R+L=J v 75

[The guy from the Vale]

1. And you're still ignoring Tyrion.

2. It's in the name of the thing. An-nul-ment. The marriage in question is rendered null and void. It's not a divorce. It's as if the marriage never happened in the first place.

3. I'm not inventing this need for secrecy. I notice noone knew where Rhaegar was, and that neither Jaime nor Barristan nor Varys seem to have any idea Rhaegar had a child with Lyanna that needed legitimizing, or that the marriage between Elia and Rhaegar was annulled, or anything like that. Apparently the Martells don't know about any annulment either, and they need to know if it happened. From that I conclude that Rhaegar kept as much as possible about his relationship to Lyanna secret. In particular, he did not tell anybody she was pregnant, he told nobody where she was, and he did not have his marriage to Elia annuled.

4. Point taken.

5. But the other two options run into the problem I have brought up half a dozen times now: Rhaegar could not keep a child with Lyanna secret if he wanted to have it legitimized, and he could not keep an annulment of his marriage to Elia secret either, at least not from Varys, and even less so from the Martells.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

1, Well let us look to slavery in Essos. The Seven Kingdoms do not condemn the practice in Essos. However. a person in the Seven Kingdoms found selling poachers into slavery was sentenced to death for his crime.

Now point to an example of a person from the Seven Kingdoms that has engaged in the practice

The examples have already been named. Aegon the Conqueror, Maegor the Cruel, and most likely others, though they remain unnamed so far (see here)

[stateofdissipation]

1. Tyrion Lannister. You're still ignoring him. That he has no contact to his first wife does not mean he isn't a polygamist. GRRM's interviews collected in the SSMs are about as good as a word of god gets. Unless they are directly contradicted by other SSM or the text, it's best to assume what GRRM says in there is true.

2. No. Tyrion Lannister is a polygamist. He considers both Tysha and Sansa his wives.

3. Yes, but that cuts both ways. You can't be certain there was no polygamy after Maegor's rule either.

4. The proof is that Jon being legitimate, coupled with the fact that his existence was and still is unknown to people like Barristan, Jaime, or Varys. That means he can't have been legitimized by Aerys (or Varys, at least, would know, as would at least one kingsguard who spent any time with Aerys after Rhaegar returned to KL). The conclusion here is that Rhaegar and Lyanna married, and that Rhaegar did not have to have his marriage to ELia invalidated (or the Faith would know, and by extension Varys) or had his child legitimized (or Varys and the KG in KL would know)

5. So what?

6. Legitimization would mean Jon's existence would be known among the people at Aerys' court, at least Varys and the KG.

7. Replace "Legitimization" with "Annulment" in 6, and replace "the KG" with "the Faith".

8. Verb missing here. What do you mean?

9. That is your opinion. Legitimization has brought the Targaryens countless trouble in the form of the Blackfyre rebellions. I don't think Rhaegar would want to risk bringing up another Daemon Waters.

10. It's certainly easier to reply to, yes.

1) Tywin took Tyrion to the septon and had the marriage declared void by the faith of the seven. The faith of the seven did not permit a dual marriage. To argue the validity of the annulment is not a support of polygamy. The second marriage would then be a fraud if the first was found to be valid.

2) Lovely, that means if I think I am married to Angelina Jolie and Scarlett Johansen, I am a polygamist too. If no church or state can dispute the claim, then what right do the women have to do the same?

3) Polygamy in the Seven Kingdoms during the reigh of Aerys was neither established as a practice nor specifically denied. Necrophalia and beastiality fall into the same boat. Incest however was established.

4) If you get to invent the practices and the chain of knowledge... why not just start with "because I said so"? If that is the case why bother with adding in the middle part? If you wish to restate with anything relating to the text, I would be more than happy to read it. Unfil then all I have is that I know what you say.

5) Exactly. It was a pointless statement originally and when deprived of its indirect language.... so what..

6) Ok there we go with inventing the mechanisms for legitimization and the workings of the court under Aerys. You say so... got it.

7) You inserted a value system that prefers polygamy to legitimization and setting aside to reach the conclusion that polygamy is more viable. Replacing KG with the faith proves difficult as neiter are in this bullet.

8) My apologies. You attempt to cloud (not could) the issue of polygamy by including incest while ignoring that the majority of the historical polygamy was incestous. The latter practice did continue.

9) not sure how that relates to the conclusion that polygamy is the only option for Jon being legitimate. Adding problems to ancient history to problems with ancient history does not seem to be in your favor. I accpept the problems with historical legitimization and you accept the problems that ended the Targ practice of polygamy.

