TOJ

[J. Stargaryen]

And my initial comment was that I don't believe Ned would have the same opinion, making an acception for Targs because they are Targs. Anyway, the time of exceptions is pretty much done for the Targs, they can't dictate their rules any longer.

Rhaegar died before Elia, so if he ever married Lyanna it would've been polygamous at that point, making it a void marriage.

That's a considerable difference, one you may not like to see, but it is there.

How is it relevant to the discussion though? Is there an argument to go along with that statement, or maybe some sort of assertion? Simply pointing out that they were not exactly alike is hardly noteworthy on its own.

[complexphoenix]

If the king or crown prince takes a second wife, who exactly is going to tell him that it's not allowed, and enforce that?

This is misleading because polygamy was never a regular practice for Valyrians or Targaryens in the first place.

- GRRM. Link.

Even when Aegon the Conqueror did it, it was unusual. However, GRRM justified that unusual act by citing precedent. Which reads exactly like the argument R+E&L proponents have been putting forth for years.

In the real world there is precedent for all kinds of things that we don't do anymore, if you go back far enough. It is possible for a precedent to become so stale that it isn't much of a precedent. The longer you go without a precedent being used, the harder it is to revive the practice.

As for who's going to tell them it's not allowed: the high lords aren't going to be happy with it, especially if they feel it puts the stability of the realm at risk; and the Faith is likely to object as well. In the case of Rhaegar, taking Lyanna as his second wife would be brazenly offensive to the Martells, the Starks, and the Baratheons for personal reasons, and to other high lords as well for the general principles that it violates. It's a realm-destabilizing act. Rhaegar may well have married Lyanna in secret, but was the marriage legally valid? I highly doubt it. If a Council had been called to resolve the matter of whether the marriage of Rhaegar and Lyanna were legally valid and therefore whether Jon was legitimate or a bastard, well, a lot would depend on who had the most power, but there's a very high probability that he would have been declared a bastard. So even if they did have a wedding, it doesn't automatically follow that Jon is legitimate. It seems abundantly clear that polygamous marriages are legally invalid for non-Targs; I believe they are most likely invalid for Targs as well, in the post-dragon era.

So?

So, it entailed considerably less risk of a succession crisis and civil war.

(And, Devil Post! 666! :devil: )

[grand old duke of stark]

In the real world there is precedent for all kinds of things that we don't do anymore, if you go back far enough. It is possible for a precedent to become so stale that it isn't much of a precedent. The longer you go without a precedent being used, the harder it is to revive the practice.

As for who's going to tell them it's not allowed: the high lords aren't going to be happy with it, especially if they feel it puts the stability of the realm at risk; and the Faith is likely to object as well. In the case of Rhaegar, taking Lyanna as his second wife would be brazenly offensive to the Martells, the Starks, and the Baratheons for personal reasons, and to other high lords as well for the general principles that it violates. It's a realm-destabilizing act. Rhaegar may well have married Lyanna in secret, but was the marriage legally valid? I highly doubt it. If a Council had been called to resolve the matter of whether the marriage of Rhaegar and Lyanna were legally valid and therefore whether Jon was legitimate or a bastard, well, a lot would depend on who had the most power, but there's a very high probability that he would have been declared a bastard. So even if they did have a wedding, it doesn't automatically follow that Jon is legitimate. It seems abundantly clear that polygamous marriages are legally invalid for non-Targs; I believe they are most likely invalid for Targs as well, in the post-dragon era.

So, it entailed considerably less risk of a succession crisis and civil war.

(And, Devil Post! 666! :devil: )

I would wager that if Jon conquers the Others and saves the kingdom(s), he'll be legitimised....if there was a marriage.

[J. Stargaryen]

In the real world there is precedent for all kinds of things that we don't do anymore, if you go back far enough. It is possible for a precedent to become so stale that it isn't much of a precedent. The longer you go without a precedent being used, the harder it is to revive the practice.

