Jump to content

R+L=J v 75


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Do NOT mix screenplay with canon. Marilion offended Joffrey and had his tongue removed int he screenplay, yet in canon he is the singer at the Eyrie and still singing.

The singer losing his tongue is actually canon. Only his name isn't Marillion:

The singer could keep either his fingers or his tongue. He would have a day to make his choice. Janos Slynt nodded.

early in AGoT 67 Sansa VI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Ser Chelsted, the Hand was roasted and Roussart was installed as the new Hand the night that Jaime was present outside Queen Rhaella chambers as she was raped by Aerys. (Darry is supposed to be present, too, and yet we know he dies on the Trident.) That is the last time that Daenerys can be conceived, and she is born "nine moons after her mother fled King's Landing" by her own account. SSM states that Jon is eight to nine months (moons) older than Daenerys. Roussart was Hand for a fortnight, being slain by Jaime as King's Landing was sacked. Jon can be born up to a fortnight after the sack of King's Landing. (There is a little slop, but not much, it is in God's, er, GRRM's hands.) Ned must arrive five to ten days after Jon is born. If Ned arrives more than 3.5 weeks after the sack, then Daenerys may not have a royal father. Things could get real interesting if someone mentions that Daenerys is a bastard on these forums. :blushing: :eek: :box: :fencing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

And they were cheering for Tywin, not Robert.

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

There is no example that anybody engaged in polygamy in living memory. That does not stop people from insisting that it happened.

If one must insist that it happened, Rhaegar's popularity (which is textually based) is an infinitely superior argument to because i said so or because it is in the thread's FAQ section.

It isn't really my argument... but I stand corrected

( i would so claim that i did it on purpose to catch fake readers. But it was an honest mistake. And thank you real reader)

I agree completely. I never said it was a foolproof argument. Just a little better than because I said so,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might I trouble you with asking where it was stated that Rossart had been named Hand before Rhaegar left? :)

Edit: never mind, I found it :)

Though I used to assume that a mistake was made here, or a misremembering by Jaime (remembering another night he and Jon Darry listened to Aerys rape Rhaella after he burned someone), since it cannot be that Rhaegar marched to the Trident, fought, died, Ned and Robert discussed who should live amongst the captices, and Ned racing back to KL with an army, all in a fortnight.

It already takes the royal party leaving from Winterfell a fortnight to get from Castle Darry (closeby) to KL (though, admittedly, Ned would be travelling faster with his army)

Actually armies don't travel any faster than the food service does. They travel on their bellies. (The Romans knew this, and became quite adept at getting their livestock to move quickly.) I disagree with the suggestion we get int he books that Rhaegar could have taken an army to the Trident and lost the battle, with the victors travelling back to King's Landing in less than a fortnight (by a huge margin). But, I must accept what the author provides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silly me, I again forgot to include the obvious. practice does not equal crime. By that reasoning the Mountain practiced murder. Euron apparently practiced theft and murder as well.

On that note the practice of polygamy is completely valid in the Seven Kingdoms (as long as you do not get caught) come to think of it anything is valid anywhere (as long as you don't get caught)

No, that's not actually the case, and that is broken logic your applying. Slavery is in fact a crime in Westeros, murder is in fact a crime in Westeros. Getting away with a crime does not equal practice.

If slavery is a crime and murder is crime, then getting away with it is a practice? Really?

The crown rules Westeros. The faith is a religious order that does not permit polygamy. Therefore polygamy is outlawed? Who said it was the Faiths call? Last I checked this is a monarchy. It's not like any Monarch has ever done anything in this series that the faith hasn't liked or the small folk or the lords. No this is the land of everything is in harmony and everyone is equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's not actually the case, and that is broken logic your applying. Slavery is in fact a crime in Westeros, murder is in fact a crime in Westeros. Getting away with a crime does not equal practice.

If slavery is a crime and murder is crime, then getting away with it is a practice? Really?

The crown rules Westeros. The faith is a religious order that does not permit polygamy. Therefore polygamy is outlawed? Who said it was the Faiths call? Last I checked this is a monarchy. It's not like any Monarch has ever done anything in this series that the faith hasn't liked or the small folk or the lords. No this is the land of everything is in harmony and everyone is equal.