10) Then we are all having a ball.

[Ygrain]

/facepalm/

Since when do people need to practice something themselves in order to express an opinion about it, especially if the practice goes against their cultural norms or religious beliefs?

No-one in the Seven kingdoms openly practices incest, yet they have very strong opinion about it. Heck, an absolute majority of posters on this boards are from culture(s) which do not practice polygamy, yet some express very strong opinions about it.

[stateofdissipation]

The examples have already been named. Aegon the Conqueror, Maegor the Cruel, and most likely others, though they remain unnamed so far (see here)

lovely...i am sorry i assumed that relevant was implied. In a thread on the recent practice of polygamy. it might be assumed... (apparently at one's own risk) that we were discussing the topic at hand.

I wholeheartedly agree there was a time when the Targs practiced polygamy in the 7K. Now could we find an example of polygamy in the 7K from a person in recent history or living memory. (human memory BR and the Children of the forest excluded not because they counter it but because they don't mention it. by the by they are not in the 7K)

[corbon]

10. I hope you find the format acceptable. Since adopting the numbering and point by point reply, I have eliminated the need to insert quotes from the original topic. However, you were kind enough not to make statements that conflicted with your earlier posts.

Yes it is much better. Thank you.

Sorry I have neither the time (having exhausted it all for now) nor inclination to keep up the discussion. Others are doing it enough, for the most part.

[stateofdissipation]

/facepalm/

Since when do people need to practice something themselves in order to express an opinion about it, especially if the practice goes against their cultural norms or religious beliefs?

No-one in the Seven kingdoms openly practices incest, yet they have very strong opinion about it. Heck, an absolute majority of posters on this boards are from culture(s) which do not practice polygamy, yet some express very strong opinions about it.

Aerys (in living memory) practiced incest with his sister (in living memory)

Aside from that, where do you find the message boards in westeros where people post their unsolicited opinions on the practices of others outside their cultures. It does not seem to be an issue in the action and dialogue of the text.

[The guy from the Vale]

1) Tywin took Tyrion to the septon and had the marriage declared void by the faith of the seven. The faith of the seven did not permit a dual marriage. To argue the validity of the annulment is not a support of polygamy. The second marriage would then be a fraud if the first was found to be valid.

2) Lovely, that means if I think I am married to Angelina Jolie and Scarlett Johansen, I am a polygamist too. If no church or state can dispute the claim, then what right do the women have to do the same?

3) Polygamy in the Seven Kingdoms during the reigh of Aerys was neither established as a practice nor specifically denied. Necrophalia and beastiality fall into the same boat. Incest however was established.

4) If you get to invent the practices and the chain of knowledge... why not just start with "because I said so"? If that is the case why bother with adding in the middle part? If you wish to restate with anything relating to the text, I would be more than happy to read it. Unfil then all I have is that I know what you say.

5) Exactly. It was a pointless statement originally and when deprived of its indirect language.... so what..

6) Ok there we go with inventing the mechanisms for legitimization and the workings of the court under Aerys. You say so... got it.

7) You inserted a value system that prefers polygamy to legitimization and setting aside to reach the conclusion that polygamy is more viable. Replacing KG with the faith proves difficult as neiter are in this bullet.

8) My apologies. You attempt to cloud (not could) the issue of polygamy by including incest while ignoring that the majority of the historical polygamy was incestous. The latter practice did continue.

9) not sure how that relates to the conclusion that polygamy is the only option for Jon being legitimate. Adding problems to ancient history to problems with ancient history does not seem to be in your favor. I accpept the problems with historical legitimization and you accept the problems that ended the Targ practice of polygamy.

10) Then we are all having a ball.

1. But we know that the practice of annulment requires the couple to appear in front of the High Septon (that's why Sansa is still married to Tyrion even now). Tyrion never was in front of the High Septon in this matter. Tyrion considers himself also to be married to both Sansa and Tysha, which is all that counts, really.

2. In a world where marriage is one of the few legal contracts that are universally accepted, yes, that's the case. And consider the case of Ramsay and Lady Hornwood. People despise Ramsay for what he did to Lady Hornwood, but noone disputes the validity of their marriage.

3. It wasn't established during Aerys' reign, but if we only go back to Jaehaerys II and Aegon V, we can't claim with certainty that they didn't engage in the practice - and both are within living memory.

