

No.

If you want a longer answer, bring in some actual arguments.

1 hour ago, corbon said:

I note that Ned is very careful about lies and avoids telling them where he can

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.

7 minutes ago, Mithras said:

Yeah, Rhaegar should have brought Lyanna directly to the court when they eloped. Then he would tell Aerys that he is setting aside Elia and marrying Lyanna. Brilliant plan. Or maybe Rhaegar would prefer to set aside Elia after he returned from Tower of Joy to take the leadership of the royal army, which had Lewyn Martell and lots of Dornishmen in it. That too would be a brilliant moment.

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.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

snip

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/.

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

We're back to the square of it being heresy and him being armyless, crownless and dragonless.

See Mithras' post about fallacy.

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

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??

See Mithras' post about fallacy.

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

- 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.

Are you reading the same books?

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

- He needs armies to pull all that off, regardless of popularity. Access to them become increasingly difficult with every step he makes.

See Mithras' post about fallacy.

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

- He has to convince the Major houses and a father he is trying to oust... Well good luck with that.

See Mithras' post about fallacy.

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

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.

But what are those steps

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

- 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).

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?

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

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.

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).

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

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.

1) YG may be an impostor,

2) Rickon does not fulfill the trope because there are other heirs available

11 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

The Aegon/Visenya/Rhaenys triumvirate is probably a reference to the Adam/Lilith/Eve triumvirate: Lilith, in Hebrew mythology, being made from the same clay as Adam, Adam’s first wife and associated with witchcraft and the Occult (i.e. Visenya) Eve on the other hand the wife that was the mother of the human race (Rhaenys being the mother of the Targaryen dynasty).

Nice one, but what narrative purpose does it serve?

11 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

As for a parallel to Aegon the Conqueror and perhaps the one more likely to take two  spouses, we have Daenaerys presumably the future conqueror, who’s unique upbringing would probably make her

As a reversed parallel? Perhaps. But she would still need two Targaryen spouses for the parallel to work. Legitimate, if possible.

11 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

more open to the concept of polygamy than Rhaegar “Baylor the Blessed come again” Targaryen.

You are aware that Rhaegar was called that for being bookish, not religious, right?

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

No I already addressed your point.  You argued that it was your position that the nobles will be concerned with the fundamental concept of legal legitimacy.  I showed why during wartime that’s bullshit.  And I brought up the example of the Blackfyre rebellion as an example of why that was bullshit.

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?

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

 It’s my further takeaway from this convoluted theory with no textual support whatsoever that the only reason this idea is being championed is that it is very important for many of the posters here to make Jon a “legitimate” heir to a Targaryen succession that stopped existing once the Targaryens were forcibly removed from power.  

You claiming something doesn't make it so.

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I mean I suppose it’s possible but that’s not my take on Rhaegar’s character.  Reasonable minds can certainly differ on this.  Because as Jorah said, no one truly knew Rhaegar’s mind.  I think Rhaegar was playing a different game than everyone around him , which may be part of the reason we are struggling with his motivations.

Certainly. But since we are not shown the contrary, it remains a possibility.

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

That’s certainly true Cat who uttered those words.  And it is certainly true of the vast majority of Westeros save for an outlier here or there.  And it is true in at least some of the wildling villages.  It’s certainly not true of Craster.  He worships the Old Gods and believes he is more godly than anyone else because he gives them their due.  Who’s to say that Craster’s wrong and the other Wildlings are right?  After all back in the day some First Men apparently gave the Old Gods a human sacrifice.  That part of the North’s religion apparently didn’t survive to the present day.  But it apparently existed at one point.  Religion is like everything else.  It’s based on a people’s belief system.  If you’re looking for an inherent truth in any of this I think you’re reading the wrong series.

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.

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

But you can’t cherry pick the practices and beliefs of a specific wildling and then attribute those beliefs to everyone who professes to worship the Old Gods.  I mean some of the Wildlings practiced cannibalism, we can’t attribute that to all Northerners.  

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.

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

After all the Northerners hated the wildlings.  They were told horror stories about the Wildlings practices and customs.  To argue that the Starks or the other Northern lords would be ok with polygamy or believed it was allowed by their religion because some strange wildling,  Ygon Oldfather, practiced it is folly.

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.

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I didn’t’ realize that now, we have evidence that not only did Rhaegar marry Lyanna but he married her in front of a weirwood tree.

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. 