No, his argument is based on the SSM where GRRM says that Targaryens practiced polygamy and incest and that the Faith accepted it because the Targaryens had dragons. As the dragons died out acceptance would be more difficult to obtain. However, it was not difficult to get them to accept the incestuous marriage of Aerys and Rhaella, which seems to be the more damning of the two. I fail to see how the dragons not being present would present any challenge to polygamy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually armies don't travel any faster than the food service does. They travel on their bellies. (The Romans knew this, and became quite adept at getting their livestock to move quickly.) I disagree with the suggestion we get int he books that Rhaegar could have taken an army to the Trident and lost the battle, with the victors travelling back to King's Landing in less than a fortnight (by a huge margin). But, I must accept what the author provides.

Oh I have problems with that as well. But I tend to accept the fact that logistics are not Martins specialty. He seems to understand it takes awhile to assemble an army and call your banners and all that. He then seems to air lift them to various locations.

I also have problems with Robb being born while Ned was still at war in the south. It would seem that when Ned and Jon got married after the bells at Riverrun they did a whole lot of nothing. If the next battle is the Trident, and we have the fortnight from the books to and from, then Storms End happens right after that which is a year from Jon calling his banners. Then the Bells happened about 5 months into the war, and the trident around 11 months and Storms End about a month after the Trident. The only thing left was the tower. So either Ned took several months to get to the Tower of Joy or he, Jon and Robert sat on their asses with a clear shot at KL for about 5-6 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silly me, I again forgot to include the obvious. practice does not equal crime. By that reasoning the Mountain practiced murder. Euron apparently practiced theft and murder as well.

Sure, and Euron practiced slavery in the Seven Kingdoms. I guess he would claim that it was his law. I could see Rhaegar claiming that it was his law that allowed him to take a second, or third wife, if he did. Who is holding Euron accountable for a crime? Who is holding the Mountain accountable for a crime? You are transferring from slavery to murder, now because you were caught off-guard. You are changing to a different perception for the same reason. You and I might view it as a crime that the Mountain slaughtered Aegon and Elia, but Tywin and the Mountain do not. Slavery might be a crime in the Seven Kingdoms, but Euron is the law in the Iron Isles (part of the Seven Kingdoms) and he does not consider it a crime. Jorah Mormont was pursued by Ned Stark because of his involvement with Slavery because Ned Stark was holding him accountable, thus it was a crime. Power is where you perceive it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I have problems with that as well. But I tend to accept the fact that logistics are not Martins specialty. He seems to understand it takes awhile to assemble an army and call your banners and all that. He then seems to air lift them to various locations.

I also have problems with Robb being born while Ned was still at war in the south. It would seem that when Ned and Jon got married after the bells at Riverrun they did a whole lot of nothing. If the next battle is the Trident, and we have the fortnight from the books to and from, then Storms End happens right after that which is a year from Jon calling his banners. Then the Bells happened about 5 months into the war, and the trident around 11 months and Storms End about a month after the Trident. The only thing left was the tower. So either Ned took several months to get to the Tower of Joy or he, Jon and Robert sat on their asses with a clear shot at KL for about 5-6 months.

I think that while there were many months of less than appetizing warfare, that the rebels weren't sitting on their backsides. There were castles of holdouts needed to be put under siege and broken, and several skirmishes to be fought through the forests. You wouldn't advance an army past a holdfast that could attack you in the rear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, his argument is based on the SSM where GRRM says that Targaryens practiced polygamy and incest and that the Faith accepted it because the Targaryens had dragons. As the dragons died out acceptance would be more difficult to obtain. However, it was not difficult to get them to accept the incestuous marriage of Aerys and Rhaella, which seems to be the more damning of the two. I fail to see how the dragons not being present would present any challenge to polygamy.

No I get that but the logic of the claims made are still broken. Yeah and incest is an actual applicable point, as it goes against the faiths beliefs and is practiced by the Targs. How the hell slavery and murder became part of the discussion? The faith does not make the laws or enforce them though they may want to and they may attempt to influence the crown. Getting away with a crime does not equal a practice. The crown only ever enforced some of the faiths beliefs. Nobody has to join the faith, the North is proof of that. There is also not much enforcement of monogamy. Robert, Dorne, the Iron Islanders. Dorne and the North two examples of different culture and beliefs in Westeros. Last I checked neither had dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's not actually the case, and that is broken logic your applying. Slavery is in fact a crime in Westeros, murder is in fact a crime in Westeros. Getting away with a crime does not equal practice.

If slavery is a crime and murder is crime, then getting away with it is a practice? Really?

The crown rules Westeros. The faith is a religious order that does not permit polygamy. Therefore polygamy is outlawed? Who said it was the Faiths call? Last I checked this is a monarchy. It's not like any Monarch has ever done anything in this series that the faith hasn't liked or the small folk or the lords. No this is the land of everything is in harmony and everyone is equal.