4. I'm not inventing them. We know Aerys kept Jaime close during the entire rebellion. More to the point, Aerys was paranoid. He certainly would have wanted to have KG protection when talking to his son who had been gone for months. SO legitimization without KG knowledge is out of the question. Even if you deny that, Varys would have had his little birds spy on Aerys' throne room during the discussion, to the same effect. As for annulment, we know that an official audience in front of the High Septon is necessary. Annuling a marriage to Elia without letting the latter know is not really feasible imo.

6. Got into this in 4.

7. Dito.

8. I'm not the one bringing incest into this discussion. I think the polygamy issue stands on its own. That said, Maegor was polygamously married even without incest, so the precedent for a polygamous non-incestuous marriage exists.

9. No, I do not accept the problems that ended the ancient practice of Targaryen polygamy, because the practice is neither ancient (Aegon I was the first to do so) nor problematic, because we do not see a single reference to it being problematic in the first place.

[Ygrain]

Aerys (in living memory) practiced incest with his sister (in living memory)

Aside from that, where do you find the message boards in westeros where people post their unsolicited opinions on the practices of others outside their cultures. It does not seem to be an issue in the action and dialogue of the text.

And Aegon marrying both his sisters is a part of a very much alive cultural tradition, it gets referenced several times.

Missed the point yet again, right? You don't exactly need a message board to express an unsolicited opinion on anything, that's simply what people do whenever they feel like it, and they do pretty often, especially when confronted with something contradicting their worldview.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

<snp>

Ok, so if I understand correctly, you do believe that Jon is legit, right?

That means one of two things happened:

(1) either Rhaegar married Lyanna before Jon was born

(2) or Jon was legitimized after his birth

Since no one at court (Pycelle, the Lannister-supporter, Varys, Barristan, Jaime) seems to have known anything about a legitimization, we can safely assume that Aerys did not legitimize Jon, something which would have been a difficult thing to do in any case, because Jon was born within the month after the Trident, and Aerys died a fortnight after the Trident.

That allows us to assume that Rhaegar was married to Lyanna.

As said before, Rhaegar most likely expected a daughter. Dany already mentions that Rhaegar had gotten himself an Aegon and a Rhaenys, and was only missing a Visenya. Jorah stated that the three-headed dragon were Aegon and his sisters. Rhaegar stated that "the dragon must have three heads, there must be one more". All that was missing, was another girl, whom he could name Visenya, and marry to Aegon, together with Rhaenys.

In order to be allowed to marry a daughter to the King-to-be, the girl would have to be legit. Aerys died before he could do such a thing, but I doubt that Rhaegar had planned to let Aerys do so anyway, since upon his return to KL, before he left for the Trident, Rhaegar stated that "changes" would be made upon his return. Changes which would, as agreed upon by most of the fandom, end the reign of Aerys and begin the reign of Rhaegar. Surely, when Rhaegar was king himself, he could legitimize the child. But that would hurt the status his little Visenya would have.

There is another thing. Rhaegar seems to have loved Lyanna. He died with her name on his lips. These were feelings he did not have for his wife Elia, though. So if your family has practices polygamy in the past (and keep in mind, we don't know how recent the last polygamous marriage in the Targaryen family was), and you need another legitimate daughter, marrying the girl you're trying to get pregnant seems like the easiest solution.

There would absolutely be no reason to set Elia aside, though. Barristan said it himself, Rhaegar was fond of Elia. He also needed the support of House Martell, because insulting them (after the insults at Harrenhal) could cause another war - in a land already ripped apart by war. The Martells did not start to lose significant numbers of men until the Trident. The rest of the loyalist armies had been fighting for much longer. In addition, setting aside your wife would endanger the position of Aegon, the heir. His claim could be questioned, leading to more wars.

Seriously. There does not seem to be any disadvantage to a polygamous marriage. Yes, it will insult the Martells, but not as much as setting aside Elia, which could lead to a whole lot more complications, all endangering Rhaegar's position, and those of his children.

The Martells swallowed their anger after Harrenhal because they knew that Elia would one day be Queen. Removing that, there would have been nothing to stop Dorne from withdrawing their support during the Rebellion, and rebelling themselves, or joining Robert.

With so many disadvantages when setting aside one wife and marrying another, and with polygamous history, with precedents and all in existence, why is it so hard to believe that Rhaegar most likely entered a polygamous marriage?

