MtnLion Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I don't think Martin thought of Targaryen polygamy until after Game of Thrones was published, since there is no mention of polygamy in Game of Thrones. Dude! Page 32: For centuries the Targaryens had married brother to sister, since Aegon had taken his sisters to bride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 or find a passage said that it was done or find a passage that says or hints it was done by Rhaegar or find a passage with a wedding between R and L or find a passage with Lyanna saying she is sorry for getting Rickard and Brandon killed... (assuming this was not a kidnap marry rape scenario) or find a passage with R calling L his wife or Lcalling R her husband...... The burden of proof is on the claimant.... if you would like to prove R married L... you cant ask for proof he didnt to settle the matter... Yes, it is. But for me the proof comes top-down, not bottom-up. I have come to the conclusion that lots of the thematic and ironic undertones of the books imply that Jon is the Targaryen king. "Bastards are not allowed to sit at the royal table", "bastards are not allowed to damage young princes", "Mance Rayder has no more royal blood than I", "they say the king protects the innocent", the Raven calling Jon "King Jon Snow", the KG at the ToJ, Lyanna's statue in the crypts, the irony of Alliser Thorne's hate, all of that and much much more. So then I ask, how can Jon be the Targaryen king? R+L=J accepted beforehand, the only way he can be if he is the last surviving legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen. In principle, he could be either born in wedlock or legitimized by royal decree. But by the time he was born, Rhaegar and Aerys were dead, so he can't have been legitimized. The logical conclusion is that Rhaegar and Lyanna married, which is again supported by several thematic undertones. "If a man wants to bed a woman, he should marry her", Rhaegar's characterisation as an honorable man, etc. To which some people cry, and here is the actual assertion that is still unproven by the distractors in this chain of arguments: "How can Rhaegar be married to Lyanna? He's already married to Elia!" Well, yes he is married to Elia. But there is precedent for Targaryen polygamy coupled with exactly zero comments on the abominability(?) of polygamy and Jorah's comments to Dany. So, to make things short, you ask me to bring proof for R+L being married? My answer is "Because we know, through careful textual analysis, that Jon is legitimate, and such a marriage is the only way he can be." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 That is not what I asked for, dude! I asked for a quote from the books, not someone's fanfiction. (I have been providing you with lots of quotes from the books, but it is an insult that you are copying and pasting (maybe editing, too) from the wiki.) The Kingsguard Vow: The primary function of the Kingsguard is to protect and defend the king That protection may be extended to royal family members at the king's discretion The Kingsguard also makes promises to: safeguard the king's secrets obey his orders The king had extended his protection to Rhaegar, as evidenced by his bodyguards who were always with him except while he was at Summerhall. It seems likely that Rhaegar has a position higher than the Hand as Crown Prince, as he gives orders to Jaime and by inference others. You asked for a quote on polygamy.... you didnt specify the source....fine we can go from the book I will ask only for a word from the text from the following regarding Rhaegar and Lyanna princess married wedding husband wife widow vow I will ask for a word from the kings guard: King Child Heir Nephew Uncle Widow princess I do appreciate your lovely manufactured list that creates a division between vows and promises... Text... LC to Jamie... We swore to obey him not to judge him... that is the only vow he ever mentioned... Jamie refers to the vow to protect the Royal Family as... we are supposed to protect her... Rhaegar giving orders to the Kingsguard means he could have ordered them to remain.... which kind of puts a dent in they must protect the king conjecture... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alia of the knife Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I am aware of that. It doesn't say Aegon the Conqueror was married to both of his sisters at the same time.There is no mention of polygamy in Game of Thrones.He was married to both his sisters, and one he was more into than the other- the one that was cheating on him ironically. Look I'm not wedded, (pardon the pun), to the idea of polygamy and don't understand the passion around it, though I do respect this as a viable, alternative theory of the ways things were to going play out.But, I do think for a minute Rhaegar did indeed engage in it to secure Lyanna. Howerver, in Cerseis conversation with Jamie, she worries about being put aside. "How long till he decides to put me aside for some new Lyanna?" Where would she have gotten the notion that she could be put aside?