I asked for an example of a person that practiced slavery in the Seven Kingdoms.

Euron was posted as an example...

As slavery is illegal in westeros. The poster must equate practice to getting away with the crime. I just pointed out the necessary conditions for Euron to practice slavery in Westeros. If that does not make any sense, then Euron does not make any sense as an answer.

The crown does not perform weddings. The seven kingdoms are a monarchy. The monarchy makes things illegal. The faith makes them a sin, There is some overlap between sin and crime,. The King could make polymagy illegall. There is no evidence one has. There is evidence that kings have defied the faith. (not recently on the matter of polygamy),

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that while there were many months of less than appetizing warfare, that the rebels weren't sitting on their backsides. There were castles of holdouts needed to be put under siege and broken, and several skirmishes to be fought through the forests. You wouldn't advance an army past a holdfast that could attack you in the rear.

Well unless they marched into the crown lands and took it over, Neds March means they did just that. I can't see them marching in and taking the crownlands then withdrawing back to the trident with KL in sight. I tend to think they stood pat because of Tywin. The did not appear to attack the west. But probably knew he had an army sitting there and did not know his play. When he advanced on KL they were free to march. Though that suggests waiting for a raven or scouts. Which means Ned really hauled ass. It's also odd Ned never returned to Riverrun being in the riverlands and that being a major fortification.

I also wonder about Harren hall. Something should of happened there as it was in the River lands but I would think it supported the crown, but who knows. Probably doesn't matter, Martin will do what he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wonder about Harren hall. Something should of happened there as it was in the River lands but I would think it supported the crown, but who knows. Probably doesn't matter, Martin will do what he does.

Just offhand, initially Harrenhal/Whents were loyalists, near the end of the war I believe they switched sides. Of course they are sworn to Riverrun/Tullys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Sure, and Euron practiced slavery in the Seven Kingdoms.

2. I guess he would claim that it was his law.

3. I could see Rhaegar claiming that it was his law that allowed him to take a second, or third wife, if he did.

4. Who is holding Euron accountable for a crime?

5. Who is holding the Mountain accountable for a crime?

6. You are transferring from slavery to murder, now because you were caught off-guard.

7. You are changing to a different perception for the same reason.

8. You and I might view it as a crime that the Mountain slaughtered Aegon and Elia, but Tywin and the Mountain do not.

9. Slavery might be a crime in the Seven Kingdoms,

10. but Euron is the law in the Iron Isles (part of the Seven Kingdoms) and he does not consider it a crime.

11. Jorah Mormont was pursued by Ned Stark because of his involvement with Slavery because

12, Ned Stark was holding him accountable, thus it was a crime.

13. Power is where you perceive it to be.

1 and 2l IEuron committed the crme of slavery in the seven kingdoms.. You left out "king" much as I left out under the iron throne. As you failed to give him the title that would allow him to declare law, you failed to make his actions lawful. Much as you almost got it by because the under the Iron Trone was not added before in the Seven Kingdoms.

3.. Prince Rhaegar could have taken a second and third wife with the approval of the faith of the seven (or other gods). The monarchy does not perform marriage ceremonies. Septon Rhaegar could have married as he pleased. (until the faith caught him)

4. a fugitive from justice is still a criminal. That being said nobody. Euron is a fugitive from justice. King Euron would only answer to himself.

5. The worms, at last report the Mountain had expired. unIess you mean the reanimated corpse. Nobody. But he is still a corpse.

6. I was listing crimes. But yes the Euron trickiness caught me for a minute. King Euron would have made it crushing.

7. A distinct possibility. You still forgot to put in "king"

8. Well the Mountain confessed. So his and Tywin's opinions do not matter much, By the by they are beyond thinking... they sing with the choir invisible.

9. Might be and is are too close to push the point... "king"

10."KING"

11. and 12 No. Ned Stark held Jorah accountable for his crime. Had Jorah not been discovered, he would still be a criminal. Just not a punished criminal. Fugitive, discarded companion, former slave, sellsword. Lost his wife, land, and title. Come to think of it he is a not beheaded criminal.

13. Power is what knocks you on your butt and will not let you deny it. (you do not have to perceive a bullet coming at you to give it power. It has its own power)

Link to comment
Share on other sites






2. This assumes that these were the only people at court and that some or all of these people would have known. I do not make that assumption. I also do not make the assumption that Varys had the same relationship that he had with Robert with Aerys. I also do not assume that Varys tells many people all he knows. I also do not specify the process other than it must have been Royal Decree or the timeframe outside of or narrower than the Harrenhal tournament and the Trident. I gave only motive, means and opportunity.








