Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Stubby

R+L=J v 75

Recommended Posts

No, "A Dancle with Dragons" is no book by Grrm. :-)

... and Rhaenys. Did we ever learn if he fed Balerion? ...

... nearly been made the missing hand of the king ...

0.

And noooo R+L=Jaime :-)

It was more of a... let us please not use Jamie as the example of the KG...or proof that the first duty of the KG is to guard the king

It is like asking Benedict Arnold about the virtues of the American Revolution,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not gonna convince a person who has Jon Non Regis as a username no matter the evidence.

Especially when that username, to be taken seriously, should be Jon Non Rex (est). But Latin is an opinion on these boards, it is known ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently Mance is Jon's father and Lyanna his mom...Just because. And this thread and people in it are some zealot order hell bent on the idea of Jon being the king. :stillsick: Interesting new interpretations of the text in that Heresy thread.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially when that username, to be taken seriously, should be Jon Non Rex (est). But Latin is an opinion on these boards, it is known ;)

He did have a couple of valid points. The KG not proving R married L was one. Half of his assumptions about the KG and the flow of information were valid. The other half simply failed to account for Ned's indirect and slower approach to the ToJ. Hardly a fools error, It shows that he at least attempted to critically examine the ToJ scene,

His largest mistake was the invention of the KG must obey royal orders principle of the KG. It is too easily disproven and contradicts all accounts of the vow.

After that his very poor paraphrasing ("We are Kingsguard" instead of Kingsguard does not flee... then or now ) changes a clear warning into an uninvited history lesson and statements of the obvious, That obscures the fact that "We swore a vow" may not be linked to the KG vow. He sacrificed a valid textual interpretation (they swore a vow to Rhaegar) to poor paraphrasing and lost his strongest case against the KG necessarily meaning king present. Instead he relied on repetition of his invention "KG obey royal commands."

He was actually correct on polygamy. It is the unlikeliest argument for Jon's legitamacy. However he ignored the over 3 months Rhaegar had to solve the problem and two other viable alternatives (Royal decree and setting a wife aside) He did seem a bit more interested in proving a point that discovering the truth.

If one would like to make the case against Jon being king it is much easier:

Jon was never confirmed by the faith as king (a point Cersei gave up the faith militant to accomplish) and that he swore to the wall which precludes him from holding titles. The before the point arguments are very well and good. (In time they may be verified). However, the point at the moment is that Jon is Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. (if he survives)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The maid loved Bael so dearly she bore him a son, the song says... what’s certain is that Bael left the child in payment for the rose he’d plucked unasked, and that the boy grew to be the next Lord Stark.

Is it actually stated anywhere that the child was a bastard?

No, but Mance does describe it as Bael stealing the girl, which, for as far as I know, equals a wildling marriage, doesn't it? Making the boy Bael left behind (who grew up to become the new Lord of Winterfell) a trueborn son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@corbon The idea of personal space is different for Orientals than for Westerners. The world of Westeros seesm to be a mixture of both. Highborn ladies do command a great deal of respect, presumably to protect their virtue. There is such a thing as respectful distance, and it primarily (even in modern times) centers about the reproductive areas. (For instance observe a woman hugging a non-mate, you will notice full bosom contact while the hips are withheld.) In the orient contact is much more casual.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but Mance does describe it as Bael stealing the girl, which, for as far as I know, equals a wildling marriage, doesn't it? Making the boy Bael left behind (who grew up to become the new Lord of Winterfell) a trueborn son.

That's what I'm hinting at. Plus, with the weirwoods close by... how do we actually know that they didn't say the words, as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did have a couple of valid points. The KG not proving R married L was one. Half of his assumptions about the KG and the flow of information were valid. The other half simply failed to account for Ned's indirect and slower approach to the ToJ. Hardly a fools error, It shows that he at least attempted to critically examine the ToJ scene,

His largest mistake was the invention of the KG must obey royal orders principle of the KG. It is too easily disproven and contradicts all accounts of the vow.

After that his very poor paraphrasing ("We are Kingsguard" instead of Kingsguard does not flee... then or now ) changes a clear warning into an uninvited history lesson and statements of the obvious, That obscures the fact that "We swore a vow" may not be linked to the KG vow. He sacrificed a valid textual interpretation (they swore a vow to Rhaegar) to poor paraphrasing and lost his strongest case against the KG necessarily meaning king present. Instead he relied on repetition of his invention "KG obey royal commands."

He was actually correct on polygamy. It is the unlikeliest argument for Jon's legitamacy. However he ignored the over 3 months Rhaegar had to solve the problem and two other viable alternatives (Royal decree and setting a wife aside) He did seem a bit more interested in proving a point that discovering the truth.