(And as far as Robert knew, she had given him the sons that Kevan said Rhaegar wanted). Again, Cersei is screwed because she was supposed to be the replacement, which follows the theme of chasing prophesy and tyring to divine the future.Everytime the characters do this, they get it wrong and Cersei in her mind, based upon Tywin and "prophesy" she thinks that Rhaegar was supposed to have been hers, and this invokes the notion of the vicious cycles when people getted trapped into this thinking, Rhaegar may have felt exactly the same way about Lyanna. As far as statues and promises go, all I can say is that she smiled at Neds promise, so I think she was worried about more than just being buried in Winterfell. However, no one is going to change your mind so I suppose we have to wait until book seven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alia of the knife Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Possibly, but the prophecies precede the Targaryen dynasty in Westeros by thousands of years. I'm intrigued by the idea that AAR and TPTWP are two separate yet intertwined prophecies, which would account for some of the duplicate/synonymous duties they share with regards to saving the realm, or they could be the same altogether. I see no way in which they are completely independent of each other tho. I like the irony associated with Rhaegar seeking to father TPTWP but inadvertently delivering AAR. Maester Aemon, upon his deathbed, laments that they never considered a princess for the prophecy, and is convinced that Dany is TPTWP. Considering his longevity, the realm may have lost the prophecies most knowledgeable subscriber. Granted, he isn't privy to the possibility that Jon is Rhaegar's son, but if he believes Dany is TPTWP that's a powerful endorsement. Then again, there is a tremendous amount of mystery surrounding the Targaryen's, such as the doom of Valyria, the tragedy of Summerhall (date of Rhaegar's birth), and of course, the taming and riding of dragons. Being as TPTWP appears to be rooted in ancient Targaryen beliefs, it is possible that part of their conquest of Westeros was a fulfillment of their destiny. I agree with this, and you see these similar themes in prophesy echoed in our own world from Revelations to Ragnorok, so I think that Martin is making a point about all of the diffenret cultures following the same thing with different interpretations of the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 i keep pointing to the fact that nobody else in the books engaged in polygamy... I pointed to GRRM's interview that appears to make polygamy problematic it is not an impossibility... it is an improbability... much like santa clause. Now if R+L=/=J, none of the 'evidence' that R married L is evidence at all... I believe R+L=J and I think it would be cool if Jon was legitamte... would be a more accurate assessment of the idea Now with our conclusion and hopes in line we set out to prove what we hope is true... In our quest to have our hopes come true we search for loopholes that would possibly allow it and state that they are proof that it did happen... Polygamy Can't exclude is not equal to must include we invent motivations for characters and use our inventionss to prove our case the... KG vows we ignore inconvienent facts... polygamy has not been practiced in generations and the KG has multiple vows then we present our foregone conclusion as the result of reasoning and deduction.... I actually don't care one way or the other if R married L... I am objecting to the shoddy reasoning and flawed process by which the conclusion is reached... The best one can come up with it that it may be a possibility... the worst is that it is highly unlikely Why not just leave it at that? Why does it matter? I mean really... Jon is what he does... Robert showed that it is accomplishment and ability that make a King... not his birth or place in society.. Aegon the conqueror showed it before that... You speak of birth... when yould be looking at ability... Birth (and a few lies) made Joffrey and Tommen kings... it did not make them anything more than what they were... If Jon's birth (and the truth) make him king. How will that change him?... it will not. Wrong right in your first line. Problematic =/= impossible =/= improbable. "We look for loopholes"? Excuse me, who is that "we" you speak of? If you come up with an idea and then take the text you are certainly wrong. What we do is look at the text and see how it works. It's called literary analysis. KG vows... alright, you don't like hypothetical examples, so let's take a book one. Was Lewyn Martell still worth being called Kingsguard, even though he had a paramour? Barristan does think so, and he is also the one speaking about the first duty to guard the King. Kings-guard. Guard the King. The FIRST duty. First, as in, taking precedence over anything else. Kingsguard first duty is to guard the king, thus is it the duty that defines them. Are you still following? Being chaste, obeying orders, keeping the King's secrets - those are not the parts of the vow that make Kingsguard Kingsguard. ETA: Forgot to adress how "no-one in the books engages in polygamy" because this has been adressed and you ignored it again. Craster practices polygamy, yet gets flak only for incest. Wildlings