R+L=J v 75

[King Benjen II]

Part I

Its an extraordinary claim one that requires Rhaegar secretly to have pursued polygamy for the first time in many generations of Targaryen rule.

If you're going to make an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on those making the claim.

But those making the claim haven't provided much evidence at all. All they have is the presence of three of Aerys Kingsguard at the ToJ when Ned arrived. Their idea is: "KG are sworn to guard the king. The KG were at the ToJ. So was baby Jon. Therefore, baby Jon must be the king."

Polygamy is an alternative, as is setting aside Elia and marrying Lyanna, and a decree legitimizing Rhaegar's child. Each possibility has pro's and con's. The latter two are covered in the text. The fact that Jon (in R+L=J) was born over a year after Lyanna went missing gives Rhaegar a minimum of 3 months to find a solution.

For extraordinary proof check Ned's dialogue in the crypts of winterfell: The wife has lost a husband. Perhaps the mother fears to lose the son. It can apply equally to Lysa and Lyanna. The last thoughts given for Ned were about Lyanna.

Then we have the KG at ToJ showing there was something very valuable to Rhaegar there.

Then we have Lyanna's burial in the WE crypts

Then we have the Raven Jon King

Then we have Thorne's grudge

Then we have Jon commenting about his own royal blood v.s. Mance's

Not going in to all the general hints or clues but to dismiss them all seems silly.

Now, GRRM has been asked about this exact subject. And very unusually for him, hes given a direct answer.

Now, GRRM is not the text. I don't follow interviews and hardly care to do so. If it is in the text, then fine. Until then, we work with what we have. If there is an author's edition released we could discuss it.

This is quite plain. Rhaegar ordered the KG to stay at the ToJ, before he rode off to his eventual death at the Trident, and long before Jon was even born. That's why the KG did stay at the ToJ until Ned showed up.

Now, GRRMs statement above has been dismissed by R+L=J people, very heatedly and repeatedly. Usually, they roll out this kind of reasoning: "Rhaegars orders died with him. The KG would not have been bound by Rhaegar's orders after the Trident."

Well, you can read what GRRM actually said, above, and decide for yourself.

That is not supported by the text. If GRRM had included Rhaegar's ability to order the KG we would have something. He didnt. So we don't.

As far as I'm concerned, in any dispute between GRRM and some of his fans, I side with GRRM.

Try siding with the text rather that fan's or the author.

PART II

I would find the Jon Is King! argument weak anyway, even without the above, for other reasons. Here are just two of them.

1. We have excellent reason to think the KG don't always defend the king.

Notice that the KG at the ToJ did not move to defend King Aerys the living Targaryen king after Rhaegar's forces were defeated at the Trident, when Aerys' life was in blatant danger.

We have a statement of the obvious: The ToJ is not KL and an assumption that the KG learned about Rhaegar and Aerys in time to act.

This, again, is quite straightforward. It clearly suggests that the KG did not consider themselves bound by oath to guard the Targaryen king, in person, under all circumstances. Instead, they consider themselves subject to the direct orders of the royal family, and they assume (and hope) the royal family knows what it's doing, in issuing those orders.

The KG were at the ToJ suggests they had good reason to be there. You kind of added obey the royal family instead of the textual protect the royal family and obey the orders of the king.

Hightower was ordered by Aerys to return Rhaegar to KL. We can leave that as such for the moment.

Here's the typical R+L=J response: "The KG didn't know Rhaegar lost, or Aerys was in peril. The ToJ was off the raven network. And they had no other possible way to get news quickly."

Here's the problem with that idea: There is no such statement in the books at all. It's just a convenient assumption, like the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna got married, that pleases certain people.

Furthermore, we know for sure that the KG did get news fairly quickly. Because by the time Ned showed up, the news that Aerys was dead, and Jaime killed him, beat him there. The three KG already knew it.

A valid point, however I can't concede the like R married L at the moment.

So the Jon Is King! crowd is a bit trapped. They think that information was slow getting to the ToJ, and that's why the KG never tried to guard King Aerys. But they also think that information was quick getting to the ToJ, and that's why it outran Ned. These ideas can't both be true.u

This is actually a false dilemma. Ned did not travel directly to the ToJ. He travelled with an army to lift the seige on storm's end. That would have made his progress a crawl at best for at least half of his journey. The KG did not seem aware that the Tyrells had surrendered.

My own belief is that the KG got their information quickly. It seems likely they did know Aerys was in trouble, and yet were bound by strict orders from Rhaegar, which predated Jon's birth, to remain at the ToJ carrying out some ultra-important mission.This, you will notice, is exactly what GRRM suggests above. He is implying the ToJ KG wanted to leave the ToJ, because they knew full well what was happening but they were bound by strict orders given by Rhaegar.

I prefer not to deall with implied and likely as you were so kind to point out in your points against R married L. Relying on your assiptions on the author's interview to make claims not found in the book is rougly the same as the speculation you earlier mocked.

2. Ned's dialogue with the KG at the ToJ also contains a couple of other very interesting hints on this subject. I just recently noticed these.

Let's walk through that dialogue.

Structurally, it's quite simple. Ned is asking the three KG where the hell they have been all this time. He points out four different places they could have been. Then the KG explain why they weren't there.

The first two are the Trident and the Sack. I've already discussed those two above.

The third location is Storm's End, when Ned showed up there to lift the siege. Now, notice there were no Targaryens at Storm's End at that time. Ned knows that.

So Storm's End shouldn't even be on his list, right? Yet he still thinks the three KG could all have been there -- and not with Viserys on Dragonstone. Why does Ned think that's possible?

Storm's End is next on the list of Royalist defeats and shows the KG that the royal allies are finished.

Because he knows the KG are bound to follow their orders whether those orders include personally guarding the royal family or not. This, again, supports what GRRM said above, about orders being the determining factor in KG behavior.

Repeating the following orders and relying on your assumptions about George do not actually help your case.

The fourth location Ned brings up is even more suggestive. Ned says:

Here, Ned is moving backwards in time to a point after the Trident, but before the Sack. Because that's when Viserys sailed.

