R+L = J v 73

[Fred of Ashai]

Was it because the first husband was dead before she married his brother?

Yes, that's my point. Catherine was married to the first son of Henry VII (Prince Arthur). When Arthur died, she was then married to Arthur's little brother, the future Henry VIII. So she took two Tudor brothers to husband but she wasn't a polygamist.

When I read in Game of Thrones that Aegon took his two sisters to wife, I made the logical assumption that the first one died before he married the second because there is no hint of polygamy in Game of Thrones. Instead, there is the very prominent example of Walder Frey, who was married 8 times but never to two women at the same time.

I don't think Martin thought up the idea of Targaryen polygamy until later, meaning that (if R+L = J), Martin did not have in mind that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married when he wrote it. I think he introduced the idea of polygamy later because at some point Dany may need to take two husbands. This could happen if Hizdar is alive but she needs a husband in Westeros, for example, Aegon. I don't think it has anything to do with Jon.

What does have to do with Jon is the introduction of the idea of legitimizing bastards. If as I suspect Jon was legitimized in Robb's will, and if he is Rhaegar's illegitimate son, he has a convoluted claim to the Iron Throne that way. His supporters would say he comes before Dany. Dany would probably disagree. And conflict would ensue. That, I think, is more like the way martin writes than the idea that Jon was legitimate from birth and obviously comes before Dany.

[aDanceWithFlagons]

He'll find out at some point. It's to good of a plot point for him not to. Will it matter to the resolution of the story, probably not. It is great personal conflict though ...

Maybe, maybe. If Jon does learn of his parentage, it could be very conflicting for him. Many possibilities there. But, yes, probably not affecting the resolution.

[stateofdissipation]

R+L=J is a solid theory

Jon is legitimate

KG ar ToJ-- not sufficient evidence on the practices of KG or Rhaegar's authority and orders to confirm or deny.... it is a possibility but one of 2 strengths and weaknesses to both possibilities

Lyanna's crypt--Problematic because of promise from Ned and the damage caused by her eloping if L loved R, she was the cause of the deaths of Rickard and Brandon-- If Lyanna kidnapped, married, and raped her placement with her father and brother isnot ironic.

Bloodraven-- Knows past and future communications through the raven are cryptic. No evidence for prophecy over history or vice versa.

Thorne-- I honestly never looked at a possible connection to the legitimacy issue and simply saw them as conflicting personalities... at the moment GF has book one so reread may take a while

Legitimized bastard practiced in the books by Robb and Ramsay

set aside and remarried-- practiced by Tyrion and suggested by Cersei

polygamy-not recently practiced in the 7 kingdoms. Last practiced when dragons were alive (source Targ family tree from wiki so it might not be correct)

The case for Jon being legitimate can be made without distorting facts to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

To state that KG at ToJ only reasonably means one thing or it must mean only one thing is a distortion that hurts the chase. The same goes with thei remaining evidence. Individually there is no convincing evidence. Collectively and completely the case is far more compelling.

Exclusively tying polygamy to Jon's legitamacy hurts the case. Tying polygamy in Westeros instead of the seven kingdoms to the debate hurts the case. Attemptiing to tie ancient practices to current events is likewise harmful. I have seen these used largely to answer the question: How was Jon legitimate when Rhaegar was married?.

I don't know

he could have been legitimized

Rhaegar could have set Elia aside

Rhaegar could have been a polygamist, though it is unlikely

There is nothing wrong with an honest and complete answer. It helps the case rather than hurts it.

There is nothing wrong with it seems to suggest. Add enough of them together and you have a solid theory like R+L=J. Throw in a must be and the only way when they do not exist and your valid observations become questionable.

I spent considerable time arguing against the only way and it must be because they were not true. In doing so I looked into both sides of the argument. In the end there are two sides at least to each element of the idea. No one piece is absolute or proof of the idea. Collectively and completely outright denial flies in the face of reason as much as insistance that any one element is proof does.

I personally despise the Jon is legitimate concept because to me it seems cliched and detracts from rather than adds to the character. I can put my personal bias aside and accept that the case for Jon being legitimate has merit. I will not however attempt to prove the point by misrepresentation and distortion.

[stateofdissipation]

There isn't any reason to infer from the text that Bloodraven can see into the future. He isn't an Old god.