engage in polygamy (Ygon Oldfather), yet no-one bats a lash over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Yes, it is. But for me the proof comes top-down, not bottom-up. I have come to the conclusion that lots of the thematic and ironic undertones of the books imply that Jon is the Targaryen king. "Bastards are not allowed to sit at the royal table", "bastards are not allowed to damage young princes", "Mance Rayder has no more royal blood than I", "they say the king protects the innocent", the Raven calling Jon "King Jon Snow", the KG at the ToJ, Lyanna's statue in the crypts, the irony of Alliser Thorne's hate, all of that and much much more. So then I ask, how can Jon be the Targaryen king? R+L=J accepted beforehand, the only way he can be if he is the last surviving legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen. In principle, he could be either born in wedlock or legitimized by royal decree. But by the time he was born, Rhaegar and Aerys were dead, so he can't have been legitimized. The logical conclusion is that Rhaegar and Lyanna married, which is again supported by several thematic undertones. "If a man wants to bed a woman, he should marry her", Rhaegar's characterisation as an honorable man, etc. To which some people cry, and here is the actual assertion that is still unproven by the distractors in this chain of arguments: "How can Rhaegar be married to Lyanna? He's already married to Elia!" Well, yes he is married to Elia. But there is precedent for Targaryen polygamy coupled with exactly zero comments on the abominability(?) of polygamy and Jorah's comments to Dany. So, to make things short, you ask me to bring proof for R+L being married? My answer is "Because we know, through careful textual analysis, that Jon is legitimate, and such a marriage is the only way he can be." the top down method is flawed... come to a conclusion and search for ways it could be true all that says Jon is a bastard---King Jon Snow= King Jon Bastard... if the bird was smart enough to recognize a King he was smart enough to recognize a bastard.... Mother did not marry his father, To suggest that KG means king there is to ignore the ToJ before the birth (and death of 2 kings and a prince) and to ignore the KG at the trident... Lyanna was kidnapped, married, and raped is the only way her marriage justifies her position in the crypts of winterfell....She is buried next to the other two other Stark victims of the Targaryens... If lyanna eloped... She is not a Stark and is buried next to a to a father and brother that died because of her disobedience.... i haven't heard the thorne argument... You invented that a kings decree cannot legitimize a bastard before birth... Legitimizing a bastard is seen in the books... Polygamy is not... Let us please refrain from attributing somebodyelses quotes from Rhaegar... he never said that... you wish to believe so you find points to support and ignore anything that contradicts... that is the danger of coming up with a conclusion and finding facts to support it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Wrong right in your first line. Problematic =/= impossible =/= improbable. "We look for loopholes"? Excuse me, who is that "we" you speak of? If you come up with an idea and then take the text you are certainly wrong. What we do is look at the text and see how it works. It's called literary analysis. KG vows... alright, you don't like hypothetical examples, so let's take a book one. Was Lewyn Martell still worth being called Kingsguard, even though he had a paramour? Barristan does think so, and he is also the one speaking about the first duty to guard the King. Kings-guard. Guard the King. The FIRST duty. First, as in, taking precedence over anything else. Kingsguard first duty is to guard the king, thus is it the duty that defines them. Are you still following? Being chaste, obeying orders, keeping the King's secrets - those are not the parts of the vow that make Kingsguard Kingsguard. ETA: Forgot to adress how "no-one in the books engages in polygamy" because this has been adressed and you ignored it again. Craster practices polygamy, yet gets flak only for incest. Wildlings engage in polygamy (Ygon Oldfather), yet no-one bats a lash over it. i keep pointing to the fact that nobody else in the books engaged in polygamy... I pointed to GRRM's interview that appears to make polygamy problematic That was my first line worng is a great word... it would be helpful to name a character in the books that engaged in polygamy since say Aerys became king or point to a GRRM interview confirming recent polygamy ... then Wrong would be the right word... Ploygamy is not impossible... it is improbable and problematic... We are those that engage in trying to turn a hope into a fact. It is a niicer way of saying You freaking morons.... it is called fantasy... literary analysis actually involves drawing conclusions from the text.. Because the kingslayer... our false brother... says that it is the first duty all must agree... and where was the first duty when Aerys and Aegon died in KL... it is the first duty because you want a king to be in the ToJ.. It is not the first duty before there