Now, if you've read this far, you know what the Jon Is King! crowd should predict the KG answer should be:

"We, the KG, couldn't have sailed with Viserys before the Sack. We had no idea Rhaegar had died, or that the royal family was even threatened, until the Sack had already happened. We were getting our information very slowly."

Nice piece of fanfiction here.... aside from the fact that it goes against the generally hostile tone the KG took with Ned.

But that's not what the KG say. Not at all:

Again: They don't say "we couldn't have fled with Viserys, because we didn't know he was fleeing."

They say "we didn't flee with Viserys. Because we are Kingsguard and Kingsguard don't flee. Then or now."

They do actually say Ser Willem a good man and true but not Kingsguard. Kingsguard does not flee. .. then or now.

The clear implication is that the KG knew what was happening all along. They were getting information rapidly, and that info included the fact that Viserys and Rhaella were about to flee to Dragonstone -- before the Sack happened.

Now, once again if the KG were getting rapid information, that means they chose not to guard King Aerys, even knowing he was in danger after Rhaegar lost at the Trident. Instead, they followed Rhaegar's direct orders (just as GRRM explicitly said). Which means the KG are not always bound by oath to personally guard the king at all times, but instead, are bound to follow direct orders.

The more you keep repeating the worse your claims seem to be, Obey the orders of the king: last known order: Return Rhaegar to KL,

Which means that their presence at the ToJ when Ned arrived does not prove baby Jon was the king.

It absolutely does not but not because GRRM hinted and not because the KG follow all orders given by the royal family.

Thus, it is not demonstrated that Jon is the king, that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, or that Jon is legitimate. Those making the extraordinary claims have failed to provide adequate evidence to back up the extraordinary claims.

Well now we have established that KG=/=guarding the king at all times because it is in the freaking book. We have also established that KG=obey the orders of the king and the king ordered Aerys returned to KL.

You forgot: We swore a vow..

Unless that is the first and only statement of the obvious the KG made and the last of the conversation was a history lesson. The vow was not their KG vow.

A vow to Rhaegar to guard the tower in exchange for his return to KL... explains the same thing without making up KG rules like KG must always guard the king or KG must always obey orders of all members of the royal family.

The former is denied by the KG at the ToJ. The latter is denied by Aerys rape of Rhaella.

First, thank you for the reply. I cannot speak for JNR but I will share my own thoughts with you.

I myself need to examine the textual evidence before weighing in on Legitimization issue.

I will say that it seems to me you take for granted that each piece of evidence on that list points to Jon being Rhaegar's son. For example the KG presence only means that Lyanna was important to Rhaegar. It says nothing of why she was important. A hostage would be important. How does Thorne's grudge point to Jon being Rhaegars? And Jon commenting on his royal blood vs Mance's points to Jon having royal blood, not specificly Rhaegar's...and how do the Raven Jon King scene and Lyanna being buried at WF point to Jon being Rhaegars son?

I actually would like a full list of the general hints and clues.

I think it is silly to dismiss the author's comments on his own work. Especially when his comments don't jive with your theory. Why would GRRM lie? And honestly what GRRM said fits the ToJ dialogue.

[stateofdissipation]

1)This is often touted as fact by the anti-polygamy crowd but is simply not true. GRRMs own statement as that there may have been more instances of Targ polygamy, he couldn't remember and/or would simply make up more as necessary.

In other words,

2) it is a simply inaccurate factual statement to say that there was "no more Targ polygamy for hundreds of years".

3) There are many 'gaps' in the Targ records where we don't know the complete marital status - not just of kings, but of younger siblings and cousins etc. Any of them may have been in polygamous marriages, even within the last few generations. "God" himself has said he didn't know and would make it up as he needed to.

4) Polygamy is mentioned in the text as a practice, again as a modern possibility, and the claim that it has not been used within living memory is based on absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.

5) Legalisation of bastards is mentioned in the text as only available to Kings, which excludes Rhaegar.

6) Getting Aerys' approval to do this might be a technical possibility but is quite ridiculous in the face of the situation and not even hinted at in any way by the text.

Setting aside of wives is not strictly mentioned by the text - its merely an idea two characters have which might be possible by a ruling King. There is no indication it has ever happened. That said, I wouldn't rule it out on general principle because its common in our own history in analogous societies and powerful men who need heirs and want their own sons would need a mechanism to add a new wife if the existing one does not appear able to provide (the rights and wrongs of this being irrelevant).

7) However, by the same standard, setting aside a wife has got to be a lot more politically damaging than Polygamy, if polygamy is available.

8) Add to that, the fact that there are active strictures indicated in the text against incest, but none against polygamy, yet the Targs, dragonless or not, still got away with incest with no problems.

9) Polygamy vs setting aside or legitimizing bastards does not belong in the same ballpark for Rhaegar, a non-king Targaryen.

10) As an aside, @stateofdissipation, you seriously need to sort out your reply structure. Your posts are a nightmare to sort out replies to.

Quotes with a simple cut and paste of the quoting code (and end code) is very easy to do. All that crap with highlights and text size changes and whatever else you add is horrible to read and worse to make sense of when it is quoted

1. In the Seven Kingdoms, no character engages in polygamy during the series. In the Seven Kingdoms, no character entions another character in the Seven Kingdoms that engages in polygamy during the series. In the Seven Kingdoms, references to persons known to have engaged are to historical persons. If there is an Author's edition to ASoIaF, that was published without my awareness, I have missed it. According to GRRM

hMaegor the Cruel has multiple wives, from lines outside his own, so there was and is precedent. However, the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object.

I had until that point and will after that point avoid interviews unless they give a book and chapter to prove the case in point.

2. It is a completely factual statement to say: No character the series engaged in polygamy in the Seven Kingdoms,

3. Nonexistent records=/=evidence. Another completely factual statement: One cannot be certain of earlier Targaryen practices of polygamy.

4. Attempting to shift the burden of proof of the claim that polygamy was practiced in the Seven Kingdoms is a good indicator of the strength of the argument. The omission of "in the Seven Kingdoms" from your mentions of polygamy practiced in modern times did not go unnoticed. You omitted it because with it your statement is blatantly false.