Bloodraven is the last greenseer... acccording to Jojen they have greeen dreams which always come true... aka prophecy,, or future knowledge. I did mean to imply that BR knows the future completely or has any type of future sight just the greendreams.

in the limited communication of the raven... the purpose of the communications is lost as to if they are prophecy or history. Snow met 2 kings... Snow may be a king... and Snow may have been born a king...

that may be an assumption...greenseers... greensight... and greendreams may or may not be linked....

I do apologize for stating opinion as fact and drawing unsubstantiated conclusions....

[DrunkSister]

I admire your patience, guys. Good trite ToJ cyclically popping up. Makes me wonder... after all this time??? Always :lol:

lololol

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Jon being a Targ is the only reason I could see for explaining the timing of the appearance of the WWs. I know my theory has holes you can drive a truck through, but it does explain some things.

Have I read this theory elsewhere? I think you're gonna have to spell it out...

[J. Stargaryen]

They're either trolling or a :dunce:

Just read through the general tone of these posts. All the ummmm's..... excessive punctuation.......completely opposite opinion on EVERYTHING while contributing nothing to the actual discussion.......

I'm all for free flowing dialogue and disagreement, but the only sense I've got out of stateofdissipation's posts in this thread is that they're trying to antagonize people. I have some differing opinions than a few of the hardcore (not meant at all as a putdown) R + L = J theorists, and I look forward to discussing them in a non-offensive, productive manner when I have my thoughts fully formed and when the time is right. I don't believe that was ever the intent here.

stateofdissipation might not be a troll, but the quality of the argument is not above the level of one.

:agree: This.

We're all familiar with the concept of too good to be true, right? There's a similar idea that you can apply to behavior on the internet: too ridiculous to be serious. In other words, if someone's posts force you to ask yourself: idiot or troll? –it's usually the latter. Just something to think about the next time we see someone attempting to derail this thread.

Notice how that user attempts to position himself as a paragon of logic, yet resorts to rhetorical tricks to try and make his case. Those lists of words he asks us to find in association with R&L, for example. Of course we're not going to find anything saying they're married. Their marriage is a mystery, after all. Which it would cease to be if it said in the text that they were married.

And, for the record, it is by no means a virtue to dismiss evidence simply because it's not a "fact." Which, according to this user, means something directly stated in the text. Lots of authors, and GRRM is certainly one of these, want the audience to think for themselves, so they leave clues instead of spoon feeding us answers.

[Ser Pollo Loco]

:agree: This.

We're all familiar with the concept of too good to be true, right? There's a similar idea that you can apply to behavior on the internet: too ridiculous to be serious. In other words, if someone's posts force you to ask yourself: idiot or troll? –it's usually the latter. Just something to think about the next time we see someone attempting to derail this thread.

just head over to the mad king and children thread and you'll get your answer

[Alia of the knife]

At this rate, we'll hit 400 posts in a day or two.

My take on Neds speech to the KG is that it was a preliminary interrogation, and he suspected before he burst through the doors of the TOJ, what he would find.

And the KG could by no means be sure of Neds reaction to what he would find. As the new Warden of the North and the new heir to Winterfell, he would be expected to dicipline his sister despite his love for her.

Even Robb disinherited Sansa.

If the lord of the North couldn't control his sister, how could he control the Roose Boltens and the rest of the North?

Ned was not there just as her brother, but as the justice of the North, and we know how Ned feels about meting out justice with ones own hand, so the KG fought him.

No, I think he was tipped off beforehand, hence the few, trusted riders he took with him, and I don't think he actually knew what he might do with that information until he found himself beside her bed.

[Rhaegar I Targaryen]

just head over to the mad king and children thread and you'll get your answer

The first post in that thread comes right out and pops ya in the teeth :bang:

[Alia of the knife]

just head over to the mad king and children thread and you'll get your answer

I'm picky these days about what threads I follow, so what does it say?

Spoilers please :D

[Natasi]

Some of these posts have referenced poor jilted fiance Robert and woe is he who lost the love of his life. Please. Ned comes right out and saws Robert never really knew her, and she knew he'd be a cheater if she married him. The betrothal was political and I think anyone should be able to understand that not everyone wants their life partner to be chosen for them. It just upsets me to read the idea that Lyanna is such a bad person for having her own desires and that Robert is some kind of victim.

I know we should look at things in light of the books' own ideas of morality and what is acceptable, but some of the opinions here about Lyanna's "betrayal" and "disobedience" are truly frightening to me.

