R+L=J v 75

[stateofdissipation]

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

the line is not seen=unlikely

Rhaegar could have married Lyanna without his father's approval

This is not based on text. It is your creation because you would like to establish what follows. Furthermore you misrepresent your own position Rhaegar could have ENGAGED IN POLYGAMY without his father's approval. Would be the accurate account of your position. You find representing your own position accurately does not help your case.

He could not have legitimized Jon or set aside Elia without his father's apprroval,

Accurately, Aerys could have legitimized Rhaegar's children (as per Joffrey, Robb and Stannis). As Rhaegar was married in the faith of the seven a septon could annul (as per Tyrion). The mechanism of setting aside the spouse is not mentioned,

because it was the one he could do on his own authority; i.e., without his father's approval.

This is tied inherently to your initial fabrication. He could have married (polygamy) on his own authority. (implied that the second "marriage" would have been legal and recognized,)

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

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!”

You apparently assume that the North wishes to return to their old polygamous ways. That is to assume they had old polygamous ways. Polygamous ways based on absolutely nothing in the text. There is nothing to link that passage to the discussion save your invention that the north used to practice polygamy. Is there a single King of Winterfell that was listed as having multiple wives at the same time?

i quite got what you tried to imply. However your quote (nor any other that I am aware of) fails to support your assumption or your conclusion.

Rhaegar had a bare minimum of 3 months to come up with a solution

1. polygamy

2. setting aside his first wife

3. Legitimizing his bastards

2 of 3 were practiced in the Seven Kingdoms in living memory and are mentioned in the text as practices or possibilities. Polygamy is not one of those.

[stateofdissipation]

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

Legal precedent

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts..

The precedent of the Kingsmoot remains unclear. However, the death of Balon and the lack of an available heir could hardly be called a "normal" matter of succession.

Marriage on the other hand could hardly be called uncommon. The practices were ruled by custom.

Custom

Long-held custom, which has traditionally been recognized by courts and judges, is the first kind of precedent. Custom can be so deeply entrenched in the society at large that it gains the force of law. There need never have been a specific case decided on the same or similar issues in order for a court to take notice of customary or traditional precedent in its deliberations.

[stateofdissipation]

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.

When was that?

Was it Brandon the daughterless or Brandon buried in the crypts?

and who was his son?

Torrhen/Harlon or Barth?

and we do know that either happened in the time of dragons.

[J. Stargaryen]

the line is not seen=unlikely

What do you mean "not seen"? The idea of polygamy has been brought up, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Rhaegar could have married Lyanna without his father's approval

This is not based on text. It is your creation because you would like to establish what follows. Furthermore you misrepresent your own position Rhaegar could have ENGAGED IN POLYGAMY without his father's approval. Would be the accurate account of your position. You find representing your own position accurately does not help your case.

The polygamous nature of the marriage was implied. So please, don't accuse me of misrepresenting my position because I did you the courtesy of assuming you didn't need such details spelled out.

He could not have legitimized Jon or set aside Elia without his father's apprroval,

Accurately, Aerys could have legitimized Rhaegar's children (as per Joffrey, Robb and Stannis). As Rhaegar was married in the faith of the seven a septon could annul (as per Tyrion). The mechanism of setting aside the spouse is not mentioned,

In any case, these actions would require the involvement of people besides Rhaegar, Lyanna and possibly a septon + a witness or two. In the case of a polygamous marriage, especially one conducted in front of a heart tree, no authorities need be involved.

So, which one is more likely, folks: the one where Rhaegar can keep his secret relationship a secret, or the one where he has to get the church, his father et al. involved?

because it was the one he could do on his own authority; i.e., without his father's approval.

This is tied inherently to your initial fabrication. He could have married (polygamy) on his own authority. (implied that the second "marriage" would have been legal and recognized,)

There is no initial fabrication. And there is nothing in the text to suggest that taking a second wife would have been illegal for Rhaegar. Maybe someone could have contested the legality of the act after a marriage had taken place. But, if Rhaegar wanted to marry Lyanna, as his second wife, there were ways for him to do that.