was... sorry for calling that the crap that it is...own no lands, father no sons, accept no titles, protect the king and the royal family, obey the kings orders, and keep the kings secrets None of those is in conflict... there is no heirarchy...and by the by even Jamie called protecting the king a duty rather than a vow... So was the LC obeying his vow as he said or doing his first duty (according to Jamie) UMM Craster is not in the seven kingdoms...they also engage in polygamy in Essos... silly me for not spelling that one out... did any character in the seven kingdoms (the place where the heritable throne is) engage in polygamy? and on that note i would expect you to include the complete title of your proposed King Jon Twist.... ruler of the seven kingdoms, king of the andals and the first men protecter of the realm would suffice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 all that says Jon is a bastard---King Jon Snow= King Jon Bastard... if the bird was smart enough to recognize a King he was smart enough to recognize a bastard.... Mother did not marry his father, There are two ways to get married, before septon or before weirwood. Whatever happens before weirwood can be watched by a greenseer, who are also able to warg ravens. Mormont's raven was clearly being warged when advicing Jon what to do with the wights, and the person warging it would be Bloodraven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 There are two ways to get married, before septon or before weirwood. Whatever happens before weirwood can be watched by a greenseer, who are also able to warg ravens. Mormont's raven was clearly being warged when advicing Jon what to do with the wights, and the person warging it would be Bloodraven. So bloodraven clearly thinks Jon is a bastard... as he would have known through the weirwood had Lyanna married Rhaegar and he still used Jon's bastard name.... however BR must have missed Jon's vows before the weirwood in which he swore to hold no titles... and apparently BR loves that CORN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Yes, the top-down method has its flaws. But the point is that the thematic evidence just keeps piling up. And just because it's meta-evidence in the sense that it can't be used in-world does not mean it isn't evidence for the reader. ASoIaF is not history, it is a piece of literature. Different rules apply. At the same way, there are ways it could be true. Without the Targaryen polygamy precedent, it would be much harder to hold that position. As for the Raven: "Jon Snow" is Jon's name at this point. Noone would understand the Raven if it said "King Daemon Targaryen". Like, who would even understand who the bird was referring to? And for such an avid Targaryen supporter as Bloodraven (who is most likely the one warging Mormont's raven) not to support the Targaryen claimant, you would need to find some evidence that he changed his mind on Daemon II's line. You obviously don't understand the ToJ argument so I'll just leave it at that. Others like Ygrain and MtnLion have covered that subject dozens of times in this iteration of the thread alone. If Lyanna eloped she is still a Stark, and the Stark mother of the King of the Seven Kingdoms to boot. She would be the most high-ranking Stark woman of all time. The point about Thorne is that his hatred for Jon has been massively undermined from the start. Thorne was sent to the Wall for being a Targ supporter until the bitter end. That's why he hates Ned and, by extension, Jon Snow. If Jon Snow is the Targaryen king though, Thorne hates the man he would consider his king, if he only knew the truth. There are lots of these ironic pearls in the text, and they only make sense if Jon is indeed king. Such a royal decree would have to come from Aerys though, and I don't see how that would have been kept a secret. At least Jaime or Barristan would definitely know about it. Plus, you invented that they can legitimize bastards before their birth, which is also in no way a given. Polygamy is not seen in the books? I must have dreamed up Craster, Ygon Oldfather and Tyrion then, because all three are polygamists we see in the series. Oh, and we are told about Aegon the Conqueror, another polygamist. I have not found anything that really contradicts a marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna. I have found lots of evidence that Jon is legitimate. The "contradictions" usually dissolve into mist once one studies the text carefully enough. And really, I do not wish to believe it. Quite the opposite. I have come to the question without preconceptions and I have found only one solution that does not lead to contradictions: That Jon is the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, born in wedlock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I agree with this, and you see these similar themes in prophesy echoed in our own world from Revelations to Ragnorok, so I think that Martin is making a point about all of the diffenret cultures following the same thing with different interpretations of the outcome. Indeed, one of the main themes of the books is not prophesy, but people who believe in prophesy - and the silly, sometimes