2


I mentioned Varys. Varys has little birds everywhere in the Red Keep. He would have known if Aerys had decreed baby Jon legit. This same Varys is now presenting Rhaegar’s son Aegon. Any other child of Rhaegar would form a thread to Aegon’s claim. If Varys knew who’s child Jon is, clever guy that he is, he would know that Ned would know as well. But at Winterfell, the birds are not as multiple as in KL, so Varys could not be certain that Ned hadn’t told anyone.


I mentioned Pycelle. Lannister-supporter Pycelle, who was a great confidant of Aerys, and is who’s interest it would be to tell such a thing to Tywin, had it actually happened. Yet nothing that Tywin did, or said, suggests that the decree happened.


I mentioned the KG knights. Especially Jaime. Jaime was Aerys’ breathing shadow until the Sack. A King has no secrets from his KG. Had there been a decree, Jaime would have known about it.







4. A, B, C really do not relate to the topic at hand. No idea why I split it up other than I hoped to find a connection to legitimacy.








4


This becomes important later on in my post








5. I am relatively sure a King can marry whoever he wants. He could legitimize a girl.


A. Between the harrenhal tournament and the Trident was the window of opportunity. So no Aerys was not dead yet,


B. Between the harrenhal tournament and the Trident was the window of opportunity. However, it is unlikely he would have attempted to do so after leaving the ToJ as he had decided to depose his father.


C. agreed as well as D.








5


A King would most likely be capable of marrying whoever he wants. A prince not. Prince Duncan the Small married Jenny of Oldstones, which he was allowed to do only if he put aside his claim for the throne. His marriage led to fast enemies for House Targaryen.


A a child can only be legitimized after it’s birth. So there was no timeframe from Harrenhal until the Sack (2 years). It was a month.



B same here



The King-to-be I was talking about was Aegon.









6. Agreed. Lyanna had expressed distrust and dislike for a man who could not keep to one bed (Robert) at the Harrenhal tournament.



A. The strangest thing happened. I read a GRRM interview that said the same thing. However when I went back to the book it still said "a woman's name" did that happen to you too? Maybe it will be in there for the author's edition... oh wait the book is the author's edition. I won't hold my breath.


B. Agreed


C. Distant and long dead relatives had done so. However look at 6. Now we know it wasn't recent or well recorded enough to specify. Now look back 6.


D. This is mixing the 6 paragraph with the 4.









6 A


Look, this is the attitude which causes several people on this thread to react the way they do. You could have asked nicely “Where’s your quote for this? What’s your source? Because I couldn’t find this in the books.” Instead, you react like this, which frankly, I don’t like.


The book states “a womans name”


HOWEVER. The book is not the only source we have. Perhaps you noticed, but we’ve received 4 novellas since then, and a 5th one in one the way. And guess what? As a semi-canon source, we have 2 RPG books. And here comes the bonus: the official World of Ice and Fire app, approved by GRRM, described on the blog of GRRM, and created by, amongst others, Ran and Linda.


The app stated that the name on Rhaegar’s lips was “Lyanna”. There. You have your answer.


But you could have asked nicely.



C


Let me say it using different words: nothing in the text indicates that polygamy was no longer allowed.






7. see 6: and your 6.


A. agreed.


B. You fail to say why or when they are needed. furthermore it ignores the insult at Harrenhal and the new wife (however it is reached) theory.


C.See B. and again you fail to specify. Between the tournament and Robert's rebellion the country was not war torn.


D. Ok.


E. ok


F. We did not establish procedutes for setting aside or impact on inheritence. and see B...


G. see above







7



B The power of House Martell was needed during the war. Doran only send armies to the Trident. Before, Dorne had mostly kept out of the war, only fighting small fights close to the borders of Dorne.



How does this relate to the insult done at Harrenhal?



C


You do realise that we are speaking about the timeframe where Elia could possibly have been set aside, right? All was good and well before the Tourney at Harrenhal. During the Tourney, Dorne was insulted, but Doran refrained from his anger because he knew Elia would one day be Queen, and Aegon King after Rhaegar, and making problems about the insult done would serve no good. After Harrenhal, Elia became pregnant. Nine months passed, and Aegon was born. Rhaegar was still in KL when Aegon was born. He spoke to Elia, he spoke to the maesters. Only then did he leave, and did Lyanna disappear.