5. Only Aerys had the power to legitimize Rhaegar's children. Notice how "Hightower, Dayne and an nearly infinite list of others did not" adds nothing to the point.

6. You used limited nonspecified text on the relationship between Rhaegar and Aerys and the practice of legitimization of bastards to generate an exclusion principle for legitimization.

7: You inserted a value system that prefers polygamy to annulment and setting aside to reach the conclusion that polygamy is more viable.

8. You attempt to could the issue of polygamy by including incest while ignoring that the majority of historical polygamy was incestous. The latter practice did continue.

9. You are absolutely correct. polygamy belongs down the street in a cemetary and maybe recorded in a history book. It is included only because it can't be reasonably excluded. It is part of an equal opportunity program for ideas by attaining minimum standards.

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.

[Ygrain]

Why spend so much time marginilizing posters and (it seems to me) implying they are too crazy to be taken seriously? I was genuinely hoping for critiques of JNR's post. Something you spent zero time doing.

Edit: I will be back with an article of my own I'd like put to the test. Hopefully today or tomorrow.

Because the criticism for the very poster has been done ad nauseam. E.g. the point that ToJ would take considerable time to receive news has been made countless times, only to keep being ignored.

Since you're adressing this

- the dragons were hatchlings. Any man with a knife or a sword could have killed them. These three small dragons, at that point, gave Dany no power in force, only in view

- Their location does not matter. It is suggested by Jorah, who is from Westeros, to Dany, who is from Westeros, to settle Dany's inheritance, for when she reaches Westeros.

When speaking about the wildlings, you're speaking about Craster, right? I can't recall any other wildling than Craster who had multiple wives, though if there is one, let me know. All the other wildlings make it clear they do not support what Craster is doing. That should give a hint, no?

The Dothraki sometimes have multiple wives (the Khals). But in there also lies the problem. A Khal is the mightiest from the Khallasar. Everyone is below him, even his wife. Damn, most of the times, even his bloodriders are above his wife. Plenty of the khals, I think, view their wives as not much more than slaves. And no one ever stated you could only have 1 slave.

There is Ygon Oldfather, 18 wives, mentioned by Jon to his lower commanding staff - who keep bitching how the Wildlings are robbers and rapists and what not but no-one bats a lash at the barbaric concept of having more than one wife. A very peculiar situation - a non-Seven Kingdoms person practicing a non-Seven Kingdoms custom, witnessed by Seven Kingdoms citizens who are highly biased and prejudiced against the person's culture and nationality, yet they don't use the opportunity to condemn yet another "proof" of the Wildling inferiority. Even more peculiar - it is exactly the same behaviour that we see displayed towards Craster, who gets the flak for the incest, but never for the number of his wives.

[stateofdissipation]

Since you're adressing this

1) - the dragons were hatchlings. Any man with a knife or a sword could have killed them. These three small dragons, at that point, gave Dany no power in force, only in view

2) - Their location does not matter. It is suggested by Jorah, who is from Westeros, to Dany, who is from Westeros, to settle Dany's inheritance, for when she reaches Westeros.

3) When speaking about the wildlings, you're speaking about Craster, right? I can't recall any other wildling than Craster who had multiple wives, though if there is one, let me know. All the other wildlings make it clear they do not support what Craster is doing. That should give a hint, no?

4)The Dothraki sometimes have multiple wives (the Khals). But in there also lies the problem. A Khal is the mightiest from the Khallasar. Everyone is below him, even his wife. Damn, most of the times, even his bloodriders are above his wife. Plenty of the khals, I think, view their wives as not much more than slaves. And no one ever stated you could only have 1 slave.

1. Thank you for the information of the size and power of the dragons in essos. However the size and power of the dragons when Dany reaches Westeros would be the issue.

2. Dany is making a claim to the Iron Throne based on right of conquest and not her own legitimacy based on the practices of the Seven Kingdoms. Providing a relation between the polygamy practices of the world and the practices in the Seven Kingdoms would indeed make the location irrelevant. However the claim that location doesn't matter fails to accomplish that.

3. Ygon Oldfather had 18 wives. The wildings were opposed to the incest and not his polygamy.

4. Kahl Jomo is reported as having four wives. I was simply pointing out that outside of the Seven Kingdoms, polygamy is currently practiced because it is. I do not recall the inclusion of the status of wives and women in the discussion. On that note, I will take any reasonable supposition or judgment on the aforementioned into a discussion of that topic.

[FrozenFire3]

Since you're adressing this

- the dragons were hatchlings. Any man with a knife or a sword could have killed them. These three small dragons, at that point, gave Dany no power in force, only in view

- Their location does not matter. It is suggested by Jorah, who is from Westeros, to Dany, who is from Westeros, to settle Dany's inheritance, for when she reaches Westeros.

When speaking about the wildlings, you're speaking about Craster, right? I can't recall any other wildling than Craster who had multiple wives, though if there is one, let me know. All the other wildlings make it clear they do not support what Craster is doing. That should give a hint, no?

The Dothraki sometimes have multiple wives (the Khals). But in there also lies the problem. A Khal is the mightiest from the Khallasar. Everyone is below him, even his wife. Damn, most of the times, even his bloodriders are above his wife. Plenty of the khals, I think, view their wives as not much more than slaves. And no one ever stated you could only have 1 slave.

Ygon Oldfather. I also have the impression that Craster is frowned upon not for taking multiple wives but for marrying his own daughters.

ETA Ygrain is a :ninja:

[The guy from the Vale]

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.

[FrozenFire3]

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.

Concise (thanks the Seven!) and to the point :thumbsup:

I really had difficulties to follow the discussion in the last days. A messy verbal deluge...

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Ygon Oldfather. I also have the impression that Craster is frowned upon not for taking multiple wives but for marrying his own daughters.

ETA Ygrain is a :ninja:

Forgot about Ygon Oldfather. But that brings me to...

1. Thank you for the information of the size and power of the dragons in essos. However the size and power of the dragons when Dany reaches Westeros would be the issue.

