R+L=J v 75

[stateofdissipation]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10)What?

11)Okay, then what's your point?

1) Polygamy (in the Seven Kingdoms- If we want to speak of essos and north of the wall we can.. and it would apply to Kings north of the wall and essos) not seen or practiced or mentioned (outside of references to the ancient past) in living memory=less likely Practiced, seen, and mentioned in recent history=more likely.

During Robert's rebellion Others had not been seen in living memory. During Robert's rebellion knights were seen. It is MORE LIKELY a knight killed a person in Robert's rebellion. It is LESS LIKELY an Other killed a person in Robert's Rebellion.

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

"If" and "could have" are always questionable.

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

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

You did not exclude the witness . However, you pointed to the involvement of only Lyanna and Rhaegar and did not include a wittness.

4) Setting aside was mentioned as a current fear of Cersei. Polygamy was mentioned as something out of a book or a story. The threat of the wildings is mentioned as a current fear of the Night's Watch. Snarks and Grumpkins are mentioned in stories and books. Snarks and Grumpkins are mentioned by Tyrion. Present practices did not become more likely than history or stories. They always were.

5) The secret relationship that is so secret that it was not mentioned in the book and therefore kept secret...by? from ?

6) and all the mentions are from HISTORY

7) I got it now: The lack of power of the Iron Throne (without dragons) to rule the North equals the power of the Iron Throne (without dragons) to impose its will on the faith of the seven.

8) The lack of power of the Iron Throne (without dragons) to rule the North equals the power of the Iron Throne (without dragons) to impose its will on the faith of the seven.( It does not make more sense the more it gets repeated)

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

If you remove the deduce and add speculate... and "what we know" into "what we would like to believe" you would be very close to accurate.

10)The question you seem so intent on banishing is: how could R marry L when he was already married to Lyanna? It is from FAQ at the head of this topic... and it has yours as an answer (however it is not so militant about it)

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

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

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

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

each has it's difficulties and some positive aspects.

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

To spell out the obvious: There is everything wrong with claiming to be certain with no way to prove it.

[stateofdissipation]

1) Perhaps we are reading different series because that is exactly what happened in the series I've read several times; the King in the North was reintroduced because the great lords of the North decided to do it rather than be ruled by Kings Landing anymore. The bit about marrying the dragons was really just pretext,

2) since they had happily submitted to Robert's rule after the winged dragons and human ones were gone,

3) it was just that they were not going to be ruled by the King who killed Lord Stark and the "lack of dragons" provided an air of legitimacy for the whole thing. It wasn't the loss of the actual dragons that lost the North, otherwise the North would have been an independent kingdom for 100 years before the books started.

4) There is no indication as to why/when exactly the Targaryens stopped practicing polygamy, just that after a certain point they did.

5) They certainly never made a proclamation that it would never be used again. And since Rhaegar was looking to re-create Aegon and his sisters,

6) you'd think polygamy might well be on the table since Aegon certainly practiced it.

1) Rule is not a matter of decision. It is a matter of force. The North had the power to stand up to the Iron Throne, The killing of Ned was their pretext for war.(houses that were never ruled by the Starks knelt to the King of the North) The absence of dragons was a statement that they could win. The North had the power to defy the throne. Just like the faith of the seven gained power to deny polygamy when the dragons died.

2) Ned, their Lord had bent the knee to the Iron Throne. Without a Stark to stand behind the North lacked the power to defy the Iron Throne.

3) again, Ned was the pretext... the reason was the south lacked the power to rule a united north. (lack of dragons showed the south's lack of power)

4) Check geneologies and timelines. The polygamy stopped when the dragons died.

5) Marriage was not a legal affair but a religous one. There was not a provision of the faith of the seven that allowed it. There is no evidence that the North practiced it. (No it was not impossible. However as there are ways to accomplish the same ends practiced in the books why push the point which you cannot prove. Just spell out the options. and ADMIT that each one has pros and cons... but the weight of evidence shows that R married L.)

6) What I think is that to fixate on trying to prove one of three viable methods of Jon being legitimate weakens the case for Jon is legitimate. I can prove there are 3 ways. I can prove there was time to accomplish any one of them. I can also prove by weight of evidence (and no specific "proof") that Jon is legitimate. Why not pitch in on specific references to Jon's legitimacy and leave what cannot be decided as an undecided.