As for who's going to tell them it's not allowed: the high lords aren't going to be happy with it, especially if they feel it puts the stability of the realm at risk; and the Faith is likely to object as well. In the case of Rhaegar, taking Lyanna as his second wife would be brazenly offensive to the Martells, the Starks, and the Baratheons for personal reasons, and to other high lords as well for the general principles that it violates. It's a realm-destabilizing act. Rhaegar may well have married Lyanna in secret, but was the marriage legally valid? I highly doubt it. If a Council had been called to resolve the matter of whether the marriage of Rhaegar and Lyanna were legally valid and therefore whether Jon was legitimate or a bastard, well, a lot would depend on who had the most power, but there's a very high probability that he would have been declared a bastard. So even if they did have a wedding, it doesn't automatically follow that Jon is legitimate. It seems abundantly clear that polygamous marriages are legally invalid for non-Targs; I believe they are most likely invalid for Targs as well, in the post-dragon era.

So, it entailed considerably less risk of a succession crisis and civil war.

(And, Devil Post! 666! :devil: )

I don't think you really understand what precedent means.

In the second paragraph you just make all kinds of assumptions, with an eye towards suiting your position. For a long time the Faith was an insignificant obstacle. You also can't be sure that, at the end of the day, the Starks and Martells wouldn't have been in favor of a poly-marriage. After all, there are some benefits.

R&L's children would be royalty, which might just suit the Starks. For the Martells, this marriage probably would have added the North as an ally to the Targaryen-Martell bloc, instead of placing them with the "southron ambitions" lords.

As for the marriage being legally valid; if they were married, then it's legally valid until such time as someone powerful enough to enforce their word says its not. So, even if your scenario is right, that a council would have declared Jon a bastard, that never happened. So if R&L were married, Jon is legit.

As for the last part; maybe, maybe not. You'll notice that Maegor took the IT ahead of Jaehaerys, in opposition to the laws of succession. Maybe poly-marriage of any kind is a bad idea for the reasons you cite, which is why it was an "unusual" practice for Valyrians.

Probably worth noting is that a succession crisis of this kind does not have to stem from a poly-marriage. Look at tPatQ, for example.

[SkaggCannibal]

How is it relevant to the discussion though? Is there an argument to go along with that statement, or maybe some sort of assertion? Simply pointing out that they were not exactly alike is hardly noteworthy on its own.

I could give you a comparison to better understand, but if you don't see it now I'm not sure you'll see it ever.

Your great-great-great-greatgrandfather from 300 years ago married a goat and people tolerated that marriage because it was his goat, nothing to do with them. Now you, using that precedent, want to marry a goat yourself. You go to your neigbour's field, pick out a goat, take it to the chapel and marry it. Will this marriage be equally tolerated as the one of your grandfather? You don't even have to take into account your great-...-greatgrandfather lived in an entirely different age and your family's fortune are also no longer on the same level.

I hope you see that there is a considerate difference between the discussed situation and the precedent.

[J. Stargaryen]

I could give you a comparison to better understand, but if you don't see it now I'm not sure you'll see it ever.

Your great-great-great-greatgrandfather from 300 years ago married a goat and people tolerated that marriage because it was his goat, nothing to do with them. Now you, using that precedent, want to marry a goat yourself. You go to your neigbour's field, pick out a goat, take it to the chapel and marry it. Will this marriage be equally tolerated as the one of your grandfather? You don't even have to take into account your great-...-greatgrandfather lived in an entirely different age and your family's fortune are also no longer on the same level.

I hope you see that there is a considerate difference between the discussed situation and the precedent.

What I now understand is that I cannot turn to you if I need help constructing an analogy.

[Ygrain]

Craster lives Beyond the Wall where there are no laws.

And his habits are known to a number of people raised south of the Wall. The same goes for Ygon Oldfather - not a word from our dear septon Cellador, or any other man of the Nightwatch, nor does Jon spare a thought that this might be yet another bone of contention.

And my initial comment was that I don't believe Ned would have the same opinion, making an acception for Targs because they are Targs. Anyway, the time of exceptions is pretty much done for the Targs, they can't dictate their rules any longer.

And you have zero support for your claim, I'm afraid. There is simply nothing to base it on in the text or outside.

On the other hand, the text says clearly that once you say the words before weirwood, the vow holds. The old gods aka trees apparently don't give a fig about succession or legalities, so if the two said their words in the northern rite, in the eyes of gods it is binding. Food for thought.