2. Dany is making a claim to the Iron Throne based on right of conquest and not her own legitimacy based on the practices of the Seven Kingdoms. Providing a relation between the polygamy practices of the world and the practices in the Seven Kingdoms would indeed make the location irrelevant. However the claim that location doesn't matter fails to accomplish that.

3. Ygon Oldfather had 18 wives. The wildings were opposed to the incest and not his polygamy.

4. Kahl Jomo is reported as having four wives. I was simply pointing out that outside of the Seven Kingdoms, polygamy is currently practiced because it is. I do not recall the inclusion of the status of wives and women in the discussion. On that note, I will take any reasonable supposition or judgment on the aforementioned into a discussion of that topic.

... this.

So there is polygamy going on in Westeros in the recent times. Ygon Oldfather. Craster. Two examples. They might not be part of the Seven Kingdoms, but the fact that the people in the Seven Kingdoms don't seem to have a problem with the fact both men have multiple wives, shows that polygamy is not frowned upon. It might not have been practised for 250 years, but people don't look strangely when they see it happening.

To fall back on the original argument, where Jon's legitimization status was discussed, going on about how Rhaegar could have set Elia aside and had his children by his first marriage taken out of the inheritence line like that...

That was not needed. Rhaegar expected a girl, most likely. As Dany comments, he had an Aegon, a Rhaenys, all he still needed was a Visenya. The dragon has three heads. Those three heads, as Jorah points out, were Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters.

So Rhaegar expected to have another girl. A daughter comes after a son. Rhaegar didn't need Aegon out of the line of inheritence. He simply needed another head for his dragon, another future wife for Aegon, most likely. For that, the daughter had to be legit, but in no way in line for the throne before Aegon.

Edit: And wasn't there an SSM where GRRM stated that after Aegon, polygamy was still practised? He named Maegor as an example, but from the way he said it, I got the feeling there were more... We just don't know who yet

[stateofdissipation]

First, thank you for the reply. I cannot speak for JNR but I will share my own thoughts with you.

I myself need to examine the textual evidence before weighing in on Legitimization issue.

I will say that it seems to me you take for granted that each piece of evidence on that list points to Jon being Rhaegar's son. For example the KG presence only means that Lyanna was important to Rhaegar. It says nothing of why she was important. A hostage would be important. How does Thorne's grudge point to Jon being Rhaegars? And Jon commenting on his royal blood vs Mance's points to Jon having royal blood, not specificly Rhaegar's...

I actually would like a full list of the general hints and clues.

I think it is silly to dismiss the author's comments on his own work. Especially when his comments don't jive with your theory. Why would GRRM lie? And honestly what GRRM said fits the ToJ dialogue.

(post in progress)

Pardon me. I included the R+L=J as a given. A further discussion of the included theory could take place along parallel lines.

I did not delve into the specifics of the clues to Jon is legitimate. The only specific point I did address was to point out that it is a clue and not "proof" There are many clues. None are proof.

I would like to know what specific point we are addressing. R+L=J or Jon is legitiate. The lists are complimentary but often redundant.

It is silly to accept the author's comments on his own work when they conflict with the text. GRRM could state that Robert was killed at the Trident and the entire series is his dream before he dies. That would hardly make it so.

[corbon]

Yes I do.

Well, I don't have a lot of time right now, but heres a start...

Its an extraordinary claim one that requires Rhaegar secretly to have pursued polygamy for the first time in many generations of Targaryen rule.

Its not an extraordinary claim.. Targaryen polygamy is a chekov's gun that exists for little or no other purpose. Its also not a fact thats its the first time in many generations as I have carefully noted in post #157.

Their idea is: "KG are sworn to guard the king. The KG were at the ToJ. So was baby Jon. Therefore, baby Jon must be the king."

A quite stupid straw man argument, but thats not atypical of this poster's history. Yes there is disdain around here, its been earned over a long period of time. Thats not necessarily a good thing, but in this case since there is no change of behaviour, I'm not going to complain.

The basic argument is that the KG did not bother to go to Viserys, who was supposedly King, and completely unprotected by KG. There were three of them and they could easily have split to accomplish this, their primary purpose, and whatever reason they were at ToJ. That they did not is a very very strong indication that they did not consider Viserys as their king - yet they clearly still support the Targaryen dynasty and believe they are sustaining their vows. They know Aerys is dead, then know Aegon is dead, they know Rhaegar is dead. Yet Viserys is still not their king. Therefore there must be someone ahead of Viserys in the line of succession. The only reasonable possibility is a previously unknown legitimate son of Rhaegar's (Jon). Strangely enough, he's at the ToJ too, so the KG can be there and still claim they hold true to their oaths and their primary purpose is being fulfilled. Funny how it all ties together so well, ain't it.

This is quite plain. Rhaegar ordered the KG to stay at the ToJ, before he rode off to his eventual death at the Trident, and long before Jon was even born. That's why the KG did stay at the ToJ until Ned showed up.

Fundamental logic flaw. The reason they stayed there originally does not have to be the reason they are still there when Ned turns up. Indeed, given the drastic change in circumstances, its astonishing to think that it is even likely to be the same reason.

Well, you can read what GRRM actually said, above, and decide for yourself.

Problem is, its seems a lot of people can't read context and subtle answers, even when they are pointed out. GRRM said that if Rhaegar ordered them to stay, they would have stayed. He did not say that that order would not be superceded when or if circumstances changed dramatically. But apparently it is only possible to read GRRMs careful wording as indicating that an order from a Crown Prince overides anything and everything no matter what the situation, as opposed to it just means that the order would be obeyed when it was given, unless and until something else that overrode it came in to play.

Thats ... there are no words for such. So I guess the crown prince can order the KG to kill the King and they must obey, because they have to follow orders period, regardless of circumstances and priorities? :rolleyes:

Notice that the KG at the ToJ did not move to defend King Aerys the living Targaryen king after Rhaegar's forces were defeated at the Trident, when Aerys' life was in blatant danger.

