R+L=J v 75

[corbon]

People should see the legal system in Westeros in the same light as the legal sysytem in the Middle Ages. The "Law" was not simply a matter of written edicts handed down from the King. The majority of "laws" were "common laws" that is traditions and practices that had taken on the force of "law" through their acceptance over a long period of time. Moreover, both the King (and nobles) and the church both had a say in administering the "laws" In this respect the practice of polygamy was unlawful in Westeros. The only case of "lawful" polygamy we know of were the Targ's prior to The Concilliator making peace with the Faith.

Not for the Targaryens. In fact there is no suggestion its actually unlawful, for either nobles or the church. Its merely not practiced, much as, say, the selling of wheat futures is not practiced.

Note, for the many-illionth time, that the practice of Polygmamy is not in any way ever disrespected by a Westerosi*, it is merely not practiced.

But incest is explicitly noted as against the laws of gods and men. It is not just not practiced, it is illegal in both law and religion.

Yet the Targs are widely accepted as above this law. Even in the final generations, long after the demise of the dragons.

It isincomprehensibly irrational to insist that the Targs are bound by a 'rule' which they have explicit legal precedent for breaking and in any case is literally no more than common practice while at the same time being above a rule which is explicitly illegal and unholy.

*The nearest thing is JonCon's thought that fAegon needed to remain unmarried to stay available for a marriage alliance. But that is at least as much about his precarious initial position, and compounded by JonCon being not much of a thinker in the first place and thinking as a non-targ in the second.

[stateofdissipation]

1. You mean this:

?

If we're not allowed to assume that polygamy is still allowed, since the last known polygamous marriage was 250 years ago, we´re also not allowed to assume that a man who has died 250 years ago did as he wanted to.

No where is it specifically stated that Aerys knew of the existence of the secret passages, and where they were.

2. I originally said this:

You told me that my third sentence (This same Varys is now presenting Rhaegar's son Aegon) could only be true if the two sentences before were true.

I said that this wasn't true, since we've actually seen Varys presenting Aegon (be he true or false).

Somehow (I don't know how) you respond with this:

Now, I don't know where the mentioning of Robert and Joffrey came from, nor Tyrions escape. Are you suggesting that Aerys used the secret passages frequently, and that Varys was able to secretly follow him? Even though there are doors that constantly need to be locked and unlocked, a fire is needed to follow the path, unless you actually know where you're going, and that Aerys was capable of disappearing in these passages without it being noticed by anyone at court (like his KG) for periods of time...

No. This is where I stop...

Seriously, I stopped reading.

1. Add that to what Varys said. "The Red Keep has ways known only to ghosts and spiders" We know Varys is the spider. From Meagar we get only the blood of the dragon. (which are now ghosts)

That does not mean that anything must be. Just as: because Varys spied on Robert does not mean he must have been spying on Aerys.

2. I really had no idea why you attempted to tie a decree legitimizing Jon must have been known by Varys into Varys relationship with Aegon. It was a question. An attempt to link your first two sentences to the third. Cat is from the Riverlands Ned is from the North and Varys is representing Aegon have an equally logical association. You are absobutely correct there is no relation between the first 2 and the last one.

Robert's death, Joff's death, and Tyrion's eacape actually relate to Vary's current location. Unliike Varys must have known anout a decree legitimizing Jon.

Now i get your attempted connection. Varys knowledge of the secret ways of the Red keep is related to Aegon's escape. It would have been helpful if you left out the bit about decrees and what Varys "must" have known. and included the bit about Aegon's escape. You managed to restate that Varys had knowledge of the Red Keep's secret passage ways. That is very good and was not an issue. The issue was Varys spying on Aerys. Yes the secret ways of the Red Keep do allow for spying. Yes Varys knew of them while he served Aerys. Yes Varys could have spied on Aerys. No that does not prove he did. I will even concede that Varys smuggles Aegon out of the city using knowledge of the secret ways. Use of the passages to rescue the infant king from the Lannisters does prove Vary's loyalty to the Targaryens. No it does not prove he was spying on Aerys.