Which brings me to the (IIRC) original point of the entire conversation. Why were the KG at the TOJ? They swore vows (to protect the King), and they acknowledge that Viserys is at Dragonstone, and that they believe he is protected well enough, but specifically state that Viserys is not protected by someone from the KG.

Why say such a thing, after the deaths of Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon, such a specific thing (he's not a KG, he's not one of the seven people who vowed to die in the service of their king, protecting him with their lives), when Viserys appears to be the next King in line? Viserys was even crowned on Dragonstone (although that might have happened later, entirely possible, but it does show that to everyone, Viserys was the next dragon King).

The most logic answer to that question, as has been argued here, is that there was someone in that tower who needed the protection of the KG (and the KG specifically) more than Viserys. Who needs KG protection more than the King? Well, no one.

No one claims that Jon has to be legit because the KG were at TOJ. They had been there for quite some time. But all evidence points to Jon being legit, because the KG stayed at TOJ, even after all their sworn brothers had died, and none of them even tried to go to Viserys.

[stateofdissipation]

1. But we know that the practice of annulment requires the couple to appear in front of the High Septon (that's why Sansa is still married to Tyrion even now). Tyrion never was in front of the High Septon in this matter. Tyrion considers himself also to be married to both Sansa and Tysha, which is all that counts, really.

2. In a world where marriage is one of the few legal contracts that are universally accepted, yes, that's the case. And consider the case of Ramsay and Lady Hornwood. People despise Ramsay for what he did to Lady Hornwood, but noone disputes the validity of their marriage.

3. It wasn't established during Aerys' reign, but if we only go back to Jaehaerys II and Aegon V, we can't claim with certainty that they didn't engage in the practice - and both are within living memory.

4. I'm not inventing them. We know Aerys kept Jaime close during the entire rebellion.

A. More to the point, Aerys was paranoid.

B, He certainly would have wanted to have KG protection when talking to his son who had been gone for months.

C. SO legitimization

D. without KG knowledge is out of the question.

E. Even if you deny that, Varys would have had his little birds spy on Aerys' throne room during the discussion,

F. to the same effect. As for annulment,

G. we know that an official audience in front of the High Septon is necessary.

H. Annuling a marriage to Elia without letting the latter know is not really feasible imo.

6. Got into this in 4.

7. Dito.

8. I'm not the one bringing incest into this discussion. I think the polygamy issue stands on its own. That said, Maegor was polygamously married even without incest, so the precedent for a polygamous non-incestuous marriage exists.

9. No, I do not accept the problems that ended the ancient practice of Targaryen polygamy, because the practice is neither ancient (Aegon I was the first to do so) nor problematic, because we do not see a single reference to it being problematic in the first place.

1) The practice of annulment was portrayed in the case of Tyrion and Tywin appearing before the septon and the septon declaring the marriage void in the eyes of the faith. Tyrion did not see Tysha again after her rape.

(It would be better for you to cite the case where annulment actually was performed than to cite one where it was not.) If one considers himself married independent of the faith, that does not make it so. Tyrion could consider himself married to Margery, if the faith does not acknowledge it, he would not be married. By your reasoning Raegar could have been married to Lyanna without anyone knowing. If what he thinks is all that really matters.

2) In the seven kingdoms marriage is a matter of the faith and not a matter of the law. There is no civil contract. and no justice of the peace. Ramsay was married. How he treated his wife is another matter entirely.

3) In living memory, do we have an example of a living person recalling their polygamy? No. We also have no proof that Rickard Stark did not engage in polygamy. That does not mean he did.

4) Aerys kept Jamie close during the entire rebellion. That is not an invention. However the highlighted terms cannot be later defined to prove your point. That would be invention.

A. Aerys was paranoid. another statement of fact. Again you cannot use the highlighted term later as it suits your purpose.

B. He certainly would have wanted the KG protection when talking to his son who had been gone for months. You now insert that paranoid is in relation to his son and omit that paranoid is in relation to the KG: (violation of A) You also interject that absence is equal to danger. You also seem to forget 4: as they Jamie KG being close was already included it is redundant. That is unless you you add that Aerys was paranoid about Jamie (in violation of A) additionally it would not be helpful to include Jamie in the list of people that must have known.

C. YES legitimization is a fact.

D. Yes it is done by royal decree. Unless the Mad king did not know what he was doing (mad kind of implies that),then he would have known about his own decree.

E. Viserys with Robert does not equal Viserys with Aerys. No equation is made in the books between Viserys actions being the same under Aerys as they were later under Robert. That is an invention. You also rely on your own invention that could have known is must have known coupled with another invention that must have known is equal to must have told someone.