[danm_999]

That logic has a flaw. Because there aren't any quotes bashing for example beastiality, which indicates ...

You get my point?

There are, directly and indirectly.

“I suppose,” her brother said doubtfully. “The savages have queer tastes. Boys, horses, sheep …”

“Best not suggest this to Khal Drogo,” Illyrio said.

Abomination. That had always been Haggon’s favorite word. Abomination, abomination, abomination. To eat of human meat was abomination, to mate as wolf with wolf was abomination

Or men who prefer sheep, for that matter. Varys had not managed to come up with any sheeplovers, but he did find a eunuch strangler and a pair of foul-smelling Ibbenese who were as fond of axes as they were of each, other. The others were as choice a lot of mercenaries as ever graced a dungeon, each uglier than the last. When Varys had paraded them before him, Tyrion had been afraid he’d gone too far, but Shae had never uttered a word of complaint.

“She is nothing, Khaleesi. The riders do her honor. The Lamb Men lay with sheep, it is known.”

“It is known,” her handmaid Irri echoed.

"She's not even the heir to Stokeworth," Tyrion pointed out. "She has an elder sister. Falyse. A married sister.

"Married ten years and still barren, " said Bronn. "Her lord husband shuns her bed. It's said he prefers virgins."

"He could prefer goats and it wouldn't matter. The lands will pass to his wife when Lady Tanda dies."

Jeyne pulled her wolfskins up to her chin. “No. This is some trick. It’s him, it’s my … my lord, my sweet lord, he sent you, this is just some test to make sure that I love him. I do, I do, I love him more than anything.” A tear ran down her cheek. “Tell him, you tell him. I’ll do what he wants … whatever he wants … with him or … or with the dog or … please …he doesn’t need to cut my feet off, I won’t try to run away, not ever, I’ll give him sons, I swear it, I swear it …”

Rowan whistled softly. “Gods curse the man.”

[SkaggCannibal]

And you have zero support for your claim, I'm afraid. There is simply nothing to base it on in the text or outside.

On the other hand, the text says clearly that once you say the words before weirwood, the vow holds. The old gods aka trees apparently don't give a fig about succession or legalities, so if the two said their words in the northern rite, in the eyes of gods it is binding. Food for thought.

LOL and your telling me there is zero support for my claim? Please tell me where to find the quotes supporting your statement of their marriage before a weirwood tree, besides in your imagination.

[Jory Cassel]

Marriage between one man and one woman is the essence of medievaI (and so Westerosi) society. Polygamy isn't bashed because it isn't an issue, it just has no place in a medieval society, not possible. It would be like marrying someone of the same sex in the middle-ages, or marrying your horse. Of course you can say the words and do the ceremony, but that doesn't make it an actual marriage. So, I don't need to quote anything to proof something so obvious. You're the ones with the crazy theory, not me.

Am I correct in assuming that you are referring to medieval Europe?

[Ygrain]

LOL and your telling me there is zero support for my claim? Please tell me where to find the quotes supporting your statement of their marriage before a weirwood tree, besides in your imagination.

Did you miss that big fat IF?

Once you say the words, you are in - text based.

Weirwood not minding the customs of the feudal Westeros - again text-based, via the polygamous wildling culture.

Lyanna as a Stark followed the old gods.

There is a grove of weirwoods conveniently placed right in the south in God's Eye.

So, IF GRRM pulls the marriage ace, he has the backing for it - the very backing that your claim how polygamy is impossible lacks.

[drstrangelove]

What people fail to realize is the potential marriage means everything and nothing at the same time. It all depends on who knows and who puts value in it. Just like Robb's will. If the northern Lords adhere to it it becomes a powerful tool for the rest of the story. If they don't it's just a paper written by a dead king, long forgotten. The idea of precedents doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. In a feudal society there is no constitutions or what not. Ultimately what the ruling house or party does or says is the law. These topics are like discussing the value of currency. Currency only has value because people put their faith in it. If Rheagar and Lyanna were or weren't married doesn't really matter. At the end of the day 3KG were there protecting her and her new born.