[stateofdissipation]

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

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

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

The passage was IR the wilding story of Bael the Bard and Brandon the daughterless....The North bent the knee to the might of the dragons. Then they faced the combined might of 6 kingdoms if they had chosen to defy the Iron Throne. Recent events proved to the North that the Iron Throne no longer had the power to force them to bend the knee.... They rose up because of might and not as part of what was right.... A united north could not be conquered by a divided south.

There was no marriage law. Marriage was a religous practice not a civil practice. We have no known practiced polygamy in over 200 years, You are making things up. we simply don't know if it was practicable or not. I am only admitting we do not know.

Again marriage was not civil, it was religous. and if you assume you do so at your own peril.

I never said that polygamy was impossible. I stated a fact there is less evidence to support recent practices of polygamy than practices of annulment, setting a wife aside and legitimization of a bastard.

I stated the fact that Rhaegar had ample time to accomplish any of the above. I stated the fact that the weight of the evidence supports Jon is legitimate.

I can only do that because I do not insist on proving what cannot be proved. If i were to insist that any piece of Jon is legitimate is proof that he was, I would be wrong and lose credibility.

[J. Stargaryen]

1) Polygamy (in the Seven Kingdoms- If we want to speak of essos and north of the wall we can.. and it would apply to Kings north of the wall and essos) not seen or practiced or mentioned (outside of references to the ancient past) in living memory=less likely Practiced, seen, and mentioned in recent history=more likely.

During Robert's rebellion Others had not been seen in living memory. During Robert's rebellion knights were seen. It is MORE LIKELY a knight killed a person in Robert's rebellion. It is LESS LIKELY an Other killed a person in Robert's Rebellion.

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

"If" and "could have" are always questionable.

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

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

You did not exclude the ou . However, you pointed to the involvement of only Lyanna and Rhaegar and did not include a wittness.

4) Setting aside was mentioned as a current fear of Cersei. Polygamy was mentioned as something out of a book or a story. The threat of the wildings is mentioned as a current fear of the Night's Watch. Snarks and Grumpkins are mentioned in stories and books. Snarks and Grumpkins are mentioned by Tyrion. Present practices did not become more likely than history or stories. They always were.

5) The secret relationship that is so secret that it was not mentioned in the book and therefore kept secret...by? from ?

6) and all the mentions are from HISTORY

7) I got it now: The lack of power of the Iron Throne (without dragons) to rule the North equals the power of the Iron Throne (without dragons) to impose its will on the faith of the seven.

8) The lack of power of the Iron Throne (without dragons) to rule the North equals the power of the Iron Throne (without dragons) to impose its will on the faith of the seven.( It does not make more sense the more it gets repeated)

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

If you remove the deduce and add speculate... and "what we know" into "what we would like to believe" you would be very close to accurate.

10)The question you seem so intent on banishing is: how could R marry L when he was already married to Lyanna? It is from FAQ at the head of this topic... and it has yours as an answer (however it is not so militant about it)

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

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

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

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

each has it's difficulties and some positive aspects.

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

To spell out the obvious: There is everything wrong with claiming to be certain with no way to prove it.

Until you can learn to quote and respond like a normal member of this community, I'm done replying to you. I don't know what you're doing, but you keep adding in a bunch of extra code that fucks up the text, which makes it a chore to respond to you. And that's on top of the fact that you don't have anything remotely interesting or intelligent to add to the discussion anyway.

One thing I will point out is that Ser Jorah suggested to Dany that she take two husbands. And this happened in, wait for it, recent history. And while I'm at it, never in the history of the 7K, as far as we know, was a royal wife set aside, or was there a royal marriage which was annulled. So how are either of those a more likely option than polygamy, which happened on more than one occasion?

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

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

.

The automatic assumption may have been mine (among others, I'm sure) - and reading through Ygritte's take, I see that the word "bastard" is not used with reference to Bael's son. It is used, however, to identify Jon - and it is his self-identification as a bastard of Winterfell that seems to trigger Ygritte's telling of the tale.

Beyond that, it seems clear that - south of the Wall - the word "bastard" would have applied to the grandson of Brandon the Daughterless, at least until Brandon himself decided otherwise. By wildling standards, on the other hand, the relationship - and thus the fruit of the union - is acceptable because the daughter herself found it acceptable. So we wouldn't expect Ygritte to use the word "bastard" anyway...

