R+L=J v 75

[Han Snow]

Oh my.

Well, when you feed it, it will grow. Bigger and bigger, until arbitrary facts like the definition of marriage are thrown around just for good measure.

On a side note; I just finished reading ACOK chapter 23, Jon, and boy oh boy it is chock full with wordplay or foreshadowing or both on Jon as an authority figure(LC, King). (also Jon remembers Sansa fondly which is nice :))

“King!” cried Mormont’s raven. “King, king, king.”

“Who’s this one now?” Craster said before Jon could go. “He has the look of a Stark.”

“My steward and squire, Jon Snow.”

“A bastard, is it?” Craster looked Jon up and down. “Man wants to bed a woman, seems like he ought to take her to wife. That’s what I do.”

- hmm, I wonder if Rhaegar ever thought something like this? ;)

“They say the king gives justice and protects the weak.” She started to climb off the rock, awkwardly, but the ice had made it slippery and her foot went out from under her. Jon caught her before she could fall, and helped her safely down. The woman knelt on the icy ground.

hmm...

Damn her, he thought resentfully, and damn Sam twice for sending her to me. What did he think I could do for her? We’re here to fight wildlings, not save them.

What does Jon do when he actually gets some power. Yeah, saves the wildlings, or tries to.

It was impossible, and dishonorable besides. So why do I feel so ashamed?

Do true kings feel shame?

“She used to say that there were wildlings who would lay with the Others to birth half-human children.”

This quote is interesting just by itself. Night's King may not be the only one who has done the dirty with a frosty lady. But if the word Others actually refers to some other species, like COTF and not just the WWs...

Your heart is noble, Jon, but learn a lesson here. We cannot set the world to rights. That is not our purpose. The Night’s Watch has other wars to fight.”

Other wars. Yes. I must remember.

[Ghost's Shadow]

See! There's one of those 'marry her' I was thinking about a few weeks or so back! :thumbsup:

[stateofdissipation]

Contracts are legal agreements, and being recognized by law, means that they can be upheld in courts. Don't misunderstand me, churches can perform ceremonies that result in legal marriages, but marriages are legal foundations that determine family structure and inheritance rights.

In the Seven Kingdoms, only religious ceremonies establish marriage as a matter of fact,

In the Seven Kingdoms "marriage" is to be determined by the senses or by the testimony of witnesses who describe what they have perceived through the senses of sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/matter+of+fact

Matter of Fact That which is to be determined by the senses or by the testimony of witnesses who describe what they have perceived through the senses of sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing.

In the Seven Kingdoms the statutes, rules, court decisions, and interpretations of legal principles recognize marriage as a matter of fact established by religion. Marriage is not a matter of law.

In the Seven Kingdoms the statutes, rules, court decisions, and interpretations of legal principles determine or ascertain inheritance. Inheritance is a matter of law,

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Matter+of+law

Matter of Law That which is determined or ascertained through the use of statutes, rules, court decisions, and interpretations of legal principles.

[Eira Seren]

In our over codified world it is very hard to find examples of actions that are not legal or illegal. I spent some time trying to come up with some. I started with any action, sleeping, running, swimming and so on... The problem is that none of those are completely legal. Then i came up with passives and states of being sitting and being and so on.. again, I came up with noting that is completely legal. I even made a go at thinking or speaking. However, these when the subject of a contract can violate laws on conspiracy. In short everything is legal or illegal these days.

Then I remembered a time when wearing seatbelts was optional. In 1980, you could make a contract with me that required me to wear a seatbelt while driving. The contract would be legal and wearing the seatbelt would be part of it. If I did not wear my seatbelt, you could take me to court for breach of contract. The court could require me to pay you for breach of contract for not wearing the seatbelt. The court could only determine if I had or had not worn the seatbelt. The wearing of a seatbelt would be a matter of fact and not a matter of law. The only offense I would be legally guilty of would be breach of contract. If the state leaves the matter entirely the individudal, it is not a legal matter. It can be a matter of fact for legal matters.

In the seven kingdoms the monarchy left marriage entirely to the religions. If the faith of the seven or any other religion chose to allow a marriage, the monarchy recognized it. If the religion chose not to perform it or to abolish it, it was free to do so. Marriage in the Seven Kingdoms was a matter of fact (fact left completely to the religions) and not a matter of law.

I see what you're saying.

It seems like a religious ceremony can take place, and either a religious entity or a lord can decide whether or not to uphold it (can decide whether or not it is legal). The lords are the ones who help make and enforce the laws; this is part of why Alys Karstark goes to Jon, her next nearest kin and head of family/Stark representative in order to get out of an unwanted prospect..