F, lovely invention. Royal decree is equal to a decree to the faith of the seven. You even secretly invented the procedure for this and did not bother to inform us as to what it would be.

G Now you get to invent what all know and the procedures for annulment. You added the High to Septon but failed to inform us of the others we all know must be present. In the future, If you must include what i know please do so by adding the parties I know as well.

H. Well the IMO is actually a fact.

6. Yes let us go back to 4.

7. No, I did not insert a value system that supported a conclusion. I claimed no conclusion outside of "without imposing a value system the alternatives are equally valid"

8. We have proof of later Targ incest and none of later Targ polygamy... to me it would seem wise for somebody grasping at straws to take as many as he can get.

9. 300 years ago it happened. Then at some time before living memory it stopped being recorded. Targ Kings stopped having recorded children from multiple wives. Targs started having recorded bastards (Thanks for bringing them up in relation to the problems they caused). The bastards you so kindly brought up seem to be a problem caused by the absence of polygamy. I invented the connection between the end of polygamy and the rise of bastards. It may or may not be accurate. See how solid an argument can seem if you just fudge a few facts to come up with the desired results.

We also do not see a single reference to it being practiced in the Seven Kingdoms in recent history. You claim Polygamy is the only possible solution to Jon's legitimacy. Your answer is that one must prove that it is not. You did not even have the common decency to invent a good fact. Is there a rule that you can only invent facts to counter things you don't happen to agree with and require facts to disprove what you would like to believe? This hardly seems fair.

[stateofdissipation]

And Aegon marrying both his sisters is a part of a very much alive cultural tradition, it gets referenced several times.

Missed the point yet again, right? You don't exactly need a message board to express an unsolicited opinion on anything, that's simply what people do whenever they feel like it, and they do pretty often, especially when confronted with something contradicting their worldview.

Snarks and Grumpkins are part of a very much alive cultural tradition. So are dragons.

Ageon and his sisterwives have died, ceased to be, shuffled off the mortal coil.... but they and snarks and grumpkins can live in our hearts forever. That does not mean they impacted marriage practices under Aerys.

Dear god... one more time... They cheered twice as loud for Robert than they ever had for Aerys but only half as loud as they had for Rhaegar. Rhaegar's popularity allowed him to get away with things much like the dragons had allowed earlier Targs to do the same..

However that actually requires cracking a book because it isn't on wiki and definitely not posted in the FAQ section of the thread.... but by all means feel free to use it...

It would seem that you might be responding from a padded room. Hopefully at least in a protected or supervised facility. Outside of bums and the insane, it is hardly normal for people to go freely spouting unsolicited opinions about events that contradict his or her world view.

If you would like to leave sometime, here is a hint. Be very aware of who you are speaking to and tailor your opinions to your audience.

Do you perhaps recall why Payne lost his tongue? wait for it he felt like giving an unsolicited opinion (Tywin rules the Seven Kingdoms) apparently when confronted with something contradicted his world view.

There was also a singer who lost a tongue for expressing his views on Robert....

Is this the world where you are suggesting one is free to express his or her opinions.... in any circumstances?

[The guy from the Vale]

1. For the rules of annulment, see this SSM. Rhaegar would have had to appear in front of the High Septon to request the annulment. It would have been a public matter. Tyrion is still married to Tysha because he did not appear in front of the High Septon.

2. Yes it is. Curiously enough, the Old Gods do not forbid polygamy (see: Ygon Oldfather). We don't even have comments of Septons on polygamy being a sin. See a pattern emerging?

3. Nothing of all of that means any of them did. But noone remembers any of their wives, and either might have had two wives. We simply do not know, and your insistence that absence of evidence equal evidence of absence does not hold. As long as we do not know the marital arrangements of Jaehaerys II or Aegon V, your statement that there was no Targaryen polygamy in living memory is unsupported by the text.

4.

B. Aerys was not paranoid of his KG. They were the only ones allowed to carry swords in his presence.

C. Legitimization in and of itself might be possible but unlikely. Legitimization without Jaime knowing is impossible precisely because Aerys kept Jaime close and still trusted his KG.

D. Of course Aerys knew. I am saying the Kingsguard (at the very least, Jaime) would have known about the legitimization, and hence about the existence of Jon. Jaime has no idea, so this means that the legitimization did not happen.

E. You mean Varys, not Viserys? And Varys had his reputation of omniscience back in Aerys' days already. If you think Varys changed his MO once Robert took power, you have to prove that assertion.