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

 So I guess poor Jeyne Poole is screwed because she was forced to marry Ramsay in front of a Weirwood tree.  Or does she get a legal loophole (knothole) because she was cast in the part of Arya?  And if so does that mean Arya is screwed because the oath taken in front of the Weirwood tree was wedding her to Ramsay?  

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.

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

 The North who would be in favor of Jon would be in favor of him as Jon Stark not as Jon Targaryen.

Quite possible. It is definitely the South that would find his Targ heritage more appealing than his Starkness.

12 hours ago, frenin said:

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.

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?

12 hours ago, frenin said:

- 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. 

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.

12 hours ago, frenin said:

-snip

Doesn't really adress what I wrote.

12 hours ago, frenin said:

I think Dany is going to be polygamist, if anyone is Aegon the Dragon come again is her.

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? 

12 hours ago, frenin said:

Jon needs to be Aragorn 

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.

5 minutes ago, lehutin said:

Before I add you to my ignore list

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?

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Which is why I’m so dumbfounded that so many people on this board are so concerned with Jon’s legal legitimacy to be king.  How you don’t realize at this point that when push comes to shove it’s all fictitious nonsense.  It’s almost like you’ve decided that Jon Snow’s true importance as a character is tied into the fact that he be legally entitled to sit on the Iron Throne.  Utter nonsense.

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.

Quote

  And it also seems fairly presumptuous to assume that Rhaegar is playing the same game of thrones that the other nobles are playing.  We certainly can’t take the lesson from other nobility and attribute it to Rhaegar.  Because Rhaegar has an objective that the other nobility do not have, an obsession with prophecy.  

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

Quote

Yes, that’s my point.  Your parents don’t have to have had a “legally binding” marriage contract for a character to ride a dragon.  Riding a dragon is an optic that people whether they be lords or commoners can rally behind.  And practically speaking it can be useful to kill a lot of people opposing you.  Presumably it wouldn’t matter whether Lyanna and Rhaegar “legally married” to allow Jon Snow to ride a dragon.  Either he can or he can’t.  Do you think the dragon is going to demand to see his birth certificate or his parents marriage license?

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.

Quote

 King Arthur was not legally legitimate.   But Arthur fulfilled the prophecy nonetheless.  

Arthur's prophecy neither people interpreting it were from high feudalism era obsessed with legitimacy and lineages.

Quote

Ah, silly me how could I forget Ygon Oldfather?  Let me clear something up.  The Old Gods probably don’t give a whit about incest or polygamy.  Craster could very well be right, that he’s a godly man because he gives his inbred sacrifices to the Old Gods.  

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.

Quote

That doesn’t mean that the more civilized North is going to go along with it.  Nor does it mean that this encompasses how they see their religion.  Ygon Oldfather or Craster’s polygamy doesn’t mean that a polygamous marriage with a Stark girl is going to be considered acceptable or legitimate in the North.  The old gods may not care but that doesn’t mean the Northerners don’t care.  

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.

9 hours ago, Lady Anna said:

Oh btw I have a little question (that I'm sure has been debated before in this gigantic thread): won't the RLJ revelation need some kind of proof? Imagine someone says ''I was there, I saw Lyanna giving birth to Jon and Rhaegar was his father'', which yes ok, but why would people just believe this person, even if they know they were there? After all, Stannis could say Cersei's kids were her brother's but without proof, he wasn't in a strong position...(and in that case I guess there was physical proof but only Ned discovered that through the book; still some still don't believe it.....until things go wrong for the Lannisters). Now this has gotten me thinking that it's possible no one, or only a few, will believe in RLJ....interesting parallel there with Young Griff. Maybe these revelations and secrets won't matter as much as we're thinking, or in the scenarios we're devising.

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.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

No, these are facts.

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)

9 hours ago, frenin said:

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.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

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.

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.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

Nope, the fact is that we have rumours about people entertaining on the idea.

If you entertain an idea, you think it's something you can go ahead with. An option.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

The fact is that the polygamy was never regularized as the incest was and its use was only done because of dragons.

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.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

And ofc we have Jorah trying to get in Dany's pants and addresing Aegon and his sisters, not the polygamy in Westeros.

That is an artificial dichotomy. Aegon and his sisters founded the kingdom and the royal lineage in Westeros, they are part of it.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

That's why legitimized bastards are a thing. 

Post-legitimizing Jon doesn't do the same for Lyanna's status, though. 

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Well certainly a lot of people in this thread seem very concerned about the fundamental importance of a legal "legitimacy".  Don't really have any evidence that Rhaegar would or would not, so I suppose one could argue either way about that.  