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

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!”

You apparently assume that the North wishes to return to their old polygamous ways. That is to assume they had old polygamous ways. Polygamous ways based on absolutely nothing in the text. There is nothing to link that passage to the discussion save your invention that the north used to practice polygamy. Is there a single King of Winterfell that was listed as having multiple wives at the same time?

i quite got what you tried to imply. However your quote (nor any other that I am aware of) fails to support your assumption or your conclusion.

Lol. No. Sorry, but this is an epic reading comprehension fail. The point was that the Northerners and Riverlanders had no problem naming Robb the KitN, even though there hadn't been a KitN for ~300 years. You know, as in longer ago than the last Targaryen polygamous marriage. :)

Rhaegar had a bare minimum of 3 months to come up with a solution

1. polygamy

2. setting aside his first wife

3. Legitimizing his bastards

2 of 3 were practiced in the Seven Kingdoms in living memory and are mentioned in the text as practices or possibilities. Polygamy is not one of those.

Doesn't matter.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

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!”

You apparently assume that the North wishes to return to their old polygamous ways. That is to assume they had old polygamous ways. Polygamous ways based on absolutely nothing in the text. There is nothing to link that passage to the discussion save your invention that the north used to practice polygamy. Is there a single King of Winterfell that was listed as having multiple wives at the same time?

Might just be me, but I don't see how the passage of the Northern lords declaring their independence suggests that the North ever had polygamous ways...

I think what was originally meant by quoting this passage, was that there was something else that hadn't been done for more than 200 years: The North declaring independence.

When was that?

Was it Brandon the daughterless or Brandon buried in the crypts?

and who was his son?

Torrhen/Harlon or Barth?

and we do know that either happened in the time of dragons.

The Stark Lord at the time was Brandon the Daughterless. It was his daughter who got stolen by Bael, and his grandson who became Lord of Winterfell after him. This grandson was the Stark Lord who killed Bael 30 years later, when Bael tried to invade the Seven Kingdoms as King-beyond-the-Wall.

No further names are given in the story.

Brandon the Daughterless is most likely burried in the crypts of Winterfell, just as his grandson, who was Lord of Winterfell after him.

[stateofdissipation]

1) What do you mean "not seen"? The idea of polygamy has been brought up, so I'm not sure what you mean.

2) The polygamous nature of the marriage was implied. So please, don't accuse me of misrepresenting my position because I did you the courtesy of assuming you didn't need such details spelled out.

3) In any case, these action would require the involvement of people besides Rhaegar, Lyanna and possibly a septon + a witness or two. In the case of a polygamous marriage, especially one conducted in front of a heart tree, no authorities need be involved.

4) So, which one is more likely, folks: the one where Rhaegar can keep his secret relationship a secret, or the one where he has to get the church, his father et al. involved?

5) There is no initial fabrication. And there is nothing in the text to suggest that taking a second wife would have been illegal for Rhaegar. Maybe someone could have contested the legality of the act after a marriage had taken place. But, if Rhaegar wanted to marry Lyanna, as his second wife, there were ways for him to do that.

6) Lol. No. Sorry, but this is an epic reading comprehension fail. The point was that the Northerners and Riverlanders had no problem naming Robb the KitN, even though there hadn't been a KitN for ~300 years. You know, as in longer ago than the last Targaryen polygamous marriage. :)

Doesn't matter.

1) You've drawn an arbitrary line here. Older =/= less likely. to which I replied not seen=unlikely. This is hardly an arbitrary line. Aliens with rayguns=not seen. Aliens with rayguns invading westeros=unlikely.

Polygamy not seen or practiced or mentioned in living memory=less likely Practiced, seen, and mentioned in recent history=more likely.