Well d-uh, they are 100s of miles away and probably don't get the news until much too late. Besides which, at that point their vows are still fulfilled - Jaime, a KG, is protecting the King. The King has KG protection and other KG can legitimtaely be assigned other duties withouth the collective failure of their primary purpose.

This, again, is quite straightforward. It clearly suggests that the KG did not consider themselves bound by oath to guard the Targaryen king, in person, under all circumstances. Instead, they consider themselves subject to the direct orders of the royal family, and they assume (and hope) the royal family knows what it's doing, in issuing those orders

Sigh. Its embarrassing to try to follow. The KG as an institution guard the King. As long as one of their number is guarding him they, as an institution, are guarding him and the other individuals in the institution can be on other duties in other places. This is blindingly obvious by the numerous detachments of KG through the whole lore - in fact it seems very rare for all 7 KG to be with the King, yet obviously the individuals not with the king are not breaking their oaths. But this simple logic is far too complex for some. :bang:

Now the "instead"... again we get the illogical conclusion that the KG follow non-king orders to the exclusion of all other considerations. Sure, the basics are right - they do consider themselves bound by royal family orders - so long as those orders do not conflict with their primary purpose. When Rhaegar orders them to stay at ToJ, that order does not conflict with their purpose or function. When they stay after finding out that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon are dead and Viserys is king, Rhaegar's old order does conflict with their purpose (assuming Viserys is indeed king), and would be superceded in any sane system.

If troops are ordered to hold a bridge to stop the enemy from getting across the river and murdering the civilian inhabitants of a town, they don't sit on the bridge and watch the enemy (who used a different bridge to get to the town) line up the civilians and shoot them.

Here's the typical R+L=J response: "The KG didn't know Rhaegar lost, or Aerys was in peril. The ToJ was off the raven network. And they had no other possible way to get news quickly."

Here's the problem with that idea: There is no such statement in the books at all. It's just a convenient assumption,

So what? All we know is that Hightower was tasked to return Rhaegar and that he was next found at ToJ. His task was achieved. Its not just 'convenient' to have a reasoning that fits the known facts, Its merely an argument against the false argument that Hightower must himself also return immediately to Aerys, which is never indicated, nor required by his basic oath.

BTW, ToJ is an old abandoned watchtower in the dornish marches. It is off the raven network because having been abandoned there was no one raising ravens there to send out to other places so they could fly 'home' back to ToJ. Thats how the raven network works.

Furthermore, we know for sure that the KG did get news fairly quickly. Because by the time Ned showed up, the news that Aerys was dead, and Jaime killed him, beat him there. The three KG already knew it.

So the Jon Is King! crowd is a bit trapped. They think that information was slow getting to the ToJ, and that's why the KG never tried to guard King Aerys. But they also think that information was quick getting to the ToJ, and that's why it outran Ned. These ideas can't both be true.u

Of course they can. :rolleyes: There is about a week or so between Trident and Sack, and no guarantee that the news would have been sent out about the Trident alone. The ToJ is a supposedly hidden location, and Aerys had bigger things to deal with at that time.

But after the Sack, the news of the overthrow of the Targaryens would go out, to everywhere possible as fast as possible. Thats what you do when you win and create a regime change. You make sure everyone knows and you details the destruction of the previous regime. Now that news would probably not have gone directly to ToJ, but it would have disseminated through the raven network (which ToJ as an abnadoned watchtower is not one) at relatively high speed, and since the information did get to ToJ presumably the someone who did know the location (Starfall?) passed the important news on at best speed.

There is then around a month before Ned arrives, roughly.

Its entirely reasonable to assume that the ToJ might get the massive combined general news via a slightly roundabout route in under a month after the sack, but not immediately get the Trident news (which has to get back to KL first) in less than a week.

My own belief is that the KG got their information quickly. It seems likely they did know Aerys was in trouble, and yet were bound by strict orders from Rhaegar, which predated Jon's birth, to remain at the ToJ carrying out some ultra-important mission.

This, you will notice, is exactly what GRRM suggests above. He is implying the ToJ KG wanted to leave the ToJ, because they knew full well what was happening but they were bound by strict orders given by Rhaegar.

A section with nothing more than beliefs, which don't makes sense and don't fit the facts or statements of GRRM. I cant even imagine how or where GRRM might be considered to be implying the KG wanted to leave. Everything about the situation, the talks and GRRMs statements say exactly the opposite to me.

The third location is Storm's End, when Ned showed up there to lift the siege. Now, notice there were no Targaryens at Storm's End at that time. Ned knows that. So Storm's End shouldn't even be on his list, right?

Of course it should. Its where Ned was. He didn't go their specifically to look for them, he went to take the surrender of the Tyrells, but he would have looked for them while he was there - it was one of the last holdouts of the Targ regime and there are 3 KG missing who cold be detached in many different places and may not have gotten all the news.

Yet he still thinks the three KG could all have been there -- and not with Viserys on Dragonstone. Why does Ned think that's possible?

Because he knows the KG are bound to follow their orders whether those orders include personally guarding the royal family or not. This, again, supports what GRRM said above, about orders being the determining factor in KG behavior.

There are any number of reasons. Ned doesn't have full insight into the Targaryen deployments and locations. Wherever he goes hes looking for them because they are important figureheads.

But of course the only possible answer must be the same old irrational following non-king orders regardless of circumstances... Bored of that crap yet?

Again: They don't say "we couldn't have fled with Viserys, because we didn't know he was fleeing."

They say "we didn't flee with Viserys. Because we are Kingsguard and Kingsguard don't flee. Then or now."

The clear implication is that the KG knew what was happening all along. They were getting information rapidly, and that info included the fact that Viserys and Rhaella were about to flee to Dragonstone -- before the Sack happened.

I can't even put this into a pretence at logic.

There is no implication. Viserys fled, the King remained, in mortal danger. If they'd joined Viserys, they'd have been abandoning the King when he was in great danger. Which is a quite different thing to leaving the King when he is well protected, including by KG.

That said, if ordered by the King*, at least some of them probably would have gone with Viserys. But it would be following orders of the King, not fleeing.

*Since the King is their ultimate authority, he is the one source that can override their protection of him - as demonstrated by King Robert.