It sets up an interesting set of dynamics for translation to Jon's own story - and a very different notion of "legitimacy" than has been debated here lately. Almost a complete reversal, in fact.

ETA: I think it's a great parable for prompting discussion of what, exactly, "legitimacy" means in the end for Jon - and from whence it comes.

.

[Sasha Steelsong]

1) Rule is not a matter of decision. It is a matter of force. The North had the power to stand up to the Iron Throne, The killing of Ned was their pretext for war. The absence of dragons was a statement that they could win. The North had the power to defy the throne.

2) Ned, their Lord had e to the Iron Throne. Without a Stark to stand behind the North lacked the power to defy the Iron Throne.

3) again, Ned was the pretext... the reason was the south lacked the power to rule a united north. (lack of dragons showed the south's lack of power)

4) Check geneologies and timelines. The polygamy stopped when the dragons died.

5) Marriage was not a legal affair but a religous one. There was not a provision of the faith of the seven that allowed it. There is no evidence that the North practiced it. (No it was not impossible. However as there are ways to accomplish the same ends practiced in the books why push the point which you cannot prove. Just spell out the options. and ADMIT that each one has pros and cons... but the weight of evidence shows that R married L.)

6) What I think is that to fixate on trying to prove one of three viable methods of Jon being legitimate weakens the case for Jon is legitimate. I can prove there are 3 ways. I can prove there was time to accomplish any one of them. I can also prove by weight of evidence (and no specific "proof") that Jon is legitimate. Why not pitch in on specific references to Jon's legitimacy and leave what cannot be decided as an undecided.

Sigh.

1) Rule is actually a bit of both because the North definitely had to the power to free themselves from Westeros as assembled by the Targaryens from the moment Aerys and his Iron Throne fell. They had the power to rebel for all of Robert's reign, they had the power to rebel when Ned was named Hand. They chose not to do any of that until their rightful lord was murdered in Kings Landing. They did not state their reason for leaving the Iron Throne/Kingdom of Westeros as Ned's death, they stated that they they had knelt to the dragons and the dragons were now dead (in part because they just had no interest in the various claims to the Iron Throne), ergo it was the pretext they used (you're confusing pretext with motivation which was Ned's death) to justify the "legality" of their separation - in reality they had no more right to rebel than either time Grayjoy did it. I'm a Stark loyalist but that is just the plain truth of the matter.

2) No idea what you mean by "Ned, their Lord had e to the Iron Throne" - The phrase is missing a key word that I choose not to guess at. That said they at present don't have a Stark to stand behind (an adult one at any rate - the one kid they might think they have they still don't have possession of, so functionally they are without a Stark) and the North seems to be finding its way to defy the Iron Throne just fine.

3) Ned was not the pretext, Ned was the motivation. Ned's imprisonment motivated the calling of the banners, the lords later JUSTIFIED their move for independence on the basis that they as a region knelt to the Targaryens not the Baratheons, thus no longer needed to bend the knee to the south.

4) The genealogies and the timelines are not complete, but regardless the difference between forswearing use of something ever again and something just falling out of practice is rather significant. Given that generally the Targaryens didn't seem to have a shortage of heirs, even with the inbreeding polygamy may not have been necessary as they had enough dragons as it was - I do recall Aemon going on about how his grandfather warned of the problems with too many dragons as well as too few. There are plenty of reasons to stop doing it, several that don't have anything to do with whether there are real dragons around or not.

5) Now maybe, in the world of Westeros however marriage was most definitely a political affair. That is how truces were made, and alliances sealed - hell even in the show (which while not cannon is still a good example) Cersei and Robert joke that it is their marriage that has kept Westeros together since the rebellion. It is a really really really poor argument to make that marriage for nobles was not a political matter. Neither the North nor the rest of Westeros needed to have ever practiced it, all that matters was that the Targaryens (the one royal house of all of Westeros - they made the seven kingdoms one, Robert claimed the throne through his Targaryen heritage, thus they are still the foundation of the Iron Throne) practiced it once when both the faith and the North didn't, and were still seen as the legit rulers of the kingdom. It's good to be King, you can do things others can't. And as Rhaegar was looking to recreate Aegon (the polygamous) who married BOTH his sisters, it is not unreasonable to think that he might revive polygamy to do it.