2) polygamous marriage outside the Seven Kingdoms is stated, Polygamy in the Seven Kingdoms not practiced by the Targaryens since the death of the dragons. The details you spelled out were A. Rhaegar could have engaged in polygamy without his father's (or the faith of the seven's *implied) consent. You stated B: Rhaegar could have married without his father's consent. A=/=B. B is a reasonable statement. A is questionable. You chose the one most favorable to your case.

3) The heart tree marriage without witnesses. I do not think there is such a ceremony recorded in the books. NAME married NAME in front of the heart tree with nobody else present. This does not ring a bell. Perhaps you could provide a chapter or a book it came from. At any rate, can we find a case in the books or in the history provided in the books where a man was married in the faith of the seven to a woman and married to another woman before the old gods without a witness? If so was the child recognized as legitimate?

4) Given we have no evidence of either happening. We are left with evidence of what has happened in recent history: annulment practiced, setting aside mentioned, and legitimization practiced. By-the-by who said the relationship was a "secret "? Not widely known among enemies=/="secret."

5) The "ways" for Rhaegar to take on a second wife are either in Book__________ Chapter___________ or they are a fabrication. (The fact that Targs in the time of dragons had done so is not a way. They had a "way" but it was not mentioned..) Now there is actually much in the text to support that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married. (Hopefully we agree on that) There are a few generations without polygamy in the Seven Kingdoms to suggest that it was not practiced. There is nothing to suggest that it was practiced by anyone in that timeframe. I never claimed it was illegal... or a sin in the eyes of the faith.. or was an impossibility. There is no evidence for or against Rhaegar practicing polygamy. It is not mentioned. There is also no evidence for or against Rhaegar setting Elia aside. There is also no evidence for or against Jon being a legitimized bastard. We do have evidence of annulment, reference to setting aside, and legitimization but none of polygamy (in the Seven Kingdoms).

6) So I gave your post credit for more relation to the topic than it actually had. Claims of the right to self rule and independence from the Seven Kingdoms were last made 9 years earlier by Balon. They did not proclaim Robb king of the North based on past rights. They proclaimed it by present might. Without dragons, the Seven Kingdoms lacked the power to force the North to swear fealty. They did it before the dragons and since the dragons were gone there is no reason they can't do it again.

The north and the faith of the seven yielded to Targaryen dragons. When the dragons died the Targs did not practice polygamy. Without dragons, the Seven Kingdoms could not rule the North.

Facts matter:

Rhaegar had a bare minimum of 3 months to come up with a solution

1. polygamy

2. setting aside his first wife

3. Legitimizing his bastards

2 of 3 were practiced in the Seven Kingdoms in living memory and are mentioned in the text as practices or possibilities. Polygamy is not one of those.

There are many clues that Jon is legitiate, There are none of how he became legitimate, There was time for it to happen and a variety of ways for it to have happened. To attempt to establish there is only one way and to exclude viable practiced methods in favor of ancient practices is a mistake. In the end, it does not matter how... there were ways and time to accomplish any one.

The question you seem so intent on banishing is: how could R marry L when he was already married to Lyanna?

The real answer is we can't be sure of how, when, or if R married L.

The "if" is established by numerous clues throughout the text. (I can provide a list if you wish)

The "when" can be established within a window: Rhaegar had from the tournament at Harrenhal until before the Battle of the Trident to accomplish it. Cat gave birth 9 months after her wedding. Lyanna gave birth well over a year after she vanished with Rhaegar.

The "how" is most likely 1. polygamy 2. setting aside Elia 3. royal decree legitimizing Rhaegar's child

each has it's difficulties and some positive aspects.

There is nothing wrong with admitting we can't be sure. There is no proof that R+L=J. There is no proof that Jon is legitimate. However the weight of the evidence strongly suggests that both are the case.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

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?

I think, as Jon and Ygritte both say... the answer to that is "all in where you're standing."