I do apologize for pointing out that you were in essence repeating Varys knowledge of secret ways and adding to his specific use of the passages instead of finding anything that linked Varys knowledge and activities to spying on Aerys. And I also apologize for not accepting that your assumption that Vary's was spying, your assumption that it would have revealed a decree legitimizing Rhaegar and Lyanna's children, and your conclusion that Vary's lack of knowledge proves that no decree existed and proves Vary's spying on Aerys.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

You folks should make a flow chart to sum up this discussion. That way you wouldn't have to continue arguing the same points over and over again. You could just point to the flow chart.

For instance, in response to Corbon above, you could skip the 1000 word post and just say "Refer to Flow Chart Item 4". Then Corbon could respond with "I give you FC Items 2 and 7." And Stateofdissipation could pitch in with "I once again direct your attention to Items 1 through 9."

[stateofdissipation]

I disagree.

While marriages are performed by a septon (some at least), they also have legal status and functions, not just religious.

And mine is that you have missed, and continue to miss, the point. The terms of the discussion are how the KG sees, it, not how we see it. In their terms the Targaryens have not yet lost the right to rule, just the ability to assert that right. They can yet regain the power and re-assert that right, even if it takes some time.

You may not agree, but its not your perspective that the discussion centres around, its that of the 3KG at the ToJ.

Marriages do have legal functions, However, they are not legal functions.

Marriages conducted by a religion and held valid by that religion are legally valid. An annulment conducted by the religion that conducted the marriage iegally voids the marriage.

The law requires a marriage to be performed in accordance with any religion for it to be considered legal. It does not dictate the practices of any religion. It also does not have the power to perform this religious function.

The base statement at issue was "polygamy was never made illegal"

The law allows polygamy, The law allowed polygamy. The law will allow polygamy. (the positives of the statement.) Negative or positive,really does not matter. In marriage the law holds true what the religions hold true. That is the basis of the statement "Marriage is a matter of religion and not law."

Polygamy is legal. Is a completely accurate statement. However the law does not have the ability to grant the first marriage or the second. A religion does.

The faith of the seven has allowed polygamy. This statement includes the entity with the authority practice the function in question.

Here is a link to the history of marriage:

http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html

State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.

[Alia of the knife]

On Varys, (and if this has been discussed already, please forgive), but knowing the secret passages of the RK reinforces my speculation that he is a dragon himself, just not Targaryen, and actively worked to undermine the entire family, just as he and Illryio are undermining the Lannisters/Berantheon, and would not have saved Aegon.

[stateofdissipation]

:bang: Still completely missing the point

The whole framework this discussion is centred on is the potential marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna. And how the Kingsguard's actions and statements at ToJ provide strong evidence that such a marriage existed. So we are talking about what the KG believes the situation to be, not what you believe it to be.

The KG do not agree with you that the Targs have lost the right to rule at that stage. Robert is the Usurper, indicating his right is not yet accepted, therefore the Targaryen right is still paramount in their minds.

Is the stage the KG believed Robert was the "usurper" at he battle of the Trident or after the sack of King's landing? In short was it the sitting Usurper or the rebelling Usurper?

On the Trident Robert had no right to defy the king. On the Iron Throne, he had the right of conquest..

[Ygrain]

On Varys, (and if this has been discussed already, please forgive), but knowing the secret passages of the RK reinforces my speculation that he is a dragon himself, just not Targaryen, and actively worked to undermine the entire family, just as he and Illryio are undermining the Lannisters/Berantheon, and would not have saved Aegon.

My point, as well, and if it turns out that he actually pulled some threads to kick off the Rebellion, I won't be surprised in the least.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Is the stage the KG believed Robert was the "usurper" at he battle of the Trident or after the sack of King's landing? In short was it the sitting Usurper or the rebelling Usurper?