If one would like to make the case against Jon being king it is much easier:

Jon was never confirmed by the faith as king (a point Cersei gave up the faith militant to accomplish) and that he swore to the wall which precludes him from holding titles. The before the point arguments are very well and good. (In time they may be verified). However, the point at the moment is that Jon is Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. (if he survives)

Wrong. Rhaegar, as the crown prince, could have a marriage ceremony performed. He would have that power. Yet that same title would not allow him to legitimize Jon, for certain. And while I'm not 100% sure, I don't believe the crown prince could just set aside his wife without the approval of the king. The references in the story regarding Robert and Cersei aren't a match, since Robert was the king.

In other words, Rhaegar would have to take the additional step of becoming king in order to legitimize Jon, and probably to set aside Elia. Yet, he could marry Lyanna as the crown prince. Therefore, polygamy is the likeliest path to legitimacy for Jon.

Also, one argument we see brought up time and again is that polygamy hadn't been practiced in over two centuries, which would supposedly mean that it's not valid anymore. But I don't think so. In fact, we have a pretty good precedent right in the story of an even older institution than Targaryen polygamy being revived.

MY LORDS!” he shouted, his voice booming off the rafters. “Here is what I say to these two kings!” He spat. “Renly Baratheon is nothing to me, nor Stannis neither. Why should they rule over me and mine, from some flowery seat in Highgarden or Dorne? What do they know of the Wall or the wolfswood or the barrows of the First Men? Even their gods are wrong. The Others take the Lannisters too, I’ve had a bellyful of them.” He reached back over his shoulder and drew his immense two-handed greatsword. “Why shouldn’t we rule ourselves again? It was the dragons we married, and the dragons are all dead!” He pointed at Robb with the blade. “There sits the only king I mean to bow my knee to, m’lords,” he thundered. “The King in the North!”

And he knelt, and laid his sword at her son’s feet.

“I’ll have peace on those terms,” Lord Karstark said. “They can keep their red castle and their iron chair as well.” He eased his longsword from its scabbard. “The King in the North!” he said, kneeling beside the Greatjon.

Maege Mormont stood. “The King of Winter!” she declared, and laid her spiked mace beside the swords. And the river lords were rising too, Blackwood and Bracken and Mallister, houses who had never been ruled from Winterfell, yet Catelyn watched them rise and draw their blades, bending their knees and shouting the old words that had not been heard in the realm for more than three hundred years, since Aegon the Dragon had come to make the Seven Kingdoms one… yet now were heard again, ringing from the timbers of her father’s hall:

“The King in the North!”

“The King in the North!”

THE KING IN THE NORTH!”

- AGoT, Catelyn XI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. Rhaegar, as the crown prince, could have a marriage ceremony performed. He would have that power. Yet that same title would not allow him to legitimize Jon, for certain. And while I'm not 100% sure, I don't believe the crown prince could just set aside his wife without the approval of the king. The references in the story regarding Robert and Cersei aren't a match, since Robert was the king.

In other words, Rhaegar would have to take the additional step of becoming king in order to legitimize Jon, and probably to set aside Elia. Yet, he could marry Lyanna as the crown prince. Therefore, polygamy is the likeliest path to legitimacy for Jon.

Also, one argument we see brought up time and again is that polygamy hadn't been practiced in over two centuries, which would supposedly mean that it's not valid anymore. But I don't think so. In fact, we have a pretty good precedent right in the story of an even older institution than Targaryen polygamy being revived.

- AGoT, Catelyn XI

Plus, that little detail that performing a marriage ceremony before weirwood requires no-one's approval.

Also, a nice job with Robb proclaimed king, after 300 years without a King in the North. Kinda reminds me of the mormon polygamy inspired by the biblical accounts going back thousands, not just hundred years. Where there's a will...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, that little detail that performing a marriage ceremony before weirwood requires no-one's approval.

Also, a nice job with Robb proclaimed king, after 300 years without a King in the North. Kinda reminds me of the mormon polygamy inspired by the biblical accounts going back thousands, not just hundred years. Where there's a will...

Yeah, this too.

Wrt to the Robb-KitN passage I posted, it just occurred to me that it's a really good counter argument to the polygamy doesn't count anymore (or whatever?) argument. I guess the only reason it hasn't been brought up before, to my knowledge, is that the precedent argument is already a strong enough refutation. That said, it might be worth mentioning from now on. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. Rhaegar, as the crown prince, could have a marriage ceremony performed. He would have that power. Yet that same title would not allow him to legitimize Jon, for certain. And while I'm not 100% sure, I don't believe the crown prince could just set aside his wife without the approval of the king. The references in the story regarding Robert and Cersei aren't a match, since Robert was the king.

In other words, Rhaegar would have to take the additional step of becoming king in order to legitimize Jon, and probably to set aside Elia. Yet, he could marry Lyanna as the crown prince. Therefore, polygamy is the likeliest path to legitimacy for Jon.

Also, one argument we see brought up time and again is that polygamy hadn't been practiced in over two centuries, which would supposedly mean that it's not valid anymore. But I don't think so. In fact, we have a pretty good precedent right in the story of an even older institution than Targaryen polygamy being revived.