[Jory Cassel]

In our over codified world it is very hard to find examples of actions that are not legal or illegal. I spent some time trying to come up with some. I started with any action, sleeping, running, swimming and so on... The problem is that none of those are completely legal. Then i came up with passives and states of being sitting and being and so on.. again, I came up with noting that is completely legal. I even made a go at thinking or speaking. However, these when the subject of a contract can violate laws on conspiracy. In short everything is legal or illegal these days.

Then I remembered a time when wearing seatbelts was optional. In 1980, you could make a contract with me that required me to wear a seatbelt while driving. The contract would be legal and wearing the seatbelt would be part of it. If I did not wear my seatbelt, you could take me to court for breach of contract. The court could require me to pay you for breach of contract for not wearing the seatbelt. The court could only determine if I had or had not worn the seatbelt. The wearing of a seatbelt would be a matter of fact and not a matter of law. The only offense I would be legally guilty of would be breach of contract. If the state leaves the matter entirely the individudal, it is not a legal matter. It can be a matter of fact for legal matters.

In the seven kingdoms the monarchy left marriage entirely to the religions. If the faith of the seven or any other religion chose to allow a marriage, the monarchy recognized it. If the religion chose not to perform it or to abolish it, it was free to do so. Marriage in the Seven Kingdoms was a matter of fact (fact left completely to the religions) and not a matter of law.

I've gathered that you are opposed to the idea of a polygamous marriage in this case, so aren't you backing yourself into a corner with the bolded? Rhaegar's first marriage was performed by the rules of the faith, and thus the question if old gods followers from upon polygamy (for which there's no indication) becomes irrelevant, as the first marriage was not one performed by old gods rites, meaning he was only married once by old gods procedure, as was Lyanna.

[stateofdissipation]

I see what you're saying.

It seems like a religious ceremony can take place, and either a religious entity or a lord can decide whether or not to uphold it (can decide whether or not it is legal). The lords are the ones who help make and enforce the laws; this is part of why Alys Karstark goes to Jon, her next nearest kin and head of family/Stark representative in order to get out of an unwanted prospect..

That is tricky. Most religions do not hold vows made at sword point to constitute marriage. We have not seen a case where a Lord or even a King has failed to recognize a religious marriage. That is what makes marrying Alys off so important. Once it is done, no Lord can undo it. Once married, killing the husband seems to be the legal way to end the marriage. The religious path can grant an annulment.

[Ser Leftwich]

I see what you're saying.

It seems like a religious ceremony can take place, and either a religious entity or a lord can decide whether or not to uphold it (can decide whether or not it is legal). The lords are the ones who help make and enforce the laws; this is part of why Alys Karstark goes to Jon, her next nearest kin and head of family/Stark representative in order to get out of an unwanted prospect..

Obligatory pointing out the similarity between Alys Karstark and Lyanna Stark. A rushed marriage when the king (Stannis in Alys's case) is not around and the bride does not want to marry the groom.

Also, if you look at the words and ceremony of the Ramsey/fArya wedding and the Sigorn/Alys wedding, they are very, very similar. Has there been a thread about that?

Also, Jon has no business what-so-ever arranging this marriage. It is getting involved in the matters of the Realm. It might even be one of the reasons Marsh and co stabbed him.

[stateofdissipation]

I've gathered that you are opposed to the idea of a polygamous marriage in this case, so aren't you backing yourself into a corner with the bolded? Rhaegar's first marriage was performed by the rules of the faith, and thus the question if old gods followers from upon polygamy (for which there's no indication) becomes irrelevant, as the first marriage was not one performed by old gods rites, meaning he was only married once by old gods procedure, as was Lyanna.

I am not opposed to polygamy as an option. I am opposed to it as the only option. In general I am opposed to poor reasoning. I looked into the (poorly reasoned) pro polygamy assertion that polygamy was never made illegal. That leads to the counterpoint to it was never legal. Both are actually correct and both miss the point because marriage was never a legal matter.

I pointed it out because it is right. The bolded portion does strengthen the case for polygamy and the reasoning is sound.

That is definitely a possibility.

I don't claim to know the mechanics of it. If i can reasonably arrive at polygamy is the only answer... I will go there, At the moment polygamy has the strongest case. However, annulment/setting aside and legitimizing a child still have the advantage of being mentioned and/or practiced in living memory. Hopefully we will all know soon.

If there was something to win; i would bet polygamy. As there is only something to lose (credibility) the risk doesn't justify the gamble. I play it safe: it could be one of 3 ways.

[Eira Seren]

That is tricky. Most religions do not hold vows made at sword point to constitute marriage. We have not seen a case where a Lord or even a King has failed to recognize a religious marriage. That is what makes marrying Alys off so important. Once it is done, no Lord can undo it. Once married, killing the husband seems to be the legal way to end the marriage. The religious path can grant an annulment.