6) Ahhh the catch all answer that amounts to "it doesn't really matter anyway" - I don't need to address this because it was never the point of my argument. From the beginning I have been trying to point out that the quote used describing the rationale the North put forward to break with the Iron Throne was used as an example of something from the past that had not been used for centuries that was revived at the whim of lords because it suited their purposes in the present. Where as you have been maintaining that it was some sort of proof that polygamy was ok with the north. Still have no idea where you got that interpretation.

[stateofdissipation]

Until you can learn to quote and respond like a normal member of this community, I'm done replying to you. I don't know what you're doing, but you keep adding in a bunch of extra code that fucks up the text, which makes it a chore to respond to you. And that's on top of the fact that you don't have anything remotely interesting or intelligent to add to the discussion anyway.

One thing I will point out is that Ser Jorah suggested to Dany that she take two husbands. And this happened in, wait for it, recent history. And while I'm at it, never in the history of the 7K, as far as we know, was a royal wife set aside, or was there a royal marriage which was annulled. So how are either of those a more likely option than polygamy, which happened on more than one occasion?

The one thing you pointed out was in wait for it... ESSOS and to a Targaryen with wait for it.... dragons. There are also wait for it.... wildings and dorthraki that engage in polygamy.

how long will it be before he sets me aside for some new Lyanna?--- Cersei in the 7K

The septon declared the mariage void-- Tyrion in the 7K

The septon declared Joffrey could set aside Sansa (admittedly not married )in the 7K

Joffrey legitimized Ramsay, Stannis and Robb offered to legitize Jon. in the 7K

The funny part is they are not more likely than Polygamy... nor are they less likely...

There was far as we know something that made Jon legitiate.... We know this by examining scenes and clues. When the overall weight and volume of the indications require more work to deny than to accept, we accept it.

I can point out that Ned's comments in the crypts of winterfell state that Lyanna lost her husband and that she was afraid to lose her son. I would be wrong because the truth is Ned was thinking about Lyanna but his comments could apply equally to Lysa or Lyanna (if R+L=J).

Your entire insight and intelligence are summarized in the FAQ of this thread.

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?

The evidence that Jon is legitimate is that Targaryens have a history of polygamous marriages which makes it a possibility that Rhaegar had two wives. Three Kingsguards were present at the Tower of Joy when Ned arrived. Even after Ned said that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead and Viserys had fled to Dragonstone, the Kingsguard opted to stay at the Tower of Joy stating they were obeying their Kingsguard vow. The heart of a Kingsguard's vow is to protect the king. With Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon dead, the new king would have been Viserys, unless Lyanna's child was legitimate making him the new king of the Targaryen dynasty. For a comprehensive analysis of Jon's legitimacy, see the detailed explanations in the two linked articles.

(I would like tp point out that this answer posts that evidence is a possibility. Adds Kingsguard to "we swore a vow" Invents a heart of the KG vows. Interjects Aegon into the discussion at ToJ. It also ignores its invention of the heart of the KG when it came to Aerys and Aegon but remembers it in time for Ned to get to the ToJ.)

But polygamy hadn't been practiced in centuries, is it still even legal?

The practice was never made illegal and there may have been some less prominent examples after Maegor, as stated in this SSM. Furthermore, Jorah suggests it to Dany as a viable option.

(I would like to point out that there is no civil marriage described in Westeros. The term illegal is incorrect. In faith based unions the rules of the faith apply. The faith of the seven does not have a provision for polygamy. Additionally Jorah is in Essos with a Targ that has dragons when he makes the suggestion. It has absolutely no bearing on the 7 kingdoms. Additionally Jorah believed it was ok to sell poachers into slavery.)

In case you have more intelligent and interesting things tp pass along... it might just be easier to cut and paste from the FAQ on the first page of the thread.

[MtnLion]

1. polygamy

2. setting aside his first wife

3. Legitimizing his bastards

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

Polygamy is objected to, on what grounds? It is not anymore difficult to achieve than say incest. Aerys and Rhaella were brother and sister, and were married to each other. Stuff that idea that dragon were necessary to achieve the Targaryen's ends.

[J. Stargaryen]

The one thing you pointed out was in wait for it... ESSOS and to a Targaryen with wait for it.... dragons. There are also wait for it.... wildings and dorthraki that engage in polygamy.

how long will it be before he sets me aside for some new Lyanna?--- Cersei in the 7K

The septon declared the mariage void-- Tyrion in the 7K

The septon declared Joffrey could set aside Sansa (admittedly not married )in the 7K

Joffrey legitimized Ramsay, Stannis and Robb offered to legitize Jon. in the 7K

The funny part is they are not more likely than Polygamy... nor are they less likely...