- AGoT, Catelyn XI

Agreed... and I'd like to add the Ironborn kingsmoot, a tradition that had not been performed for at least the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of it tends to come down to acceptance. Robb never proclaimed himself King, the people following him did and we see how that acceptance works. The same goes for most of the shit in westeros. What is popular this week, are people ok with it.

Bolton kidnapped a woman and married her and kept her locked in a tower. Nobody really seemed to question the marriage. I think that story not that I am saying it is the same thing, tends to give a good idea of marriage in the North as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed... and I'd like to add the Ironborn kingsmoot, a tradition that had not been performed for at least the same time.

Yes! It's almost like they're basing their actions on some sort of precedent or something. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. Rhaegar, as the crown prince, could have a marriage ceremony performed. He would have that power. Yet that same title would not allow him to legitimize Jon, for certain. And while I'm not 100% sure, I don't believe the crown prince could just set aside his wife without the approval of the king. The references in the story regarding Robert and Cersei aren't a match, since Robert was the king.

In other words, Rhaegar would have to take the additional step of becoming king in order to legitimize Jon, and probably to set aside Elia. Yet, he could marry Lyanna as the crown prince. Therefore, polygamy is the likeliest path to legitimacy for Jon.

Also, one argument we see brought up time and again is that polygamy hadn't been practiced in over two centuries, which would supposedly mean that it's not valid anymore. But I don't think so. In fact, we have a pretty good precedent right in the story of an even older institution than Targaryen polygamy being revived.

- AGoT, Catelyn XI

Rhaegar had 3 months before Lyanna became pregnant to come up with a solution and there are two methods of making a child legitimate. 1 parents being married 2 royal decree

1. a. polygamy b. setting aside a wife

a. has not been practiced in the Seven Kingdoms since the dragons died.

b. has textual references to include Cersei and Tyrion

2. legitimizing a bastard mentioned by Robb and Stannis and practiced by Joffrey

Polygamy: Least likely because it has not been practiced or mentioned as a practice in the seven kingdoms outside of ancient history. The other two have,

I did not specify a mechanism nor speculate as to who could do what or when anything happened. Lyanna was "kidnapped" some time before the rebellion. The rebellion took a year to reach KL and Ned travelled from there to Storm's End before going to the Tower of Joy. This is considerably longer than 9 months. Now nothing precluded Rhaegar form pursuing a solution to wed his queen of love and beauty from the tournament at Harrenhal before Lyanna was "kidnapped." Rhaegar had a minimum of 3 months (bare minimum) to find a solution to wed Lyanna or legitimize Jon.

I also did not speculate on:

The powers of a crown prince

the legality of being married in the faith of the seven and before the old gods

the ceremonial requirements for a wedding in the eyes of the old gods

or Mormons

I have no idea how: It was the dragons we married, and the dragons are all dead!” could possibly be a coherent part of the argument. Eventhough the speech does refer to Targs 300 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I'm hinting at. Plus, with the weirwoods close by... how do we actually know that they didn't say the words, as well?

That as well. I think Bael's son was definitly a trueborn son, one way or the other (or both).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! It's almost like they're basing their actions on some sort of precedent or something. :)

My, who would have thought... ;-)

That as well. I think Bael's son was definitly a trueborn son, one way or the other (or both).

Yeah, a Prince King Beyond the Wall having a secret marriage and rsiring a trueborn child on a daughter of Winterfell, that rings a bell :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polygamy: Least likely because it has not been practiced or mentioned as a practice in the seven kingdoms outside of ancient history. The other two have,

You've drawn an arbitrary line here. Older =/= less likely.

Rhaegar could have married Lyanna without his father's approval. He could not have legitimized Jon or set aside Elia without his father's approval, or at least his father's involvement in the latter case. In the former case, only Aerys could legitimize Jon. Therefore, from Rhaegar's POV, polygamy was the likeliest option for making Jon legitimate, because it was the one he could do on his own authority; i.e., without his father's approval.

I have no idea how: It was the dragons we married, and the dragons are all dead!” could possibly be a coherent part of the argument. Eventhough the speech does refer to Targs 300 years old.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if you missed the point of the passage I posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My, who would have thought... ;-)

Yeah, a Prince King Beyond the Wall having a secret marriage and rsiring a trueborn child on a daughter of Winterfell, that rings a bell :-)

I'd like to add that Bael only became King beyond the Wall after siring this child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My, who would have thought... ;-)

Yeah, a Prince King Beyond the Wall having a secret marriage and rsiring a trueborn child on a daughter of Winterfell, that rings a bell :-)

O my, yes it does :)

I'd like to add that Bael only became King beyond the Wall after siring this child.

Which would mean that Bael wasn't a king when he sired his son. Do we know about anyone else who might have done so before he would be king? Hmm...

Bells continue to ring.

But seriously, this only makes the parallel better, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which would mean that Bael wasn't a king when he sired his son. Do we know about anyone else who might have done so before he would be king? Hmm...

Bells continue to ring.

But seriously, this only makes the parallel better, IMO.

That wasn't lost on me, either :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×