So when speaking about Dorne and the insult it would be if Elia was set aside in favour of Lyanna – something that would have been known since annulling a marriage can only be legally done in front of the High Septon (who resides in KL), but for arguments sake, let’s say that Rhaegar could keep it a secret – it would have become known after the war had ended. The Seven Kingdoms had suffered during that year of war. Setting Elia aside, would then anger Dorne, whose armies were still largely intact. Dorne was already angered by the Harrenhal incident, where Elia was still Rhaegars wife. Setting her aside, would lead to even more anger… and possibly a war, in a land already suffering from the remains of the war.



Specific enough?



F


And which specification would you like to see here?










10. see 6, 7 and 8


A. a precedent is what was decided last and not first. Check Roe V Wade....plus it was not civil but religous marriage


B.. see 6, 7, 8, and A above. Not hard to believe... hard to prove a superior option without rigging the game.





10


Real-life laws don’t apply in the books, where the author get’s to make up all the rules, you know?


GRRM has stated in SSM that there were precedents. That means that there are precedents. He never stated that there were, or had been.


He said there are.








11. good topic


A, lots of speculation. Not enough facts to make a conclusion outside there was something important to Rhaegar there.


B. YES they were KG protect the king, obey his orders, and keep his secrets...The vow Arthur mentions is not specified. If he said we are kingsguard... there is no question. he didn't.


C. They recognize that Ned has said Darry has fled. And add kingsguard did not and will not flee.


D. They acknowledge Darry is a good man and true. They do not mention Visery's protection or the locations of the 3 other KG.


E.They do not state he is or is not protected or who is doing it.



12. 7 facing 3, They state they will not flee or bend the knee. (taking a quick look at a map tells us that to go anywhere the KG needed to fight- They took flight and surrender off the table)


A. Only Rhaegar and Aerys are mentioned. Aegon is not listed in the discussion.


B. again they took flight and surrender off the table... reminds me of Dayne against the Smiling Kinight... Then you shall have it ser-


C. and when 7 men stand between them and the apparent king.


D. They never made it there... or anywhere else.








11+12


They know what happened during the Sack. They know that Aerys has died. If you suggest that they do not know that Aegon died (who died within hours after Aerys), I fail to see how such a thing is possible. Aerys was killed by a KG, Aegon was butchered. Both are important, since it makes Viserys heir. If they hears about Aerys, they heard about Aegon.



They do mention Viserys’ protection. “Not of the Kingsguard”. Do keep in mind that Willem Darry was the brother to Jon Darry, a KG knight himself. The three KG knights would know Ser Willem, who had served as Master at arms at KL.



The three KG knights already knew about Aerys, Aegon and Viserys’ location before Ned arrived. There was time for one or two of them (if not all three) to start the travel in Viserys’ direction. But they didn’t. So no, there are not 7 men between them and their king. There were 7 men between them and Viserys during this conversation and the fight that followed. There weren’t 7 men in between in those days before.


Important






13. Most logical is what includes the widest range of possibility


A, It has not been argued enough that 7 men stood between the KG and Viserys.


B. And how do you protect a king without fighting his enemies? you don't.



14. you should read this thread.... nobody should=/=nobody does


A. There are sufficient clues to make arguing against Jon being legitimate harder than accepting the possibility.


B.C and D all state the same questionable premise. There are many more clues... the Crypts of winterfell, Ned's response to Robert applies equally to Jon and Lyanna if R plus L =J and Jon is legitimate, The raven Jon King, Thorne interactions have clues, Jon even comments on his "royal blood" the blue rose in the wall of ice... Rhaegar's there must be 3. I could go on... but none are proof and none defy alternative explaination... just like the ToJ








13A


I argued it now. Plenty of time had passed between the Sack and Ned’s arrival. Had they felt that Viserys was the true king, there was plenty of time for at least 1 of them to start traveling towards Dragonstone.



B


You fight the enemies that are trying to get to your king (which is what Ned and his friends are doing when they arrive at TOJ). You do not go somewhere in the Kingdoms and start fighting enemies there, if your King is with minimum protection elsewhere, in a peculiar situation.




14


And are you seriously suggesting that Thorne's hatred for Jon comes from Jon being Rhaegars son? Since when would Thorne have any idea about such?



Thorne hates Jon because he's Neds "son". Ned was a rebel. It was because of the rebels that Thorne got to spend the rest of his life on the Wall...




Edit: No idea what went wrong with quoting here. But I think I fixed it.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can annulments even be granted in marriages with 2 kids? Obviously Westerosi laws are different than our domestic laws, but I feel like if it's been clearly consummated and resulted in kids an annulment would be a bit of a reach.