On the Trident Robert had no right to defy the king. On the Iron Throne, he had the right of conquest..

They knew Aerys was dead... So they knew the Sack had happened.

[Ygrain]

usurp:

v.tr.

1. To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force or without legal authority.

2. To take over or occupy without right: usurp a neighbor's land.

3. To take the place of (another) without legal authority; supplant.

v.intr.

To seize another's place, authority, or possession wrongfully.

usurper: one who wrongfully or illegally seizes and holds the place of another

At the Trident, Robert is a rebel, not an usurper.

[stateofdissipation]

They knew Aerys was dead... So they knew the Sack had happened.

I know the 2013 Seahawks are the champions. I also know the 2005 Seahawks were pretenders.

If we are discussing the 2005 season, I would call the Seahawks the pretenders.

The KG knew of the Trident. They also knew about the sack of KL.

*edited to state the implied

Ned and Hightower were discussing the Trident.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

They knew Aerys was dead... So they knew the Sack had happened.

.

So are the KG sworn to defend a house, or the office? Because if they knew Aerys was dead, Robert had claimed the throne, and they were sworn to the king - then their determined defense of Lyanna's child can only mean... :eek: that Jon is Robert's son!

(No polygamy required. ;) )

.

[The guy from the Vale]

.

So are the KG sworn to defend a house, or the office? Because if they knew Aerys was dead, Robert had claimed the throne, and they were sworn to the king - then their determined defense of Lyanna's child can only mean... :eek: that Jon is Robert's son!

(No polygamy required. ;) )

.

The KG are actually sworn to house Targaryen itself, not the throne. Robert had to have Barristan and Jaime sworn in with a new oath of fealty, and Barristan considers that treason.

As for the right of conquest argument, there are concepts of legitimate rule that do not assume the rule always was legitimate. I can see Aegon I and Maegor as illegitimate rulers of Westeros and still think that at the current time, the Targaryens are the legitimate ruling family - for exactly the same reasons even.

Jon as Robert's son fails because of the timeline and because the seed is strong ;) Timeline because Lyanna was abducted before Jon was sired, and the seed because Jon doesn't have Robert's looks.

[stateofdissipation]

usurp:

v.tr.

1. To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force or without legal authority.

2. To take over or occupy without right: usurp a neighbor's land.

3. To take the place of (another) without legal authority; supplant.

v.intr.

To seize another's place, authority, or possession wrongfully.

usurper: one who wrongfully or illegally seizes and holds the place of another

At the Trident, Robert is a rebel, not an usurper.

I think I see the problem. We used different dictionaries. So we reached different conclusions. This is not to say mine is right or yours is wrong. Just that following your definition leads to your conclusion and mine leads to mine. I understand where you are coming from and accept the point as valid.

u·surp

verb (used with object)

1.

to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right

2.

to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully

verb (used without object)

3.

to commit forcible or illegal seizure of an office, power, etc.; encroach.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I know the 2013 Seahawks are the champions. I also know the 2005 Seahawks were pretenders.

If we are discussing the 2005 season, I would call the Seahawks the pretenders.

Ned and Hightower were discussing the Trident.

I clearly see a mentioning of KL and Aerys' death in that conversation...

"I looked for you on the Trident," Ned said to them.

"We were not there," Ser Gerold answered.

"Woe to the Usurper if we had been," said Ser Oswell.

"When King’s Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were."

"Far away," Ser Gerold said, "or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells."

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

.

So are the KG sworn to defend a house, or the office? Because if they knew Aerys was dead, Robert had claimed the throne, and they were sworn to the king - then their determined defense of Lyanna's child can only mean... :eek: that Jon is Robert's son!

(No polygamy required. ;) )

.

They swear oaths to their king. When there is a new king, news oath need to be sworn.

The three KG do not transfer into the service of Robert just because he claimed the throne after Aerys had died. They are still sworn to the house of their previous king, the one they swore their oaths to.