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.

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I would point out that a lot of the ancient mythologies that ASOIAF seem to homage never gave a rat's ass about whether their heroes or kings were legitimate or not. 

See above. Seems like the cultures those mythologies arose from were not as obsessed as Westeros.

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

After all King Arthur was the illegitimate son of a King (and technically the offspring of a non consensual act), yet that didn't prevent him from drawing the sword from the stone.

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.

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

As for Lyanna's "honor", we're really starting to finely parse that definition aren't we?  I mean hiding a minor from her family and marrying her into a polygamous relationship is starting to stretch the definition of keeping things above board.

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.

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Yes, they wouldn't give two shits about Rhaaegar's offspring by a Southerner.  Not sure that they would give two shits about Rhaegar's offspring with Lyanna, especially if they believe that offspring was born of a rape.  Not sure what they would think of the offspring if they thought Lyanna consensually joined some weird cult and entered into a polygamous relationship with the cult leader.  Which is kind of what this theory suggests.  Anytime you pick up your bride to be with six of your best buddies, things seem a little suspect.

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.

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

We know for a fact that Northerner's believe that incest is an abomination.  Not sure we're ever given an example of a polygamous Northern relationship.  Not sure about the Wildlings.   Craster's incest is definitely considered a no no by the Wildlings.  I don't know what the Wildlings think of his polygamy.

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.

4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

 My guess is Rhaegar was more concerned about that than he was creating a legitimate heir to the Iron Throne.

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.

4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

But who’s going to believe the Crannogman?

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.

4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

 The bigots in the South or the people in the North, who have specifically rejected the idea of a Targaryen rule.  

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.

4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Well sure if Jon rode a dragon...  But then again if you ride a dragon who cares about the legality of his birth status anymore?

Because it is a widely spread belief that only Targaryens can ride dragons.

4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

So do you believe that Jon would only help fight the Others if the North made him a king on the Iron Throne?

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.

4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

As for marrying the dragons, you make it sound like it was a consensual marriage.  Far from it.  The North, through Torrhen Stark submitted to avoid the fate of House Gardner.  And certainly the North renounced the Targaryens when the Targaryens tortured and killed their lord and first born son, whether or not they had doubts about Lyanna’s abduction.  

See above - Robert's claim of conqueror was supported by his Targaryen blood.

4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

 I’m not sure Jon’s “Legitimacy” through a descent from King Aerys would sit too well with the Northerners.  Especially when that legitimacy would rise out of a polygamous marriage which the North, like the South, does not seem to endorse.  

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.

4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

There has been a lot of debate about whether Westeros accepts the idea of Targaryens having polygamous relations among themselves, but there hasn’t been a lot of talk about whether Westeros, and specifically the North in this case, would extend this acceptance to a Winterfell maiden being made a part of this practice.

Have you forgotten about the part where various lords were offering their female relatives for polygamous marriages? As for the rest, see above.

4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

And where has it ever been written that Jon wants to be the King of Westeros?

See above, multiple times already

4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

 That his identity is tied into this fictional title? 

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.

4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

This whole arc becomes meaningless if Jon just up and forgets Winterfell and sits himself on the Iron Throne.   

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.

4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

But that’s the point of this.  If Jon’s main concern was defense against the Others than he would stay as Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch.  After all wasn’t this the main part of his Oath, to defend the realm against the Others?  You don’t need to be the King to do that.  

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?

4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

This goes into the crux of Jon’s conflict.  He knows he has a duty to the realm by staying with the Night’s Watch.  But he also has this personal connection to Winterfell that makes it hard for him to keep is Oath.  He almost broke the Oath to ride out and support Robb in his war.  He almost allowed himself to be tempted by Stannis to get him out of his Oath by the promise of making him Lord of Winterfell.  He did decide to break his oath when he received the Pink Letter which goaded him into marching to Winterfell to free it and his sister from Ramsay Bolton.

It’s taken George five books to set up this dynamic.  It’s doubtful that in two (or one?) books Jon’s story arc is suddenly going to veer into an entirely new direction.

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.

4 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

 He knows he has a duty to the realm by staying with the Night’s Watch.

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.

18 minutes ago, frenin said:

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.

But they tolerated it for Targaryens, and we are talking Targaryens.

18 minutes ago, frenin said:

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.

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.

18 minutes ago, frenin said:

Several?? That's more than Sir Jorah for sure.

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.