As I've noted elsewhere - south of the Wall, all wildlings are bastards. (And all bastards are wildlings...)

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Facts matter:

Rhaegar had a bare minimum of 3 months to come up with a solution

1. polygamy

2. setting aside his first wife

3. Legitimizing his bastards

2 of 3 were practiced in the Seven Kingdoms in living memory and are mentioned in the text as practices or possibilities. Polygamy is not one of those.

There are many clues that Jon is legitiate, There are none of how he became legitimate, There was time for it to happen and a variety of ways for it to have happened. To attempt to establish there is only one way and to exclude viable practiced methods in favor of ancient practices is a mistake. In the end, it does not matter how... there were ways and time to accomplish any one.

The question you seem so intent on banishing is: how could R marry L when he was already married to Lyanna?

The real answer is we can't be sure of how, when, or if R married L.

The "if" is established by numerous clues throughout the text. (I can provide a list if you wish)

The "when" can be established within a window: Rhaegar had from the tournament at Harrenhal until before the Battle of the Trident to accomplish it. Cat gave birth 9 months after her wedding. Lyanna gave birth well over a year after she vanished with Rhaegar.

The "how" is most likely 1. polygamy 2. setting aside Elia 3. royal decree legitimizing Rhaegar's child

each has it's difficulties and some positive aspects.

There is nothing wrong with admitting we can't be sure. There is no proof that R+L=J. There is no proof that Jon is legitimate. However the weight of the evidence strongly suggests that both are the case.

And how does one become legitimate? Especially when the father dies before the birth.

Setting aside your wife does not automatically mean that the child you have by another woman is your heir. The children of the first marriage need to be taken out of the line of inherinence, and the child of the second woman would need to be taken in the line of legitimacy. That can happen in only two ways: either the man has to marry the woman before the birth, or he has to legitimize the child/have the child legitimized, something which can only be done by a king. No king legitimized baby Jon, however. Aerys died before Jon was born, and Robert, the next king, did not do so either.

Polygamy hasn't been practiced for a while, but neither has it been banned from law.

[stateofdissipation]

Might just be me, but I don't see how the passage of the Northern lords declaring their independence suggests that the North ever had polygamous ways...

I think what was originally meant by quoting this passage, was that there was something else that hadn't been done for more than 200 years: The North declaring independence.

The Stark Lord at the time was Brandon the Daughterless. It was his daughter who got stolen by Bael, and his grandson who became Lord of Winterfell after him. This grandson was the Stark Lord who killed Bael 30 years later, when Bael tried to invade the Seven Kingdoms as King-beyond-the-Wall.

No further names are given in the story.

Brandon the Daughterless is most likely burried in the crypts of Winterfell, just as his grandson, who was Lord of Winterfell after him.

The north bent the knee to Aegon closer to 300 years earlier. Since then the north hadn't been independent for fear of the dragons. But that is beside the point. The passage was used as support of the idea that polygamy was practiced in the Seven Kingdoms. I was just trying to see how it connected to the topic. It really doesnt. The North never declared independence, it only bent the knee to Aegon.

I know the story. I just wanted to point out that the wilding version seems a little strange in that they seem to be calling Kings of the North Lords. It would be natural, they had been calling the Starks Lords for 300 years.

Well Bran the daughterless is given as King Brandon... that puts him as 300 years ago at a minimum his son was also King.

Before Aegon the Starks were Kings and not Lords. The list of Stark Lords after Aegon only includes one Brandon and that was 10 generations before Rickard.

The Lord Brandon in the crypts is not King Brandon the daughterless.

I get where the story is going in relation to Jon being legitimate. However, either way that was a story that was told is ancient, It is before Aegon or it is during the time of the dragons. If you need to go back 300 plus years or 10 generations (to the time of dragons) to prove your legitimacy point, you might want to try barking up another tree.