[Alia of the knife]

Some of these posts have referenced poor jilted fiance Robert and woe is he who lost the love of his life. Please. Ned comes right out and saws Robert never really knew her, and she knew he'd be a cheater if she married him. The betrothal was political and I think anyone should be able to understand that not everyone wants their life partner to be chosen for them. It just upsets me to read the idea that Lyanna is such a bad person for having her own desires and that Robert is some kind of victim.

I know we should look at things in light of the books' own ideas of morality and what is acceptable, but some of the opinions here about Lyanna's "betrayal" and "disobedience" are truly frightening to me.

I don't disagree with you.

Any reference to any punishment of Lyanna for the choices she might have made have to do with the political and social realities of her time for stepping outside the authority of her House.

[Ygrain]

Rework this part please. Your logic here would have KG guarding all the royals. Dorne was Targ loyalist, so although they wouldn't want a Stark wife, it was safely away from conflict until KL's sack.

I hope I do not presume too much if I say on MtnLion's behalf that that while the KG are not required to guard every single royal, someone being royal/wedded into the family is valid grounds to grant them KG protection (we have Barristan's musing that he wouldhave to protect Hizdahr if Dany ordered him to)

Since when does someone disagreeing, despite what another person feels is evidence, make someone a troll? If we think they're trolling, the best way to deal with it is to report it or not engage. Some people aren't going to agree no matter what.

They're either trolling or a :dunce:

Let me show you an example:

Are there examples of polygamous behaviour, both present and the past, referenced in the text? - Yes. Aegon and his sister-wives, Craster and his daughters-wives, Ygon Oldfather and his eighteen wives

Are these examples known/witnessed by people who do not indulge in the practice? - Yes. Aegon as a founder of the kingdom is a well-known figure and his family arrangements are referenced several times by various PoVs. Craster's arrangements are well-known to the Watch, whose members at that point are solely from the Seven Kingdoms. Ygon's family situation is mentioned by Jon to Marsh and Yarwyck.

Is the practice commented on negatively? - No Not a single person makes any negative comment on polygamy, anywhere.

Umm the fictious claim that polygamy was practiced in the seven kingdoms.... often disguised as that often was practiced in westeros (to include north of the wall and prove the point) is a diliberate misrepresentation and trolling

Either an epic reading comprehension claim, or deliberate trolling.

[Fred of Ashai]

Some of these posts have referenced poor jilted fiance Robert and woe is he who lost the love of his life. Please. Ned comes right out and saws Robert never really knew her, and she knew he'd be a cheater if she married him. The betrothal was political and I think anyone should be able to understand that not everyone wants their life partner to be chosen for them. It just upsets me to read the idea that Lyanna is such a bad person for having her own desires and that Robert is some kind of victim.

I know we should look at things in light of the books' own ideas of morality and what is acceptable, but some of the opinions here about Lyanna's "betrayal" and "disobedience" are truly frightening to me.

How do you feel about the fact Ned had to marry his dead brother's fiancé?

This isn't about the patriarchy. Ned had to give up marrying the mother of his child (Ashara) for the sake of a military alliance.

Boo-hoo for Lyanna. Her desire not to marry Robert prevented Ned from marrying the love of his life/mother of his child.

[Fred of Ashai]

I hope I do not presume too much if I say on MtnLion's behalf that that while the KG are not required to guard every single royal, someone being royal/wedded into the family is valid grounds to grant them KG protection.

And "mistresses and bastards" too, right?

[Natasi]

How do you feel about the fact Ned had to marry his dead brother's fiancé?

This isn't about the patriarchy. Ned had to give up marrying the mother of his child (Ashara) for the sake of a military alliance.

I made no distinction between a male or female being forced into planned marriages. I disagree with both cases, and I do indeed sympathize with Ned. I never mentioned patriarchy, either. If Ned had run away from his betrothal to Cat, I would defend him, too.

[Rhaegar I Targaryen]

This isn't about the patriarchy. Ned had to give up marrying the mother of his child (Ashara) for the sake of a military alliance.

You take that blasphemous speculation to some other thread.

We will not suffer such abominable statements here. This is not Heresy 99.

[sebitapincha]

Hopefully stateofdissipation will honor his name and dissipate now that you're no longer feeding him. He truly was a pain to read.

[J. Stargaryen]

Speaking of trolling, which has unfortunately picked up here lately, did anybody else catch the results of this recent study?

The study found correlations, sometimes quite significant, between these traits [below] and trolling behavior.

[...]

Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).