So: sworn to the house, not the office.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Ygrain, on 19 Mar 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

usurp:

v.tr.

1. To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force or without legal authority.

2. To take over or occupy without right: usurp a neighbor's land.

3. To take the place of (another) without legal authority; supplant.

v.intr.

To seize another's place, authority, or possession wrongfully.

usurper: one who wrongfully or illegally seizes and holds the place of another

At the Trident, Robert is a rebel, not an usurper.

I think I see the problem. We used different dictionaries. So we reached different conclusions. This is not to say mine is right or yours is wrong. Just that following your definition leads to your conclusion and mine leads to mine. I understand where you are coming from and accept the point as valid.
u·surp

verb (used with object)

1.

to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right

2.

to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully

verb (used without object)

3.

to commit forcible or illegal seizure of an office, power, etc.; encroach.

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

[Natasi]

This discussion on the legality of polygamy or other methods of legitimacy seems very one-dimensional. Has anyone considered that these "accepted" laws and customs could very well be turned on their heads?

I see the argument made again and again that things "aren't done that way" and that the people would never allow it. There isn't a supreme court, though. There's no legislative body to deem something acceptable or not. I believe that, if the circumstances are ripe for it, all of the laws and accepted customs can be overruled. A circumstance like a bastard helping to defeat the Others and save the Realm. It seems likely to me that such a scenario would change people's minds on who can be their leader. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't exclude it from happening.

I think that our arguments here are being made in an unnecessarily rigid framework and we should consider the possibility of that framework being torn down and rebuilt.

[Rhaegar I Targaryen]

This discussion on the legality of polygamy or other methods of legitimacy seems very one-dimensional. Has anyone considered that these "accepted" laws and customs could very well be turned on their heads?

I see the argument made again and again that things "aren't done that way" and that the people would never allow it. There isn't a supreme court, though. There's no legislative body to deem something acceptable or not. I believe that, if the circumstances are ripe for it, all of the laws and accepted customs can be overruled. A circumstance like a bastard helping to defeat the Others and save the Realm. It seems likely to me that such a scenario would change people's minds on who can be their leader. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't exclude it from happening.

I think that our arguments here are being made in an unnecessarily rigid framework and we should consider the possibility of that framework being torn down and rebuilt.

I like this. T'will be addressed when I return from class B)

[stateofdissipation]

Ygrain, on 19 Mar 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

I think I see the problem. We used different dictionaries. So we reached different conclusions. This is not to say mine is right or yours is wrong. Just that following your definition leads to your conclusion and mine leads to mine. I understand where you are coming from and accept the point as valid.

u·surp

verb (used with object)

1.

to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right

2.

to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully

verb (used without object)

3.

to commit forcible or illegal seizure of an office, power, etc.; encroach.

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

To start with the "almost." "Almost" exactly the same does say it is different.

usurp:

v.tr.

1. To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force or without legal authority.

2. To take over or occupy without right: usurp a neighbor's land.

3. To take the place of (another) without legal authority; supplant.

v.intr.

To seize another's place, authority, or possession wrongfully

1 is the same in both definitions. One paraphrases the other.

2. To take over or occupy without right: usurp a neighbor's land.=/= 2. to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully

If i take your lawnmower i usurp it. is different from If I use your lawnmower I usurp it.

3. To take the place of (another) without legal authority; supplant=/=3.to commit forcible or illegal seizure of an office, power, etc.; encroach.

If i take your place i usurp it is different from if i take your power I usurp it.

As this applies to different conclusions.

Using your definition taking or seizing place and power makes Robert the Usurper only after the sack of KL, This makes the conclusion that the KG did not recognize Robert as the legitimate king completely valid.

Using my definition using the king's power and/or encroaching on the king make(s) Robert a usurper, This makes the conclusion that Robert was a Usurper at the Trident completely valid.

[MtnLion]

No point.