That particular case the rules are unclear. It is mentioned but not completely spelled out. In Tyrion's case the marriage was consummated (not denied) but there were no children. It was not practiced by married persons with children.

I agree it IMO would be a stretch. However, every option for R married L requires a stretch. Rhaegar had between the tournament at Harrenhal to just before the battle of the Trident to make the stretch. There is not any indication of the direction he took to accomplish it. However, it is hard to exclude Rhaegar completing the task once he set out to do it no matter which direction he took.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Yes. That's why I stopped responding, his responses never actually addressed any facts or points made that contradicted his POV. He just dismisses any contrary evidence to insist that all three options are equally likely, even if it defies logic of how people normally act/think (which we can import into the novel from our real world experiences). I'm still waiting for him to acknowledge the fact that neither an annulment nor legitimization could have occurred when no one knew where Rhaegar was until right before the Trident, and how if they were equally as likely as polygamy, there was time to get to and from the TOJ and why Aerys would not have kept Lyanna as a hostage once he knew about her. I mean the man was keeping his son's own wife and children hostage, he would have had no qualms about doing so to a second wive/lover and certain no problem if she was a true hostage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can annulments even be granted in marriages with 2 kids? Obviously Westerosi laws are different than our domestic laws, but I feel like if it's been clearly consummated and resulted in kids an annulment would be a bit of a reach.

Cersei worries about being set aside, and I would think by annulment, though that is not stipulated. Clearly she had children, but she says that only Robert sired one, and it was terminated early. Cersei had three children, and we are given to think of them as Jaime's children.

What it comes down to, in the monarchy that is the Seven Kingdoms what the king wants becomes law. The Faith is tolerated, especially if it complies with the wishes of the king. If Robert made it clear that he wanted the annulment the Faith may have no option but to grant it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2

A, I mentioned Varys. Varys has little birds everywhere in the Red Keep.

B. He would have known if Aerys had decreed baby Jon legit.

C. This same Varys is now presenting Rhaegar’s son Aegon.

D. Any other child of Rhaegar would form a thread to Aegon’s claim.

E. If Varys knew who’s child Jon is, clever guy that he is, he would know that Ned would know as well.

F. But at Winterfell, the birds are not as multiple as in KL, so Varys could not be certain that Ned hadn’t told anyone.

G, I mentioned Pycelle. Lannister-supporter Pycelle, who was a great confidant of Aerys, and is who’s interest it would be to tell such a thing to Tywin, had it actually happened. Yet nothing that Tywin did, or said, suggests that the decree happened.

H, I mentioned the KG knights. Especially Jaime. Jaime was Aerys’ breathing shadow until the Sack. A King has no secrets from his KG. Had there been a decree, Jaime would have known about it.

4 This becomes important later on in my post

5

A. A King would most likely be capable of marrying whoever he wants.

B. A prince not.

C. Prince Duncan the Small married Jenny of Oldstones, which he was allowed to do only if he put aside his claim for the throne. His marriage led to fast enemies for House Targaryen.

D. A a child can only be legitimized after it’s birth. So there was no timeframe from Harrenhal until the Sack (2 years). It was a month.

E. B same here

F. The King-to-be I was talking about was Aegon.

6

A. Look, this is the attitude which causes several people on this thread to react the way they do. You could have asked nicely “Where’s your quote for this? What’s your source? Because I couldn’t find this in the books.” Instead, you react like this, which frankly, I don’t like.

The book states “a womans name”

B. HOWEVER. The book is not the only source we have. Perhaps you noticed, but we’ve received 4 novellas since then, and a 5th one in one the way.

C. And guess what? As a semi-canon source, we have 2 RPG books.

D. And here comes the bonus: the official World of Ice and Fire app, approved by GRRM, described on the blog of GRRM, and created by, amongst others, Ran and Linda.

E The app stated that the name on Rhaegar’s lips was “Lyanna”. There. You have your answer.

F. But you could have asked nicely.

G. Let me say it using different words: nothing in the text indicates that polygamy was no longer allowed.

7

A. The power of House Martell was needed during the war. Doran only send armies to the Trident.

B. Before, Dorne had mostly kept out of the war, only fighting small fights close to the borders of Dorne.

C. How does this relate to the insult done at Harrenhal?

D. You do realise that we are speaking about the timeframe where Elia could possibly have been set aside, right?

E. All was good and well before the Tourney at Harrenhal. During the Tourney, Dorne was insulted,

F. but Doran refrained from his anger because he knew Elia would one day be Queen, and Aegon King after Rhaegar,

G. and making problems about the insult done would serve no good.

H. After Harrenhal, Elia became pregnant. Nine months passed, and Aegon was born.

I. Rhaegar was still in KL when Aegon was born. He spoke to Elia, he spoke to the maesters.

J. Only then did he leave, and did Lyanna disappear.

K. So when speaking about Dorne and the insult it would be if Elia was set aside in favour of Lyanna –

L. something that would have been known since annulling a marriage can only be legally done in front of the High Septon (who resides in KL),

M.. but for arguments sake, let’s say that Rhaegar could keep it a secret – it would have become known after the war had ended.