I can't think of any in the south. I'm guessing in Aly's case, or someone else from the North, the Warden of the North could dissolve it, since no Septon is required here. Jon's decision was enough to undo any plans or betrothal that had already taken place. ETA: and reinforced by the hasty marriage to solidify the decision.

In one particular case, we can guess but still just don't know 1. That R and L married 2. That if they did, L was coerced into doing so.

[Eira Seren]

Obligatory pointing out the similarity between Alys Karstark and Lyanna Stark. A rushed marriage when the king (Stannis in Alys's case) is not around and the bride does not want to marry the groom.

Also, if you look at the words and ceremony of the Ramsey/fArya wedding and the Sigorn/Alys wedding, they are very, very similar. Has there been a thread about that?

Also, Jon has no business what-so-ever arranging this marriage. It is getting involved in the matters of the Realm. It might even be one of the reasons Marsh and co stabbed him.

No disagreement here, especially about the last sentence. However, as the last remaining Stark (as far as anyone cares to know), he decides to take matters into his own hands and do so. Now, who does that sound like?

[MtnLion]

Oh my.

Well, when you feed it, it will grow. Bigger and bigger, until arbitrary facts like the definition of marriage are thrown around just for good measure.

On a side note; I just finished reading ACOK chapter 23, Jon, and boy oh boy it is chock full with wordplay or foreshadowing or both on Jon as an authority figure(LC, King). (also Jon remembers Sansa fondly which is nice :))

- hmm, I wonder if Rhaegar ever thought something like this? ;)

hmm...

What does Jon do when he actually gets some power. Yeah, saves the wildlings, or tries to.

Do true kings feel shame?

This quote is interesting just by itself. Night's King may not be the only one who has done the dirty with a frosty lady. But if the word Others actually refers to some other species, like COTF and not just the WWs...

Great stuff.

[MtnLion]

I stumbled across a theory about the new High Septon. Except for the color of his eyes, I really find a startling similarity to the Reed kids, so I can see GRRM pulling it off. Who better to annoint the rightful King Jon when he arrives in King's Landing? ;) Howland Reed himself will make an appearance, as promised.

[Eira Seren]

I stumbled across a theory about the new High Septon. Except for the color of his eyes, I really find a startling similarity to the Reed kids, so I can see GRRM pulling it off. Who better to annoint the rightful King Jon when he arrives in King's Landing? ;) Howland Reed himself will make an appearance, as promised.

Somehow I see Howland Reed drowning himself in his own marsh before going over to the Seven. Especially if it meant having to hang out near Septa Unella.

ETA: ok I found and read it, and think the HS could be waiting for the rightful king. I'm not sold on him being Howland Reed, though.

Also, this

The HS has a rotten opinion of women, at least as bad as Randyll Tarly's. I'd hate to think of Meera, who is a fine hunter and capable with weapons, having to grow up with a father who would think so lowly of her and her mother.

Nope, not buying HR = HS.

[aDanceWithFlagons]

R+L=J sounds like a thread about Jon's parenatage and all that goes with it. I am mining for nuggets of information in the forums, and also comment and discuss my views and any info I dig up. One thing about the ToJ, we never see a baby there. If I remeber correctly we only here of a baby after Ned leaves Starfall. So I wonder if Jon could have been somewhere else while Lyanna was at the ToJ, and the KG were keeping her hostage. Has Jon obtaining proof of Targ legitimacy been discussed here?

If there is proof I think it will be better than the KGs, but I haven't come up with anything yet. Wouldn't it be funny if R + L = J, or something like that was chiseled into a piece of the Tower that was turned into cairns. What a D'oh moment that would be.

Anyway, I have seen little to no references to the KG in these last few pages, except in response to my posts. I am talking about the right to rule like most of the people here. My point is the Targ right to rule was taken away when the Kinga Landing was sacked. Any Targ left would have to fight to Win the throne. So if R+L = J, which I find most likely, then Jon never had the right to rule, legitimate or not. The Targ crown was gone with the Iron Throne.

If the Targs get their throne back somehow, then a Legitimate Jon would have the right to rule. Unless Aegon is Aegon and still alive. And, if Jon has some proof he is the legitimate son of Rhaegar.

As to the KG, yes they said usurper, but they did not say Targs are still the rulers. It seems to me they were there on orders and kept to those orders till death. They do not flee then or now.

I do not see the KG as proof of a legitimate Jon Targaryen. It makes it a possibility, and I am looking for more insight to Jon's parentage. So I will keep reading R+L=J and add some comments when I feel I should or want. Maybe I will find some more pieces to the puzzle.

[aDanceWithFlagons]

What about marriages that are made as political alliances, to align houses and secure allies? Any marriage made by the nobility is likely more a legal matter (it's a deal made in exchange for some form of commodity, physical or intangible). Any marriage made by royalty, even more so.