[J. Stargaryen]

The north bent the knee to Aegon closer to 300 years earlier. Since then the north hadn't been independent for fear of the dragons. But that is beside the point. The passage was used as support of the idea that polygamy was practiced in the Seven Kingdoms. I was just trying to see how it connected to the topic. It really doesnt. The North never declared independence, it only bent the knee to Aegon.

I know the story. I just wanted to point out that the wilding version seems a little strange in that they seem to be calling Kings of the North Lords. It would be natural, they had been calling the Starks Lords for 300 years.

Well Bran the daughterless is given as King Brandon... that puts him as 300 years ago at a minimum his son was also King.

Before Aegon the Starks were Kings and not Lords. The list of Stark Lords after Aegon only includes one Brandon and that was 10 generations before Rickard.

The Lord Brandon in the crypts is not King Brandon the daughterless.

I get where the story is going in relation to Jon being legitimate. However, either way that was a story that was told is ancient, It is before Aegon or it is during the time of the dragons. If you need to go back 300 plus years or 10 generations (to the time of dragons) to prove your legitimacy point, you might want to try barking up another tree.

No, it wasn't. You're making a fool of yourself.

[Sasha Steelsong]

The north bent the knee to Aegon closer to 300 years earlier. Since then the north hadn't been independent for fear of the dragons. But that is beside the point. The passage was used as support of the idea that polygamy was practiced in the Seven Kingdoms. I was just trying to see how it connected to the topic. It really doesnt. The North never declared independence, it only bent the knee to Aegon.

I know the story. I just wanted to point out that the wilding version seems a little strange in that they seem to be calling Kings of the North Lords. It would be natural, they had been calling the Starks Lords for 300 years.

Well Bran the daughterless is given as King Brandon... that puts him as 300 years ago at a minimum his son was also King.

Before Aegon the Starks were Kings and not Lords. The list of Stark Lords after Aegon only includes one Brandon and that was 10 generations before Rickard.

The Lord Brandon in the crypts is not King Brandon the daughterless.

I get where the story is going in relation to Jon being legitimate. However, either way that was a story that was told is ancient, It is before Aegon or it is during the time of the dragons. If you need to go back 300 plus years or 10 generations (to the time of dragons) to prove your legitimacy point, you might want to try barking up another tree.

No it really wasn't. It was used to show that something that had not existed or been used for 300 years (give or take a couple years) - a period of time longer than polygamy had been out of practice with the Targaryens - came back into use when the lords wanted it too. The fact that there had been no King in the North for 300 years did not stop them from using the title, like the fact that the Targaryens had not practiced polygamy in several generations might not have stopped Rhaegar from reviving the practice because it suited his purposes.

[stateofdissipation]

And how does one become legitimate? Especially when the father dies before the birth.

Setting aside your wife does not automatically mean that the child you have by another woman is your heir. The children of the first marriage need to be taken out of the line of inherinence, and the child of the second woman would need to be taken in the line of legitimacy. That can happen in only two ways: either the man has to marry the woman before the birth, or he has to legitimize the child/have the child legitimized, something which can only be done by a king. No king legitimized baby Jon, however. Aerys died before Jon was born, and Robert, the next king, did not do so either.

Polygamy hasn't been practiced for a while, but neither has it been banned from law.

One is legitimate if the father and mother were married at the time of birth (yes this includes dead husbands) or one is legitimized by royal decree (again even if the father has died)

Agreed, had Aegon not gotten his head crushed by the Mountain, he would have been the heir. His death kind of took him out of the line. The child of the second wife is in line, just second in line.

(if fAegon is real he is first in line.)

Between the tournament at Harrenhal where Rhaegar named Lyanna queen of love and beauty and Rhaegar's death on the Trident, there is no evidence of what Aerys did or did not do, We know only of Jamie's reports of wildfire production. Notably he does not mention the Kings justice, taxes, diplomatic relations with Dorne, relationships with the Tyrells... In fact there is little reason to believe that Jamie was privy to Targaryen family matters other than standing outside as Aerys raped Rhaella. We also have not seen a situation where a man wished to legitimize a child before its birth. That does not make it impossible. There is no rule establishing a bastard has to be born before it is legitimized.