N. The Seven Kingdoms had suffered during that year of war. Setting Elia aside, would then anger Dorne, whose armies were still largely intact.

O. Dorne was already angered by the Harrenhal incident, where Elia was still Rhaegars wife. Setting her aside, would lead to even more anger… and possibly a war, in a land already suffering from the remains of the war.

P. Specific enough?

Q. And which specification would you like to see here?

10

A, Real-life laws don’t apply in the books, where the author get’s to make up all the rules, you know?

B, GRRM has stated in SSM that there were precedents. That means that there are precedents. He never stated that there were, or had been.

He said there are.

11+12

A. They know what happened during the Sack.

B. They know that Aerys has died.

C. If you suggest that they do not know that Aegon died (who died within hours after Aerys), I fail to see how such a thing is possible.

D. Aerys was killed by a KG, Aegon was butchered.

E. Both are important, since it makes Viserys heir. If they hears about Aerys, they heard about Aegon.

F. They do mention Viserys’ protection. “Not of the Kingsguard”. Do keep in mind that Willem Darry was the brother to Jon Darry, a KG knight himself. The three KG knights would know Ser Willem, who had served as Master at arms at KL.

G. The three KG knights already knew about Aerys,

H. Aegon and Viserys’ location before Ned arrived.

I. There was time for one or two of them (if not all three) to start the travel in Viserys’ direction.

J. But they didn’t. So no, there are not 7 men between them and their king.

K. There were 7 men between them and Viserys during this conversation and the fight that followed.

L. There weren’t 7 men in between in those days before.

13

A, I argued it now. Plenty of time had passed between the Sack and Ned’s arrival.

B. Had they felt that Viserys was the true king, there was plenty of time for at least 1 of them to start traveling towards Dragonstone.

C. You fight the enemies that are trying to get to your king (which is what Ned and his friends are doing when they arrive at TOJ).

D. You do not go somewhere in the Kingdoms and start fighting enemies there, if your King is with minimum protection elsewhere, in a peculiar situation.

14

A, And are you seriously suggesting that Thorne's hatred for Jon comes from Jon being Rhaegars son?

B. Since when would Thorne have any idea about such?

C. Thorne hates Jon because he's Neds "son". Ned was a rebel. It was because of the rebels that Thorne got to spend the rest of his life on the Wall...

Edit: No idea what went wrong with quoting here. But I think I fixed it.

2. A. and B It is very lovely that you mentioned little birds everywhere in the red keep. You might even cite text that it was the case under Robert. However, to assume the same was true under Aerys would be a poor assumption. We are given that Aerys knew of the hidden passages in the Red Keep and Robert did not. It was home to the Targs and a residence of the Baratheons.

C, Relies on A and B to be true and adds the additional assumption that Varys had perect knowledge to make the position relevant. Vary's actions based on what was possibly not known do not necessarily include possible unknowns.

D, As there are not procedures for annulment, the consequences would be as well.

E.and F Lacking evidence that he acted upon the knowledge, does not imply there was nothing to know. It is a good case for Varys did not know though.

G, Again showing what somebody does not know is not the same thing as showing there is nothing to know.

H. You made up the king has no secrets from the KG. You also made up the king presents his decrees to the kingsguard. Then you claim thar your invention proves your conclusion.

5. A. agreed and B agreed so long as the king wishes him not to do so.

D, Lets see, i recall after skimming through the post initally. Nothing in the text prohibits it.. That is unfair. The answer is I do not know how it works. I know a royal decree can legitimize a bastard. It is all i am given in the text,

6. A. I quite know where the source was. I am rather accustomed to intermittent spewing of author quotes. They are mostly incomplete and or out of context. One typing GRRM said or posting a link somehow believes that he has a stamp of authority. That is one school of thought. It is a school best left where it belongs: High School. (This is only valid if the quote is both valid and relevant) The Author is a wonderful source for information about the book. If he wishes to alter it he can republish. The author does not have a magic want to alter what he has done. The author can point you towards things in the text you might have missed. That is it

B. The book is the only source on the books. I do understand fan interest in all things Martin. However, nothing added after will change what has been done. You may have a superior ability to predict what will come next. That is wonderful. It still cant change what is done now

C. and D Those are great, I am not ripping on them or being harsh in any way.

E. The point was valid. The book is the author's intent. If he didn't get it right in there, he can write another.

F. I could have toned down the sarcasm. I do apologize for that. There was nothing to ask. There was plenty in the text you could have pointed to to make the same point. I was interested in what you have to say. If i cared for GRRM's opinion, I am quite capable of reading what he has done and has to say.