F./G. No, I am not inventing them. See the SSM quoted at the start of this post.

H: So the marriage to Elia can't have been annulled without Elia and, by extension, her brothers knowing. But the Martells assume Elia was married to Rhaegar until the end, so there was no annulment. Do we agree on this at least?

9. I have been very patient and polite here. I do not wish to bring this discussion to the ad hominem level. Goodbye.

[Ser Creighton]

Ok, so if I understand correctly, you do believe that Jon is legit, right?

That means one of two things happened:

(1) either Rhaegar married Lyanna before Jon was born

(2) or Jon was legitimized after his birth

Since no one at court (Pycelle, the Lannister-supporter, Varys, Barristan, Jaime) seems to have known anything about a legitimization, we can safely assume that Aerys did not legitimize Jon, something which would have been a difficult thing to do in any case, because Jon was born within the month after the Trident, and Aerys died a fortnight after the Trident.

I thought Martin said Jon was born within a month either way of the sacking of KL. Not that I think it matters for this argument but don't screw with my logistics. Now I would really love to get involved with this circular debate that always repeats itself on this thread but I have decided to get an unnecessary root canal, and no pain killers, that way I can still feel like I am part of this debate, without actually having to type anything. Keep having fun with this, cause this seems like a blast.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Snarks and Grumpkins are part of a very much alive cultural tradition. So are dragons.

Ageon and his sisterwives have died, ceased to be, shuffled off the mortal coil.... but they and snarks and grumpkins can live in our hearts forever. That does not mean they impacted marriage practices under Aerys.

Dear god... one more time... They cheered twice as loud for Robert than they ever had for Aerys but only half as loud as they had for Rhaegar. Rhaegar's popularity allowed him to get away with things much like the dragons had allowed earlier Targs to do the same..

However that actually requires cracking a book because it isn't on wiki and definitely not posted in the FAQ section of the thread.... but by all means feel free to use it...

It would seem that you might be responding from a padded room. Hopefully at least in a protected or supervised facility. Outside of bums and the insane, it is hardly normal for people to go freely spouting unsolicited opinions about events that contradict his or her world view.

If you would like to leave sometime, here is a hint. Be very aware of who you are speaking to and tailor your opinions to your audience.

Do you perhaps recall why Payne lost his tongue? wait for it he felt like giving an unsolicited opinion (Tywin rules the Seven Kingdoms) apparently when confronted with something contradicted his world view.

There was also a singer who lost a tongue for expressing his views on Robert....

Is this the world where you are suggesting one is free to express his or her opinions.... in any circumstances?

So the fact that Rhaegar was a popular guys allowed him to get away with things..? What things then? There is no example of anything Rhaegar got away with due to his popularity (with the small folk in Lannisport, don't forget).

And they were cheering for Tywin, not Robert.

So Tywin was popular in those times... and he was feared only a few years later, because he sacked a city. Opinions of small folk can change..

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I thought Martin said Jon was born within a month either way of the sacking of KL. Not that I think it matters for this argument but don't screw with my logistics. Now I would really love to get involved with this circular debate that always repeats itself on this thread but I have decided to get an unnecessary root canal, and no pain killers, that way I can still feel like I am part of this debate, without actually having to type anything. Keep having fun with this, cause this seems like a blast.

Jon was born 8 to 9 months before Dany. Dany was born 9 months after their flight to Dragonstone.

That places the Sack in the middle of the timeframe in which Jon was born.

Rhaella didn't leave for Dragonstone until after the Trident.. Which places Jon's birth in the month following the Trident, since the Sack occured two weeks after the Trident.

[J. Stargaryen]

Does anyone else think it's extremely trollish that stateofdissipation attempts to subject everyone else's arguments to his version of intellectual rigor, even though he spent a good part of yesterday playing dumb when presented with an inconvenient fact?

[Ser Creighton]

Does anyone else think it's extremely trollish that stateofdissipation attempts to subject everyone else's arguments to his version of intellectual rigor, even though he spent a good part of yesterday playing dumb when presented with an inconvenient fact?

I'll stick my hand up. Though not a fan of the word trollish.

[J. Stargaryen]

I'll stick my hand up. Though not a fan of the word trollish.

I'm not saying he's a troll full stop. But that behavior was extremely trollish, imo.

[The guy from the Vale]

Not a fan of trollblaming either, but... yes, at some point I have to admit the style of discussion becomes tiresome.