Practiced in a while... Interesting term and much kinder than "had not been practiced since there were dragons." It was not last week the targs gave up the practice. There is nothing inherently legal or illegal about a marriage. It was a religous matter not a civil or criminal matter. There were not state sanctioned unions outside of any faith. To say that it was not declared illegal is not exactly fair or accurate. There is nothing to suggest either the faith of the seven or the old gods of the North allowed polygamy. There is no evidence it was practiced by anyone outside the Targs in the Seven Kingdoms and no evidence they were able to practice it after the death of the dragons.

Polygamy is not impossible. However, there is no evidence to support it over the other methods of legitimizing a child. The fact that the other methods were practiced in living memory make them more likely. Much as during Robert's rebellion it was more likely to be killed by a sword than by an Other.

[stateofdissipation]

No, it wasn't. You're making a fool of yourself.

Enlighten me then.... which geneology are you using?

[Ygrain]

No it really wasn't. It was used to show that something that had not existed or been used for 300 years (give or take a couple years) - a period of time longer than polygamy had been out of practice with the Targaryens - came back into use when the lords wanted it too. The fact that there had been no King in the North for 300 years did not stop them from using the title, like the fact that the Targaryens had not practiced polygamy in several generations might not have stopped Rhaegar from reviving the practice because it suited his purposes.

WB, long time no see :-)

Short, precise, to the point - hopefully, it will get through now.

[Ygrain]

I think, as Jon and Ygritte both say... the answer to that is "all in where you're standing."

As I've noted elsewhere - south of the Wall, all wildlings are bastards. (And all bastards are wildlings...)

The child, though, was a son of Winterfell, and did become its Lord. Now, of course, we don't know how the story originated or what the real circumstances were, but I've seen an automatic assumption that the child was bastard-born and it made me think whether this assumption is actually text-based, or just an assumption.

[Sasha Steelsong]

WB, long time no see :-)

Short, precise, to the point - hopefully, it will get through now.

Thanks! Life has been busy but the show and re-reads have brought me back, as they always will.

[J. Stargaryen]

1) You've drawn an arbitrary line here. Older =/= less likely. to which I replied not seen=unlikely. This is hardly an arbitrary line. Aliens with rayguns=not seen. Aliens with rayguns invading westeros=unlikely.

Polygamy not seen or practiced or mentioned in living memory=less likely Practiced, seen, and mentioned in recent history=more likely.

Prove the underlined, otherwise you're just talking nonsense.

2) polygamous marriage outside the Seven Kingdoms is stated, Polygamy in the Seven Kingdoms not practiced by the Targaryens since the death of the dragons. The details you spelled out were A. Rhaegar could have engaged in polygamy without his father's (or the faith of the seven's *implied) consent. You stated B: Rhaegar could have married without his father's consent. A=/=B. B is a reasonable statement. A is questionable. You chose the one most favorable to your case.

"A" is not questionable. If Rhaegar was unable to find a septon to perform a wedding, then he and Lyanna could have married in front of a heart tree. Whatever potential ramifications this might have had down the line are up for debate.

3) The heart tree marriage without witnesses. I do not think there is such a ceremony recorded in the books. NAME married NAME in front of the heart tree with nobody else present. This does not ring a bell. Perhaps you could provide a chapter or a book it came from. At any rate, can we find a case in the books or in the history provided in the books where a man was married in the faith of the seven to a woman and married to another woman before the old gods without a witness? If so was the child recognized as legitimate?

I never talked about a marriage in front of a heart tree without a witness. I said no authorities, as in Aerys or members of the Faith, need be involved in that scenario.