There was far as we know something that made Jon legitiate.... We know this by examining scenes and clues. When the overall weight and volume of the indications require more work to deny than to accept, we accept it.

I can point out that Ned's comments in the crypts of winterfell state that Lyanna lost her husband and that she was afraid to lose her son. I would be wrong because the truth is Ned was thinking about Lyanna but his comments could apply equally to Lysa or Lyanna (if R+L=J).

Your entire insight and intelligence are summarized in the FAQ of this thread.

But that's not true. This very day I added a nice counter point to the argument against Targaryen polygamy, on the basis that it hadn't been used in many years.

[stateofdissipation]

Sigh.

1) Rule is actually a bit of both because the North definitely had to the power to free themselves from Westeros as assembled by the Targaryens from the moment Aerys and his Iron Throne fell. They had the power to rebel for all of Robert's reign, they had the power to rebel when Ned was named Hand. They chose not to do any of that until their rightful lord was murdered in Kings Landing. They did not state their reason for leaving the Iron Throne/Kingdom of Westeros as Ned's death, they stated that they they had knelt to the dragons and the dragons were now dead (in part because they just had no interest in the various claims to the Iron Throne), ergo it was the pretext they used (you're confusing pretext with motivation which was Ned's death) to justify the "legality" of their separation - in reality they had no more right to rebel than either time Grayjoy did it. I'm a Stark loyalist but that is just the plain truth of the matter.

2) No idea what you mean by "Ned, their Lord had e to the Iron Throne" - The phrase is missing a key word that I choose not to guess at. That said they at present don't have a Stark to stand behind (an adult one at any rate - the one kid they might think they have they still don't have possession of, so functionally they are without a Stark) and the North seems to be finding its way to defy the Iron Throne just fine.

3) Ned was not the pretext, Ned was the motivation. Ned's imprisonment motivated the calling of the banners, the lords later JUSTIFIED their move for independence on the basis that they as a region knelt to the Targaryens not the Baratheons, thus no longer needed to bend the knee to the south.

4) The genealogies and the timelines are not complete, but regardless the difference between forswearing use of something ever again and something just falling out of practice is rather significant. Given that generally the Targaryens didn't seem to have a shortage of heirs, even with the inbreeding polygamy may not have been necessary as they had enough dragons as it was - I do recall Aemon going on about how his grandfather warned of the problems with too many dragons as well as too few. There are plenty of reasons to stop doing it, several that don't have anything to do with whether there are real dragons around or not.

5) Now maybe, in the world of Westeros however marriage was most definitely a political affair. That is how truces were made, and alliances sealed - hell even in the show (which while not cannon is still a good example) Cersei and Robert joke that it is their marriage that has kept Westeros together since the rebellion. It is a really really really poor argument to make that marriage for nobles was not a political matter. Neither the North nor the rest of Westeros needed to have ever practiced it, all that matters was that the Targaryens (the one royal house of all of Westeros - they made the seven kingdoms one, Robert claimed the throne through his Targaryen heritage, thus they are still the foundation of the Iron Throne) practiced it once when both the faith and the North didn't, and were still seen as the legit rulers of the kingdom. It's good to be King, you can do things others can't. And as Rhaegar was looking to recreate Aegon (the polygamous) who married BOTH his sisters, it is not unreasonable to think that he might revive polygamy to do it.

6) Ahhh the catch all answer that amounts to "it doesn't really matter anyway" - I don't need to address this because it was never the point of my argument. From the beginning I have been trying to point out that the quote used describing the rationale the North put forward to break with the Iron Throne was used as an example of something from the past that had not been used for centuries that was revived at the whim of lords because it suited their purposes in the present. Where as you have been maintaining that it was some sort of proof that polygamy was ok with the north. Still have no idea where you got that interpretation.

1)v. ruled, rul·ing, rules

v.tr.