catastrophic, things they do as a consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 i keep pointing to the fact that nobody else in the books engaged in polygamy... I pointed to GRRM's interview that appears to make polygamy problematic That was my first line worng is a great word... it would be helpful to name a character in the books that engaged in polygamy since say Aerys became king or point to a GRRM interview confirming recent polygamy ... then Wrong would be the right word... Ploygamy is not impossible... it is improbable and problematic...See what you're doing, again? You're inserting your own opinion into an otherwise legit interpretation. People are less likely to object when you have dragons = People are more likely to object if you don't have dragons, which indeed could be summed as "polygamy would probably be problematic", but that doesn't make it improbable. We are those that engage in trying to turn a hope into a fact. It is a niicer way of saying You freaking morons.... it is called fantasy... literary analysis actually involves drawing conclusions from the text..Please, you needn't school me in what literary analysis is, I happen to have a degree in it. And, drawing conclusions is exactly what we are doing. If a character X is characterised in a particular way, yet his behaviour doesn't fit this pattern at a particular point, it requires an explanation. If the explanation is part of the plot and cannot be made explicitely, then is must be foreshadowed, in a subtle way that wouldn't spoil the build-up but which would fit in retrospect. With close reading, it is possible to pick up the clues and second-guess the author. Because the kingslayer... our false brother... says that it is the first duty all must agree... and where was the first duty when Aerys and Aegon died in KL... it is the first duty because you want a king to be in the ToJ..Barristan says so. The rest has been adressed several times, go back to the relevant posts about assigning some KG to various tasks while the other KG stay with the king, and to the speed of news travelling across Westeros. No instant messaging service. It is not the first duty before there was... sorry for calling that the crap that it is...own no lands, father no sons, accept no titles, protect the king and the royal family, obey the kings orders, and keep the kings secretsAnd here you meant what? None of those is in conflict... there is no heirarchy...and by the by even Jamie called protecting the king a duty rather than a vow... So was the LC obeying his vow as he said or doing his first duty (according to Jamie) First duty means inevitably some kind of hierarchy. And yes, if they were ordered to stay at ToJ while their first duty required them to go to Viserys, there was a conflict. UMM Craster is not in the seven kingdoms...they also engage in polygamy in Essos... silly me for not spelling that one out... did any character in the seven kingdoms (the place where the heritable throne is) engage in polygamy? I'm getting an impression that you only read the first halves of sentences. Yes, Craster and the Wildlings are beyond the Wall, we all know that. The point is, they interact with people from the Seven kingdoms (some of them highly prejudiced), yet not a single person comments on the custom of polygamy, even though other other objectionable habits do. and on that note i would expect you to include the complete title of your proposed King Jon Twist.... ruler of the seven kingdoms, king of the andals and the first men protecter of the realm would suffice...Words are wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alia of the knife Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Indeed, one of the main themes of the books is not prophesy, but people who believe in prophesy - and the silly, sometimes catastrophic, things they do as a consequence.Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 So bloodraven clearly thinks Jon is a bastard... as he would have known through the weirwood had Lyanna married Rhaegar and he still used Jon's bastard name.... however BR must have missed Jon's vows before the weirwood in which he swore to hold no titles... and apparently BR loves that CORN/rolls eyes/ Yes, because letting the raven croak "Targaryen" would make so much sense, or Bloodraven wargs the raven 24/7. Concerning the vows... that is another important of conflicting vows. Is it more important to defend the realms of men, or hold no titles? Not to mention the possible loopholes of the vow transpiring by Jon's death, or by royal decree (as Stannis has proposed), or some other way we have not figured out yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred of Ashai Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 The Kingsguard Vow:The primary function of the Kingsguard is to protect and defend the kingThat protection may be extended to royal family members at the king's discretionNot just family members. Mistresses and bastards,too. The Kingsguard also makes promises to:safeguard the king's secretsobey his orders According to Barristan, the white knights are "sworn" to obey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Snowfyre