The rest is just more of the same terrible arguments rehashed.

Note: edited from start to finish because I mixed up the quotes from a sod answer and found it when I came back to complete.

[FrozenFire3]

Forgot about Ygon Oldfather. But that brings me to...

... this.

So there is polygamy going on in Westeros in the recent times. Ygon Oldfather. Craster. Two examples. They might not be part of the Seven Kingdoms, but the fact that the people in the Seven Kingdoms don't seem to have a problem with the fact both men have multiple wives, shows that polygamy is not frowned upon. It might not have been practised for 250 years, but people don't look strangely when they see it happening.

To fall back on the original argument, where Jon's legitimization status was discussed, going on about how Rhaegar could have set Elia aside and had his children by his first marriage taken out of the inheritence line like that...

That was not needed. Rhaegar expected a girl, most likely. As Dany comments, he had an Aegon, a Rhaenys, all he still needed was a Visenya. The dragon has three heads. Those three heads, as Jorah points out, were Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters.

So Rhaegar expected to have another girl. A daughter comes after a son. Rhaegar didn't need Aegon out of the line of inheritence. He simply needed another head for his dragon, another future wife for Aegon, most likely. For that, the daughter had to be legit, but in no way in line for the throne before Aegon.

Edit: And wasn't there an SSM where GRRM stated that after Aegon, polygamy was still practised? He named Maegor as an example, but from the way he said it, I got the feeling there were more... We just don't know who yet

Absolutely. Here is the link to the relevant SSM. Completely open to more instances.

[Ygrain]

So there is polygamy going on in Westeros in the recent times. Ygon Oldfather. Craster. Two examples. They might not be part of the Seven Kingdoms, but the fact that the people in the Seven Kingdoms don't seem to have a problem with the fact both men have multiple wives, shows that polygamy is not frowned upon. It might not have been practised for 250 years, but people don't look strangely when they see it happening.

That has been the crux of the argument for about two threads or so, and still hasn't made it through. Seven Kingdoms as such do not practice polygamy, but when people from the Seven Kingdoms are confronted with instances of polygamy, be their historical (Aegon) or present (Wildlings), there is a notable lack of negative response.

Dothraki polygamy is a bit inconclusive because Dany was not raised in the Seven Kingdoms environment and Jorah seems rather level-headed about foreign customs, so neither is a typical representative of Seven Kingdoms general opinion.

Fundamental logic flaw. The reason they stayed there originally does not have to be the reason they are still there when Ned turns up. Indeed, given the drastic change in circumstances, its astonishing to thing that it is even likely to be the same reason.

And let me point out that this very argument has been around since I joined the forums, yet is being blatantly ignored.

[FrozenFire3]

Well, I don't have a lot of time right now, but heres a start...

Its not an extraordinary claim.. Targaryen polygamy is a chekov's gun that exists for little or no other purpose. Its also not a fact thats its the first time in many generations as I have carefully noted in post #157.

A quite stupid straw man argument, but thats not atypical of this poster's history. Yes there is disdain around here, its been earned over a long period of time. Thats not necessarily a good thing, but in this case since there is no change of behaviour, I'm not going to complain.

The basic argument is that the KG did not bother to go to Viserys who was supposedly King and completely unprotected by KG. There were three of them and they could easily have split to accomplish this, their primary purpose, and whatever reason they were at ToJ. That they did not is a very very strong indication that they did not consider Viserys as their king - yet they clearly still support the Targaryen dynasty and believe they are sustaining their vows. They know Aerys is dead, then know Aegon is dead, they know Rhaegar is dead. Yet Viserys is still not their king. Therefore there must be someone ahead of Viserys in the line of succession. The only reasonable possibility is a previously unknown legitimate son of Rhaegar's (Jon).

Setting aside Elia is not well covered by the text. Its mentioned as a thought-possibility (setting aside Cersei actually), not an actual action, by two characters who are purely self-motivated and thoroughly good with 100% disregarding the rules to suit themselves (Cersei and Renly). Even then it is also only mentioned as something the King (Robert) could do. Rhaegar was never King. I don't think its reasonable to suggest he gets to set aside the wife the King chose for him...

Similarly legitimizing a bastard is explicitly only an option for Kings. Rhaegar was never King.

Thats 100% a copout from people who don't like the answers GRRM has given. GRRMs direct word is part of the lore.

Funny how these people are happy to use it when it suits their purposes though, isn't it. As JNR does further down, even if he still can't follow the context properly.

Fundamental logic flaw. The reason they stayed there originally does not have to be the reason they are still there when Ned turns up. Indeed, given the drastic change in circumstances, its astonishing to thing that it is even likely to be the same reason.

Problem is, its seems a lot of people can't read context and subtle answers, even when they are pointed out. GRRM said that if Rhaegar ordered them to stay, they would have stayed. He did not say that that order would not be superceded when or if circumstances changed dramatically. But apparently it is only possible to read GRRMs careful wording as indicating that an order from a Crown Prince overides anything and everything not matter what the situation, as opposed to it just means that the order would be obeyed when it was given, unless and until something else that overrode it came in to play.

Thats ... there are no words for such. So I guess the crown prince can order the KG to kill the King and they must obey, because they have to follow orders period, regardless of circumstances and priorities. :rolleyes:

ok, I'm out of time, but thats, what, only around 20% of the way through? And it gets worse as it goes down.

I appreciate your patience, mate. I definitely do ;)

As for the emphasized paragraph, do they really think Martin could have given any other answer? Something like "It's all in text, you know. Hightower's remark about swearing a vow and being loyal to the Targaryen speaks volumes. They are being true to their namesake's oath: guarding the king. Ergo, the king must be in the Tower. Btw, did I mention he will be named Jon? No? LOL" :rolleyes:

[stateofdissipation]

1. Forgot about Ygon Oldfather. But that brings me to...

... this.

So there is polygamy going on in Westeros in the recent times. Ygon Oldfather. Craster. Two examples. They might not be part of the Seven Kingdoms, but the fact that the people in the Seven Kingdoms don't seem to have a problem with the fact both men have multiple wives, shows that polygamy is not frowned upon. It might not have been practised for 250 years, but people don't look strangely when they see it happening.