1. To exercise control, dominion, or direction over; govern.

2. To dominate by powerful influence.

3. To decide or declare authoritatively or judicially; decree. See Synonyms at decide.

sorry the definition kind of has noting in it about being agreed to. Dominion...dominate... powerful inluence... lots of things but not a single "If everybody agrees"

The north definitely the power to resist Robert. They lacked a king to stand behind, Ned remained loyal. check the quoted scene, Lords that had never been ruled by the Starks bent the knee. (Men with no loyalty to Ned swore fealty to KotN. Ned was not motivation, he was pretext.) No individual lord had the power. United behind a willing King of the North they did have the power. The north did not claim legality, they claimed power.

At any rate, to equate declaring independence to reestablishing polygamy is patently obtuse. The same argument could be made that Dany has three dragons and they had not been seen in hundreds of years therefore Rhaegar had two wives.

2) Ned bent the knee... is what i meant to type... it was edited before I saw this post. I said before Robb they did not have a Stark to stand behind. Raising against the Iron Throne is one thing. Raising against the Iron Throne and the Starks is another.

3)Notice the complete lack of mention of Ned:

“There sits the only king I mean to bow my knee to, m’lords,” he thundered. “The King in the North!”

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

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

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

Unity gave them the power to demand self rule.

4) Polygamy is one of 3 viable options for a legitimate Jon. The other 2 were annulment/ Set aside (feared in the case of cersei/practiced in thin the case of Tyrion) and the legitimization in the case of Ramsay and offered to Jon. That is what was presented. I did not disqualify Polygamy because the text does not. I cannot support Polygamy because the text does not.

5)It is unfounded to say Prince Rhaegar had the power or ability to do it as well. There are pros and cons to each method of making Jon legitimate. I choose not to draw an imaginary line to distinguish between hypotheticals. It is unknown how but the text indicates Jon was legitimate. I can give a timeframe to accomplish it. I can also give means to accomplish it. However I cannot give a date or method because they are not in the text.

6) The rise of the north was somehow equated to the practice of polygamy. I was really trying to figure out how they connected. It did not seem to make sense. I tried an argument that at least might relate to the subject. I could not imagine that it was the same as the Others have returned for the first time in 8000 years therefore the 200 year gone Targ practice of polygamy was revived for Rhaegar,

My take on it was much nicer. Wildings old gods polygamy.... North old gods maybe polygamy... and then I am told I don't understand. It took me a while to see the reasoning.

[stateofdissipation]

Polygamy is objected to, on what grounds? It is not anymore difficult to achieve than say incest. Aerys and Rhaella were brother and sister, and were married to each other. Stuff that idea that dragon were necessary to achieve the Targaryen's ends. o

I am not objecting to polygamy-- it is a viable option-- but only one of 3 and the only one that characters in the 7K have not practiced in recent history.

Are you objecting to annulment or setting aside of a wife?-- setting aside was not practiced just feared. annulment was not shown in the royal family

Are you objecting to legitimization of a bastard?-- we have seen no legitimizations pre birth

each pose their own problems... each solve some problem..

In the end the method is not specified. The hints and clues that Jon is legitimate are. The motivation for Rhaegar to do so are. The timeframe he had to do it is between the Harrenhal Tournament and before the Trident. Rhaegar had motive, and opportunity. He apparently accomplished it. Arguing if a murder victim was hit with a pipe or a baseball bat seems silly. He was killed by blunt force trauma.

[The Mad Wolf]

It would be pretty awesome if they were twins

[stateofdissipation]

But that's not true. This very day I added a nice counter point to the argument against Targaryen polygamy, on the basis that it hadn't been used in many years.

I do apologize good sir... though I do take that as you are pro-polygamy.. and I hope your argument was not the rise of the King of the North.(The link between the old gods and polygamy is actually stronger than the weakness of the Iron Throne and being able to impose the will of the Iron Throne)

The Rhaegar was popular enough to make it happen is much stronger...

They cheered for him twice as loudly as they had for Aerys but only half as loud as they had for Rhaegar. Popular support can be as powerful as a dragon.

To that good sir I would have no retort.

I am not opposed to polygamy. I am only opposed to tying legitimacy to one obscure practice to the exclusion of reasonable alternatives.

I suppose I could have the retort: Lyanna's expressed distrust/dislike of a man that will not keep to one bed (regarding Robert around the Harrenhal tournament)

It would follow that if Rhaegar loved Lyanna, he would wish to devote himself to her exclusively.

It would follow also that a barren woman might be set aside to produce the required 3rd.