Chorus Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Yes, it is. But for me the proof comes top-down, not bottom-up. I have come to the conclusion that lots of the thematic and ironic undertones of the books imply that Jon is the Targaryen king. "Bastards are not allowed to sit at the royal table", "bastards are not allowed to damage young princes", "Mance Rayder has no more royal blood than I", "they say the king protects the innocent", the Raven calling Jon "King Jon Snow", the KG at the ToJ, Lyanna's statue in the crypts, the irony of Alliser Thorne's hate, all of that and much much more. So then I ask, how can Jon be the Targaryen king? R+L=J accepted beforehand, the only way he can be if he is the last surviving legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen. In principle, he could be either born in wedlock or legitimized by royal decree. But by the time he was born, Rhaegar and Aerys were dead, so he can't have been legitimized. The logical conclusion is that Rhaegar and Lyanna married, which is again supported by several thematic undertones. "If a man wants to bed a woman, he should marry her", Rhaegar's characterisation as an honorable man, etc. To which some people cry, and here is the actual assertion that is still unproven by the distractors in this chain of arguments: "How can Rhaegar be married to Lyanna? He's already married to Elia!" Well, yes he is married to Elia. But there is precedent for Targaryen polygamy coupled with exactly zero comments on the abominability(?) of polygamy and Jorah's comments to Dany. So, to make things short, you ask me to bring proof for R+L being married? My answer is "Because we know, through careful textual analysis, that Jon is legitimate, and such a marriage is the only way he can be.".This is helpful, because I agree with you about the overall symbolic motifs and images of kingship connected with Jon. What I disagree with is the conclusion that Targaryen kingship, legitimacy, and the Iron Throne are the plotline endpoints foreshadowed by those clues.Arguing from clear evidence of Jon's legitimate royal birth UP to claiming that he is the once and future king of Westeros would make sense, even if it doesn't work out that way in the end. (Though, as I say, it presumes clarity of evidence to support that legitimacy - and given that arguments over this very subject pop up around here ever few weeks, I'm not sure "clarity" is the word I'd use.)But starting from symbolic clues and foreshadowing of Jon's kingship (which are certainly there), then arguing back DOWN to claims that his Targaryen legitimacy should be obvious does not necessarily make sense. There are kingships to go around in these books, and if you ask me, Jon himself never passes south of the Neck.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Yes, the top-down method has its flaws. But the point is that the thematic evidence just keeps piling up. And just because it's meta-evidence in the sense that it can't be used in-world does not mean it isn't evidence for the reader. ASoIaF is not history, it is a piece of literature. Different rules apply. At the same way, there are ways it could be true. Without the Targaryen polygamy precedent, it would be much harder to hold that position. As for the Raven: "Jon Snow" is Jon's name at this point. Noone would understand the Raven if it said "King Daemon Targaryen". Like, who would even understand who the bird was referring to? And for such an avid Targaryen supporter as Bloodraven (who is most likely the one warging Mormont's raven) not to support the Targaryen claimant, you would need to find some evidence that he changed his mind on Daemon II's line. You obviously don't understand the ToJ argument so I'll just leave it at that. Others like Ygrain and MtnLion have covered that subject dozens of times in this iteration of the thread alone. If Lyanna eloped she is still a Stark, and the Stark mother of the King of the Seven Kingdoms to boot. She would be the most high-ranking Stark woman of all time. The point about Thorne is that his hatred for Jon has been massively undermined from the start. Thorne was sent to the Wall for being a Targ supporter until the bitter end. That's why he hates Ned and, by extension, Jon Snow. If Jon Snow is the Targaryen king though, Thorne hates the man he would consider his king, if he only knew the truth. There are lots of these ironic pearls in the text, and they only make sense if Jon is indeed king. Such a royal decree would have to come from Aerys though, and I don't see how that would have been kept a secret. At least Jaime or Barristan would definitely know about it. Plus, you invented that they can legitimize bastards before their birth, which is also in no way a given. Polygamy is not seen in the books? I must have dreamed up Craster, Ygon Oldfather and Tyrion then, because all three are polygamists we see in the series. Oh, and we are told about Aegon the Conqueror, another polygamist. I have not found anything that really contradicts a marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna. I have found lots of evidence that Jon is legitimate. The "contradictions" usually dissolve into mist once one studies the text carefully enough. And