2. To fall back on the original argument, where Jon's legitimization status was discussed, going on about how Rhaegar could have set Elia aside and had his children by his first marriage taken out of the inheritence line like that...

3. That was not needed. Rhaegar expected a girl, most likely. As Dany comments, he had an Aegon, a Rhaenys, all he still needed was a Visenya. The dragon has three heads. Those three heads, as Jorah points out, were Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters.

4. So Rhaegar expected to have another girl. A daughter comes after a son. Rhaegar didn't need Aegon out of the line of inheritence. He simply needed another head for his dragon, another future wife for Aegon, most likely. For that, the daughter had to be legit, but in no way in line for the throne before Aegon.

5. Edit: And wasn't there an SSM where GRRM stated that after Aegon, polygamy was still practised? He named Maegor as an example, but from the way he said it, I got the feeling there were more... We just don't know who yet

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

2. Setting aside the wife does not make children born to wedded parents disinherited.

3. Ok. If we would like to get back into Jon is legitimate that would be fine. At point were viable methods for legitimizing a child.

4. again, the inheritence of Jon (if legitimate) is established by the death of his siblings.

5: Lovely, We can now admit what we do not know. That is all I wanted.

[Ygrain]

I appreciate your patience, mate. I definitely do ;)

As for the emphasized paragraph, do they really think Martin could have given any other answer? Something like "It's all in text, you know. Hightower's remark about swearing a vow and being loyal to the Targaryen speaks volumes. They are being true to their namesake's oath: guarding the king. Ergo, the king must be in the Tower. Btw, did I mention he will be named Jon? No? LOL" :rolleyes:

LOL

Really: if there is no king in the tower, and no KG with Viserys, then Dayne, Whent and Hightower are oathbreakers to their KG vows. There are no other KG available to do their first duty for them, then no matter what other vow they might have sworn, or whether they thought guarding PTWP/AA/whoever was more important than anything else, it still did not absolve them from the KG vow to guard and protect the king. Yet, they still proudly proclaim that they are Kingsguard (and actually have higher standards than anyone else). So either they are blatant liars (in which case it is peculiar why Ned admired them so), or they are not oathbreakers, in which case Viserys is not king, someone else is, and that person is present at ToJ - where, curiously, is a young woman who has just given birth, after spending almost a year in the company of the single guy in Westeros whose family background and standing allows him to produce legitimate children even despite being married already.

[The guy from the Vale]

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

2. Setting aside the wife does not make children born to wedded parents disinherited.

3. Ok. If we would like to get back into Jon is legitimate that would be fine. At point were viable methods for legitimizing a child.

4. again, the inheritence of Jon (if legitimate) is established by the death of his siblings.

5: Lovely, We can now admit what we do not know. That is all I wanted.

1. The Seven Kingdoms do not condemn the practice in Essos? could you expand on this? Also, you're shifting the goalposts here.

2. Renly thought setting aside would make Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen disinherited. Cersei would have little to fear as the Crown Prince's mother after being set aside if Joffrey could keep his position. I don't think you realize what annulment means. It's not a divorce. It means the entire marriage never happened. All the children born in that time frame are considered born out of wedlock.

3. As I pointed out before, these other methods would have required to reduce the secrecy around Lyanna's whereabouts. Any combination of Varys, the Martells (if annulment happened), the Faith (if annulment happened) or the KG (if legitimization occured) would know. We get no indication the Martells know about Elia being dismissed as a wife, and we get no indication Varys has a shred of a clue about Jon. Not even getting into Jaime and Barristan's minds here.

4. Exactly. Now what are you getting at with that snippet?

5. Noone of the "polygamy is an option" crowd ever claimed we knew about more cases. We said there might be later cases so the claim that the practise was abandoned is not really solid.

[stateofdissipation]

Well, I don't have a lot of time right now, but heres a start...

1. Its not an extraordinary claim.. Targaryen polygamy is a chekov's gun that exists for little or no other purpose. Its also not a fact thats its the first time in many generations as I have carefully noted in post #157.

2. A quite stupid straw man argument, but thats not atypical of this poster's history. Yes there is disdain around here, its been earned over a long period of time. Thats not necessarily a good thing, but in this case since there is no change of behaviour, I'm not going to complain.

3. The basic argument is that the KG did not bother to go to Viserys who was supposedly King and completely unprotected by KG.

A. There were three of them and they could easily have split to accomplish this, their primary purpose, and whatever reason they were at ToJ.

B. That they did not is a very very strong indication that they did not consider Viserys as their king -

C. yet they clearly still support the Targaryen dynasty and believe they are sustaining their vows.

D. They know Aerys is dead, then know Aegon is dead, they know Rhaegar is dead.

E. Yet Viserys is still not their king.

F. Therefore there must be someone ahead of Viserys in the line of succession.

G. The only reasonable possibility is a previously unknown legitimate son of Rhaegar's (Jon).

4. Setting aside Elia is not well covered by the text. Its mentioned as a thought-possibility (setting aside Cersei actually), not an actual action, by two characters who are purely self-motivated and thoroughly good with 100% disregarding the rules to suit themselves (Cersei and Renly). Even then it is also only mentioned as something the King (Robert) could do. Rhaegar was never King. I don't think its reasonable to suggest he gets to set aside the wife the King chose for him...

Similarly legitimizing a bastard is explicitly only an option for Kings. Rhaegar was never King.

5. Thats 100% a copout from people who don't like the answers GRRM has given. GRRMs direct word is part of the lore.

Funny how these people are happy to use it when it suits their purposes though, isn't it. As JNR does further down, even if he still can't follow the context properly.

6. Fundamental logic flaw. The reason they stayed there originally does not have to be the reason they are still there when Ned turns up. Indeed, given the drastic change in circumstances, its astonishing to thing that it is even likely to be the same reason.