4) Given we have no evidence of either happening. We are left with evidence of what has happened in recent history: annulment practiced, setting aside mentioned, and legitimization practiced. By-the-by who said the relationship was a "secret "? Not widely known among enemies=/="secret."

How does setting aside being mentioned become > than polygamy being mentioned? Polygamy has been mentioned in recent history.

The "secret" part of the relationship was that it was consensual, rather than a kidnap/rape scenario.

5) The "ways" for Rhaegar to take on a second wife are either in Book__________ Chapter___________ or they are a fabrication. (The fact that Targs in the time of dragons had done so is not a way. They had a "way" but it was not mentioned..) Now there is actually much in the text to support that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married. (Hopefully we agree on that) There are a few generations without polygamy in the Seven Kingdoms to suggest that it was not practiced. There is nothing to suggest that it was practiced by anyone in that timeframe. I never claimed it was illegal... or a sin in the eyes of the faith.. or was an impossibility. There is no evidence for or against Rhaegar practicing polygamy. It is not mentioned. There is also no evidence for or against Rhaegar setting Elia aside. There is also no evidence for or against Jon being a legitimized bastard. We do have evidence of annulment, reference to setting aside, and legitimization but none of polygamy (in the Seven Kingdoms).

Instead of specific quotations, I'm just going to submit: all of the times Targaryen polygamy is mentioned.

6) So I gave your post credit for more relation to the topic than it actually had. Claims of the right to self rule and independence from the Seven Kingdoms were last made 9 years earlier by Balon. They did not proclaim Robb king of the North based on past rights. They proclaimed it by present might. Without dragons, the Seven Kingdoms lacked the power to force the North to swear fealty. They did it before the dragons and since the dragons were gone there is no reason they can't do it again.

The north and the faith of the seven yielded to Targaryen dragons. When the dragons died the Targs did not practice polygamy. Without dragons, the Seven Kingdoms could not rule the North.

Listen, just because you misunderstood the application of the passage I posted does not mean that it was unrelated to the topic at hand. Perhaps you still misunderstand it.

Facts matter:

Rhaegar had a bare minimum of 3 months to come up with a solution

1. polygamy

2. setting aside his first wife

3. Legitimizing his bastards

2 of 3 were practiced in the Seven Kingdoms in living memory and are mentioned in the text as practices or possibilities. Polygamy is not one of those.

Doesn't matter if polygamy hadn't been practiced in living memory. There also hadn't been an independent North in living memory either, but that didn't stop the Northerners and Riverlanders from bestowing upon Robb the old title of KitN. Get it now?

There are many clues that Jon is legitiate, There are none of how he became legitimate, There was time for it to happen and a variety of ways for it to have happened. To attempt to establish there is only one way and to exclude viable practiced methods in favor of ancient practices is a mistake. In the end, it does not matter how... there were ways and time to accomplish any one.

We can deduce the likeliest method for Jon's legitimization from the available options by applying what we know from the story.

The question you seem so intent on banishing is: how could R marry L when he was already married to Lyanna?

What?

The real answer is we can't be sure of how, when, or if R married L.

The "if" is established by numerous clues throughout the text. (I can provide a list if you wish)

The "when" can be established within a window: Rhaegar had from the tournament at Harrenhal until before the Battle of the Trident to accomplish it. Cat gave birth 9 months after her wedding. Lyanna gave birth well over a year after she vanished with Rhaegar.

The "how" is most likely 1. polygamy 2. setting aside Elia 3. royal decree legitimizing Rhaegar's child

each has it's difficulties and some positive aspects.

There is nothing wrong with admitting we can't be sure. There is no proof that R+L=J. There is no proof that Jon is legitimate. However the weight of the evidence strongly suggests that both are the case.

Okay, then what's your point?

[stateofdissipation]

No it really wasn't. It was used to show that something that had not existed or been used for 300 years (give or take a couple years) - a period of time longer than polygamy had been out of practice with the Targaryens - came back into use when the lords wanted it too. The fact that there had been no King in the North for 300 years did not stop them from using the title, like the fact that the Targaryens had not practiced polygamy in several generations might not have stopped Rhaegar from reviving the practice because it suited his purposes.