In the end it is arguing about the murder weapon when we have a man caught at the scene with motive, plenty of available means, and opportunity... just arrest him and let the jury (or next book) decide.

[Sasha Steelsong]

1) The north definitely the power to resist Robert. They lacked a king to stand behind, Ned remained loyal. check the quoted scene, Lords that had never been ruled by the Starks bent the knee. (Men with no loyalty to Ned swore fealty to KotN. Ned was not motivation, he was pretext.) No individual lord had the power. United behind a willing King of the North they did have the power. The north did not claim legality, they claimed power.

At any rate, to equate declaring independence to reestablishing polygamy is patently obtuse. The same argument could be made that Dany has three dragons and they had not been seen in hundreds of years therefore Rhaegar had two wives.

2) Ned bent the knee... is what i meant to type... it was edited before I saw this post. I said before Robb they did not have a Stark to stand behind. Raising against the Iron Throne is one thing. Raising against the Iron Throne and the Starks is another.

3)Notice the complete lack of mention of Ned:

“There sits the only king I mean to bow my knee to, m’lords,” he thundered. “The King in the North!”

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

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

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

Unity gave them the power to demand self rule.

4) Polygamy is one of 3 viable options for a legitimate Jon. The other 2 were annulment/ Set aside (feared in the case of cersei/practiced in thin the case of Tyrion) and the legitimization in the case of Ramsay and offered to Jon. That is what was presented. I did not disqualify Polygamy because the text does not. I cannot support Polygamy because the text does not.

5)It is unfounded to say Prince Rhaegar had the power or ability to do it as well. There are pros and cons to each method of making Jon legitimate. I choose not to draw an imaginary line to distinguish between hypotheticals. It is unknown how but the text indicates Jon was legitimate. I can give a timeframe to accomplish it. I can also give means to accomplish it. However I cannot give a date or method because they are not in the text.

6) The rise of the north was somehow equated to the practice of polygamy. I was really trying to figure out how they connected. It did not seem to make sense. I tried an argument that at least might relate to the subject. I could not imagine that it was the same as the Others have returned for the first time in 8000 years therefore the 200 year gone Targ practice of polygamy was revived for Rhaegar,

My take on it was much nicer. Wildings old gods polygamy.... North old gods maybe polygamy... and then I am told I don't understand. It took me a while to see the reasoning.

1) pre·text (prēˌtekst/Submit) - noun - 1. a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason. I'm going to point to your #3 and how you have so nicely provided the quote as to how there was no mention of Ned when they proclaimed the King in the North. Ergo he could not have been the pretext because he was not the reason given, the pretext for the break was that they bent their knees to the dragons and there were no more dragons. This is BASIC English comprehension. The same could be said to hold true for the river lords, they were never loyal to Winterfell but they did bend the knee to dragons, thus the pretext of there being no more dragons works for the river lords as well as the northern lords. For three hundred years there was a Lord Stark that they could have easily gotten behind, they chose to remain loyal. Thus choice was definitely involved and it was not just a matter of power.

And equating a practice/title that went out of use 300 years ago but was revived at a lord's whim, with one that went out of use more recently and could have just as easily been revived at a lord's whim is not obtuse. Obtuse is pretending that you haven't had the distinction of how the examples are being used explained to you several times over at this point

2) They had three hundred years of Starks to stand behind, none of whom CHOSE to break with the Iron Throne. Now currently with no functional Stark to stand behind, they are still defying the Iron Throne.

3) Yes the complete lack of mention of Ned makes it impossible for him to be the pretext since the very definition of pretext requires that the reason (whatever it may be) be mentioned. Thank you for the quote.

4) So you can't discount it nor can you affirm it, fine your choice. However given the reality that two of your three possible ways would have required Aerys to know about Lyanna and thus have some clue where Rhaegar was and what he was up to is sort of shot to hell by the fact that NO ONE KNEW - not even Aerys or Varys - where Rhaegar was until he returned to Kings Landing just before the Trident. Polygamy is the most likely since it is the only one that would not require either a King or a High Septon to accomplish, and if Aerys had known where Lyanna was he likely would have had her in Kings Landing as a hostage like he kept Elia and Rhaegar's children. Yes there are two other options, but both setting aside and legitimization would have required a trip to Kings Landing by Rhaegar so it makes them less likely than the option where no one in the capital needed to be involved.