In Westeros any deal like this is considered a legally binding contract. Hence the reason Walder Frey not only takes it personally when Robb Stark breaks his betrothal, but gives Frey the perfect excuse to switch sides: contract broken, all terms are now off the table.

ETA: the reason that marriage has become an institution, and a matter for the state to become involved in (and control through licenses, etc) is because it is a money-maker for the state. As well as a means to regulate, keep the census, etc. Otherwise, who would care? Yet ministers can't just perform a ceremony and have a couple get legally married unless they fill out the paperwork and submit it. Perhaps GRRM hasn't given us the gritty details of what the Septons were required to do; the medieval Church and parish records would have sufficed in our world. The problem, imo, would be in the North, where there would be few records if using a Heart Tree. Probably someone --the lord, the Warden of the North, someone in charge would be advised for anyone who mattered.

Yes, it seems the Warden of the North or High Lords would know about and keep track of all the other lords and ladies marriages. Also to rule or judge the legality of the marriage. We see what happens when Ramsay forces a marriage on Lady Hornwood and claims her land. It is declared unlawful by the lords and Ramsay's claims are made null.

[corbon]

Those definitions look almost exactly the same.......what are you saying is different?

Well, for a start, Ygraine uses a noun definition to define the noun Usurper and stateofdissipation uses a verb definition to define the noun Usurper....

Can't say its a surprise.

Bringing it back to Rhaegar and Lyanna...It seems clear that the Faith of the Seven is against polygamy.

Seems 'clear' based on ... almost zero?

There is not a single instance in the books or from any character showing the faith having any problem with with Polygamy. Unlike Incest. In counter there is explicit acceptance of Targaryen polygamy in the books.

There is Martin's statement implying that having multiple wives could be considered defying the Faith. Although that part can also be considered a general statement, as incest is explicitly defying the faith in the books.

If Aerys Targaryen can engage in incest without a problem, despite it being explicitly against the Laws of Gods and Men, then there is no reason the much more popular and respected Rhaegar can't engage in Polygamy, which might be against the wishes of the Faith but is certainly not against the Laws for Targaryens.

According to GRRM, past Targaeryans were able to get away with it because they had dragons, but current Targaeryans cannot.

Fundamental reading skills... "Decreased markedly" does not mean 'decreased to zero'. Nor does "less likely to object" mean 'would definitely object before'. Nor does 'raise objections' mean 'prevent'.

True or false? Incest is definitively against the Laws of Gods and Men.

Where does polygamy stand in relation to incest? Worse? Less bad? Equal? At the very very least you cannot say worse than equal, since we have explicit prohibitions against incest, both legal and religious on the one hand, yet merely an implication it is against the opinions of the lords, common convention, and the Faith on the other.

True or false? The Targaryens can and are getting away with incest at the time. Without Dragons.

I also find it quite ridiculous that the Faith could "change its mind" about Targaryen Polygamy, having accepted the Targaryens were able to practice it before (when they had dragons).

The Faith cannot lose so much face doing that, or people will literally lose faith. It sends a direct message. "Our Gods are weak and have no principles. If you are strong (have dragons) you can defy our god's rules and they will bow before that defiance".

[Alia of the knife]

I wonder/speculate if part of Hightowers mission was a truce between Aerys and Rhaegar, and if Rhaegar would come back and lead the Targaryen forces, he would give his blessing to Rhaegar and Lyanna?

Thus ended "Rhaegars Rebellion."

[Eira Seren]

I wonder/speculate if part of Hightowers mission was a truce between Aerys and Rhaegar, and if Rhaegar would come back and lead the Targaryen forces, he would give his blessing to Rhaegar and Lyanna?

Thus ended "Rhaegars Rebellion."

That's a good one. I still wonder why Hightower stayed at the TOJ when Rhaegar left, and also why Rhaegar would have left Elia and the kids with Aerys, or trusted that they would be safe with few KG guarding them in KL (only 3?). That would make 3 at the TOJ and Jaime + ?? at KL?

[Alia of the knife]

That's a good one. I still wonder why Hightower stayed at the TOJ when Rhaegar left, and also why Rhaegar would have left Elia and the kids with Aerys, or trusted that they would be safe with few KG guarding them in KL (only 3?). That would make 3 at the TOJ and Jaime + ?? at KL?

I think the simplest answer is that he didn't expect to ever lose, or that KL would fall.

Perhaps whatever prophesy he read was like the one Cersei read, and one with a vastly different meaning than he interpreted.

[Eira Seren]

I think the simplest answer is that he didn't expect to ever lose, or that KL would fall.

Perhaps whatever prophesy he read was like the one Cersei read, and one with a vastly different meaning than he interpreted.

So Rhaegar and Cersei really were perfect for each other all along. No, kidding -- recipe for utter disaster! It does make me see him as a bit unhinged, though, not the nostalgic picture of him that Jaime, JonCon and Selmy have.