A king in the North came about because the lords wanted it to? So for 300 years give or take a year or two, the lords of the North wanted to be ruled by the Targaryens and then just changed their minds because it suited their purposes.

The Targaryens stopped practicing polygamy at when the dragons died because they felt like it? For several generations they did not do so but could change their minds if it suited their purposes.

The North chose to rise up and become kings because the southern lords did not have the power to make them bend the knee. They said we married the dragons and the dragons are dead. Dragons dead=you cant tell us what to do anymore. The faith of the seven chose to enforce its marriage practices when the dragons died. Dragons dead=you cant tell us what to do anymore.a

Lack of power of the southern lords (without dragons) to rule the North =/= the Targaryen power (without dragons) to do as they wished in spite of the faith's rules on polygamy.

Again, I gave the argument too much credit. The Iron Throne could not rule the north or impose its will on the faith of the seven without dragons.

To state Targaryen lack of power to govern equates to its power to enforce its will on the faith.... is much worse than I would have imagined.... and it was really intended to prove the Iron Throne could do as it pleased by showing the exact opposite.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Enlighten me then.... which geneology are you using?

The passage was used by the original poster to show that even though it had been nearly 300 years since there was a King in the North (since, before the Conquest, the North was independent), that did not stop the Northmen to name a King in the North now and declare their independence.

We know that polygamy was practiced at least until 48 AC, when Maegor died. After that, we have no known recorded polygamous marriages. But that does not mean that the practice no longer exists. That no one does it, doesn't mean it is no longer valid. If polygamous marriages are still legal by law, Rhaegar would have been in his right to use it, even though it wasn't common.

We know that is was legally practiced, and we haven't heard that it was made illegal. So we are allowed to assume that polygamous marriages are still allowed, even though it isn't something done regularly.

[Sasha Steelsong]

A king in the North came about because the lords wanted it to? So for 300 years give or take a year or two, the lords of the North wanted to be ruled by the Targaryens and then just changed their minds because it suited their purposes.

The Targaryens stopped practicing polygamy at when the dragons died because they felt like it? For several generations they did not do so but could change their minds if it suited their purposes.

The North chose to rise up and become kings because the southern lords did not have the power to make them bend the knee. They said we married the dragons and the dragons are dead. Dragons dead=you cant tell us what to do anymore. The faith of the seven chose to enforce its marriage practices when the dragons died. Dragons dead=you cant tell us what to do anymore.a

Lack of power of the southern lords (without dragons) to rule the North =/= the Targaryen power (without dragons) to do as they wished in spite of the faith's rules on polygamy.

Again, I gave the argument too much credit. The Iron Throne could not rule the north or impose its will on the faith of the seven without dragons.

To state Targaryen lack of power to govern equates to its power to enforce its will on the faith.... is much worse than I would have imagined.... and it was really intended to prove the Iron Throne could do as it pleased by showing the exact opposite.

Perhaps we are reading different series because that is exactly what happened in the series I've read several times; the King in the North was reintroduced because the great lords of the North decided to do it rather than be ruled by Kings Landing anymore. The bit about marrying the dragons was really just pretext, since they had happily submitted to Robert's rule after the winged dragons and human ones were gone, it was just that they were not going to be ruled by the King who killed Lord Stark and the "lack of dragons" provided an air of legitimacy for the whole thing. It wasn't the loss of the actual dragons that lost the North, otherwise the North would have been an independent kingdom for 100 years before the books started. There is no indication as to why/when exactly the Targaryens stopped practicing polygamy, just that after a certain point they did. They certainly never made a proclamation that it would never be used again. And since Rhaegar was looking to re-create Aegon and his sisters, you'd think polygamy might well be on the table since Aegon certainly practiced it.