G. It was unfair when I used it earlier. It is unfair for you to use it now. There is nothing wrong with an honest, I don't know how Rhaegar married Lyanna. I can show possible ways. I can also show you why I think they were. You may find problems with some of the possibilities. You may not see the clues the way I do. However, If you listen to what I have to say and I listen to you, one or both of us might get something out of it.

7. A. B D E FG H I J K I gather that you take the course of the war played a part in Rhaegar's decisions. Rather than debate it. I will limit Rhaegar's window of opportunity to act from after Aegon's birth to the reports of battlefield losses. The initial engagements were losses to avoid contraversy I will state the battle of Summerhall. That is now the window for setting aside, anulling, or marrying a second wife. The window for legitimization would be slightly longer.

C. I avoided the topic. It was your lack of specifying a timeframe for Rhaegar's concern about Dorne's loyalty and assistance.

L. There is the misuse of quotes again. That is based on a quote about Sansa. The books refer to a council of the faith and its practices are unclear. Marriage is not a legal process but a religous one.

M. Ok. How would it have come out. As we have not established who knew what and where and where all loyalties are, to conclude discovery is inevitable is premature. Who would have had reason to know or care about what Rhaegar did before he died?

N. She was Aery's hostagte against Dornish treacery. Aerys did not trust Dorne.

O. It would also leave Elia and children in Aery's hands. As we do not know the policy on inheritence, Dorne could still have had their king to be.

P. I guess so. and Q that about covers it,

10 A, The aurhor gets to make up the rules for the next book, You know? He already did for the last one. Just like in real life, write it and hit send and it is done.

B. Precedents are an interesting concept. Take a look at them. It is not what was done first but what was done last. marijuana was legal in america. then there was a precedent and it became illegal... now there is another precedent and it is legal again, Unless he said when or which one applies he has you chasing your tail.

11+12

A. B. They knew Aerys died and Jamie killed him. There is limited text. You can assume it is true but it is not in the ToJ scene.

C. We do not know where they got their information. we do not know what information they got. We do know what happened. I think you are confusing the latter with the former two.

D. Yes it is covered. However, neither side mentions it at the ToJ.

E. Oddly enough none of the KG mention Viserys and neither side uses the word heir.

F. Ned mentions Viserys and Darry fleeing. The LC comments that Darry is a good man and true. But not Kingsguard. Kingsguard does not flee. Yes the LC knew Darry.

G.agreed.

H. Aegon was not mentioned. The KG added no new information to Viserys.and Darry (unlike Aerys and Rhaegar)

I. You base time and duty to travel on the the first duty (ok Jamie is the source of the first duty line and He and broke or intended to break every KG vow being named warden of the east or heir to casterly rock was the last on his list) you also need Viserys location to be known. Though it is not in the discussion of the ToJ you include it because it supports the conclusion.

J. From the time they have confirmed knowledge of Viserys location (if one counts enemy reports as confirmation) yes 7 men between the two.

K.Two at the end but only 1 KG...

L. Not certain however the information on Visery's location they gave to the KG was with them.

13. A, niice statement of fact

B. Nice hypothetical... Here is another. Had they buried themselves in the sand Ned would have never known they were there. Had they gone south to Starfelll they could have gotten support. Unless they knew there were only 7 coming.

C. Would you like to add a within arms distance, within 50, 100, 500 yards of the king to the whole protect the king part of the vow. It would really help if you added the slightly further away than they were to the ToJ to help cement the deal. If Jon was king, could they have ridden and met them a mile away? or was it their vow to fight in the front yard. I am sorry for the sarcasm. but not enough to delete it. The premise the KG fights those they can is pretty solid. It also explains losing a few on the Trident with no king in sight.

D. ACCEPTED. so long as you accept it from Rhaegar's departure. Where was tihis duty when Aerys died?

14. Read the passages with Thorne and Jon and look for hints. If you don't see any then you don't. I pointed a direction because i saw a few things there. Just like the other passages I referred to. Some you may see some you may not. I was hoping you might have something you had found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...