7. Problem is, its seems a lot of people can't read context and subtle answers, even when they are pointed out. GRRM said that if Rhaegar ordered them to stay, they would have stayed. He did not say that that order would not be superceded when or if circumstances changed dramatically. But apparently it is only possible to read GRRMs careful wording as indicating that an order from a Crown Prince overides anything and everything not matter what the situation, as opposed to it just means that the order would be obeyed when it was given, unless and until something else that overrode it came in to play.

Thats ... there are no words for such. So I guess the crown prince can order the KG to kill the King and they must obey, because they have to follow orders period, regardless of circumstances and priorities. :rolleyes:

ok, I'm out of time, but thats, what, only around 20% of the way through? And it gets worse as it goes down.

1. You propose the principle that every element in a narrative be necessary and irreplaceable. It would follow then that polygamy, legitimization of bastards, annulment, and setting aside of wives would also be necessary and irreplacable. To assert the superiority of a particular neccessary and irreplaceable element over another is then irrelevant.

2. The post was a concise and exact version of the poster's original argument. Which was attached to the post. KG=protect king therefore Jon+KG= Jon was king. is also an accurate assesment of the argument.

If one objects to straw man arguments, one should cease building men made of straw.

3. The basic argument relies on forgetting that King Aerys and King Aegon were both murdered while 3 KG were at the ToJ. The basic argument includes the supposition that Viserys was unguarded by his flight with Darry and ignores that the location of 3 other KG was not given or mentioned in the conversation. The basic argument relies on the knowledge of the KG of the unmentioned death of Aegon.

A. The conjecture on the duties and priorities of the KG relies on omitting the duty for 2 kings and a crown prince. But at least you include there is an unknown reason they were at the ToJ

B. This ignores the unknown reason for their presence at the ToJ up to that point. Failure to flee in the face of armed men to protect a man that those armed men imply is the king states that they were facing armed men. Their own words state that they will not flee. This is a pretty strong indication that they do not flee before armed resistance.

C. Clearly Arthur Dayne states: We swore a vow. To equate that to an uninvited and redundant history lesson about the practices of the kingsguard in order to use an artificially imposed heirarchy of duties seems a bit self reinforcing.

D. Aegon's death is not mentioned.

E. This is established by their refusing to flee to protect him (though they do not flee) and their invented first duty (which was ignored up to that point)

F. If we accept that the fate of Aegon is known, that the "first duty" of the KG, and that Viserys would be king... We are still left with 7 armed men between them and their duty.

G. "The only" should never be followed by reasonable. It is not "reasonable" to exclude facts that are not in line with a theory. It is not "reasonable" to pluck ideas from the air to support a theory. If you accept these the only reasonable conclusion is that you decided the conclusion before you looked at the facts.

4. Could you please choose a side of Chekov's gun to stand on?

5. Quoting GRRM instead of reading the book is a copout. We were discussing what is written, We hopefully have access to the same books. We probably do not have access to the same interviews or blogs. If we would like to discuss those... please specify them in advance.

6. Fundamental logic flaw. Assuming that either the circumstances had changed or that they remained the same. Assuming the time the KG became aware of the change. In general taking assumption as fact.

Without assumption: Aerys ordered LC to return Rhaegar to KL. LC and 2 KG remained at ToJ. Dayne mentioned an unspecified vow as the reason for their defiance.

7. Is this the context of the books or the interviews? The discussion was about the former. If you wish to engage in a discussion of the latter please at least provide a link instead of your interpretation of it.

Your last line conflicts with your first duty. Additionally the orders of the king are part of the vow. You kind of need to make up your mind there.

[Ygrain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelheid_of_Meissen

Here goes a RL example of a queen being set aside and an adult firstborn son losing the claim to the throne.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Absolutely. Here is the link to the relevant SSM. Completely open to more instances.

Yes, that's the one I was thinking of! :)

[stateofdissipation]

1. The Seven Kingdoms do not condemn the practice in Essos? could you expand on this? Also, you're shifting the goalposts here.

2. Renly thought setting aside would make Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen disinherited. Cersei would have little to fear as the Crown Prince's mother after being set aside if Joffrey could keep his position. I don't think you realize what annulment means. It's not a divorce. It means the entire marriage never happened. All the children born in that time frame are considered born out of wedlock.

3. As I pointed out before, these other methods would have required to reduce the secrecy around Lyanna's whereabouts. Any combination of Varys, the Martells (if annulment happened), the Faith (if annulment happened) or the KG (if legitimization occured) would know. We get no indication the Martells know about Elia being dismissed as a wife, and we get no indication Varys has a shred of a clue about Jon. Not even getting into Jaime and Barristan's minds here.

4. Exactly. Now what are you getting at with that snippet?

5. Noone of the "polygamy is an option" crowd ever claimed we knew about more cases. We said there might be later cases so the claim that the practise was abandoned is not really solid.

1. We were discussing the practice of polygamy in the Seven Kingdoms. As this did not support the poster's position, the poster opted to equate practices in elsewhere to make the point. I asked the poster to stop shifting the goal posts. The poster claimed that the Seven Kingdoms accepted the practices of the outside world. I responded that the Seven Kingdoms accept the practices of the outside world in the outside world. This does not equate to adopting or accepting the practices in the Seven Kingdoms.

2. I quite realize the potential impact of annulment and setting aside of a spouse. I do not think you have any idea what annulment in the Seven Kingdoms is. Neither do I. The practice is mentioned in the text. The consequences to inheritence are not.

3. You invented the need for Lyanna's security and secrecy earlier. Now you are inventing procedures for legitimization and a timeframe for it to be accomplished. You equated a lack of knowledge by the Martells to a lack of events. You invented the reltionship of Viserys and Aerys based on the relationship off Varys to Robert and used your invention to suggest that Varys had complete knowledge of Aery's activities. You also impart Barriston and Jamie with all knowledge of all happenings in Aery's court and attempt to use a lack of your imparted knowledge as proof that nothing happened.

4. Was a counter point to a long hypothetical about the inheritence. We did not need to go there because it had already happened.

5. The comment was not directed at the "polygamy is an option crowd" rather it is directed at the "polygamy is the only option crowd" I agree that it is one of 3 viable options. We have pro's and con's for all 3. Why tie a perfectly good theory to one limited option?