really, I do not wish to believe it. Quite the opposite. I have come to the question without preconceptions and I have found only one solution that does not lead to contradictions: That Jon is the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, born in wedlock. Evidence piling up is the bottom up method.... Either polygamy or legitimizing by royal decree provide sufficient precedence for the legitimacy of Jon-- precedence is not a requirement because it has been does not mean that it must be if forced to choose the precedence of legitimizing a bastard is more recent and has been used in the books... I do so loathe assigning motives to birds... even warged birds.. however i will concede that the raven's behavior was odd.... however that could go two ways... Jon will be king... or Jon was born a king.... BR see the past and the future... I quite understand the ToJ argument... it just defeats itsself... the KG's first duty is to protect the king... they lost 2 kings and a prince before they started obeying that principle... If Lyanna eloped she was buried next to the brother and father she killed through disobedience.... and was not a Stark, she was a Targaryen princess. As Jon never wore a crown she was mother of a deposed member of the royal family. If Lyanna was kidnapped and raped... she was buried with the other 2 Stark victims at WF. That rings a bell. I see why people don't bring it up... Jon was a snot nosed stuck up brat... he was quite capable of inspiring dislike all on his own. i did not say it could or couldnt be done... that was in response to the dilemma posed that it could not have been done... my stance was that... the KG are not privy to every royal decree. Them not knowing is not the same thing as it being kept secret. Could have known and must have known are miles and miles apart... Not seen in westeros.... ok i see you were saying jon is king of essos or king north of the wall... places where polygamy is absolutely allowed... I have not found anything in the books that proves Aerys was not Santa Claus... i have lots of evidence that he was... nobody has seen santa since Aerys died. The books never even mention him.. if one studies the text carefully enough the letters S A N T C L U appear in every chapter and even on most pages... There is plenty of evidence for R+L=J...... and without that there is no R married L. There is more evidence for R kidnapped, married, and raped L... than for J being the love child of the pair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred of Ashai Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Dude! Page 32:Walder Frey had 8 wives. Does that mean he was a polygamist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnLion Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Why do you say that? Per Viserys I, a female comes before a younger male. Per Aegon II, a younger male comes before an older female. Per a Great Council, a younger son of a king comes before his dead older brother's son. Per Robb Stark, a King's decree can supercede the normal rules of inheritance. Per Robert and Renly Barratheon, and per Aegon the Conqueror, might makes right. Per Criston Cole, The Lord Commander of the King's guard gets to decide who the new king is when the old king dies. Per Daemon Blackfyre, a bastard can come before a true born heir.I suppose you think Hightower was playing the game of thrones by picking the new king, but I don't think he would do that.Since the Dance of the Dragons the Targaryen inheritance rights have been defined as a modified agnatic inheritance. GRRM said that all male claimants, even collateral lines, come before any female claimants. You asked for a quote on polygamy.... you didnt specify the source....fine we can go from the book I will ask only for a word from the text from the following regarding Rhaegar and Lyannaprincessmarriedweddinghusbandwifewidowvow I will ask for a word from the kings guard:KingChildHeirNephewUncleWidowprincess I do appreciate your lovely manufactured list that creates a division between vows and promises... Text... LC to Jamie... We swore to obey him not to judge him... that is the only vow he ever mentioned...Jamie refers to the vow to protect the Royal Family as... we are supposed to protect her... Rhaegar giving orders to the Kingsguard means he could have ordered them to remain.... which kind of puts a dent in they must protect the king conjecture...No, you continue to be obtuse. You insisted that polygamy was a sin in the eyes of the church of the seven, and I repeatedly challenged you to provide a quote to back it up. You failed. GOT:Page: 464: . . . foot of the throne in white armor of the Kingsguard ready to protect and defend the king . . . 525: . . . Ser Barristan was honor bound to protect and defend the boy . . .The list goes on and on, but Jaime defines it in Storm of Swords, page 921: "The king is eight. Our first duty is to protect him, which includes protecting him from himself." You are being trollish, a secret is not going to be a secret if you can find those things in the text. However, there is a big reason for the secret to exist, since it is high treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.