5) A roundabout way of saying that what you're arguing against is totally possible but you don't want to admit it. And I'm sorry but you didn't even actually respond to my point, so I will say it again. Marriage was a political affair in Westeros for noble families, not a civil one as you have been maintaining for some reason. Rhaegar having the ability to do anything has nothing to do with the political nature of marriage in Westeros.

6) Again, the rise of the North was used as an example of a dead practice brought back to life by the present lords because it suited their purposes, that is why it was compared to Targaryen polygamy.

[Rhaegar I Targaryen]

Until you can learn to quote and respond like a normal member of this community, I'm done replying to you. I don't know what you're doing, but you keep adding in a bunch of extra code that fucks up the text, which makes it a chore to respond to you. And that's on top of the fact that you don't have anything remotely interesting or intelligent to add to the discussion anyway.

One thing I will point out is that Ser Jorah suggested to Dany that she take two husbands. And this happened in, wait for it, recent history. And while I'm at it, never in the history of the 7K, as far as we know, was a royal wife set aside, or was there a royal marriage which was annulled. So how are either of those a more likely option than polygamy, which happened on more than one occasion?

Careful what you say, trust me!

[stateofdissipation]

1) pre·text (prēˌtekst/Submit) - noun - 1. a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason.

A)I'm going to point to your #3 and how you have so nicely provided the quote as to how there was no mention of Ned when they proclaimed the King in the North.

B)Ergo he could not have been the pretext because he was not the reason given, the pretext for the break was that they bent their knees to the dragons and there were no more dragons.

This is BASIC English comprehension.

C)The same could be said to hold true for the river lords, they were never loyal to Winterfell but they did bend the knee to dragons, thus the pretext of there being no more dragons works for the river lords as well as the northern lords.

D)For three hundred years there was a Lord Stark that they could have easily gotten behind, they chose to remain loyal. Thus choice was definitely involved and it was not just a matter of power.

And equating a practice/title that went out of use 300 years ago but was revived at a lord's whim, with one that went out of use more recently and could have just as easily been revived at a lord's whim is not obtuse. Obtuse is pretending that you haven't had the distinction of how the examples are being used explained to you several times over at this point

2) They had three hundred years of Starks to stand behind, none of whom CHOSE to break with the Iron Throne. Now currently with no functional Stark to stand behind, they are still defying the Iron Throne.

3) Yes the complete lack of mention of Ned makes it impossible for him to be the pretext since the very definition of pretext requires that the reason (whatever it may be) be mentioned. Thank you for the quote.

4) So you can't discount it nor can you affirm it, fine your choice.

A)However given the reality that two of your three possible ways would have required Aerys to know about Lyanna and thus have some clue where Rhaegar was and what he was up to is sort of shot to hell by the fact that NO ONE KNEW - not even Aerys or Varys - where Rhaegar was until he returned to Kings Landing just before the Trident.

B. ) Polygamy is the most likely since it is the only one that would not require either a King or a High Septon to accomplish,

C)and if Aerys had known where Lyanna was he likely would have had her in Kings Landing as a hostage like he kept Elia and Rhaegar's children.

D) Yes there are two other options, but both setting aside and legitimization would have required a trip to Kings Landing by Rhaegar so it makes them less likely than the option where no one in the capital needed to be involved.

5) A roundabout way of saying that what you're arguing against is totally possible but you don't want to admit it. And I'm sorry but you didn't even actually respond to my point, so I will say it again. Marriage was a political affair in Westeros for noble families, not a civil one as you have been maintaining for some reason. Rhaegar having the ability to do anything has nothing to do with the political nature of marriage in Westeros.

6) Again, the rise of the North was used as an example of a dead practice brought back to life by the present lords because it suited their purposes, that is why it was compared to Targaryen polygamy.

1) : pre·text (prēˌtekst/Submit) - noun - 1. a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason Robb called his banners because Ned was arrested a reason given in justification

A) that they bent their knees to the dragons and there were no more dragons .the real reason This is BASIC English comprehension.

B. ) Ergo he could not have been the pretext because he was not the reason given, the pretext for the break was that they bent their knees to the dragons and there were no more dragons. You kind of left out the real reason required for PRETEXT This is BASIC English comprehension.

C) Take a look at the list of names Blackwood and Mallister of the Riverlands (i only looked up the 2) You still have not given a the real reason. This is BASIC English comprehension.

D)For three hundred years (Minus the time of the dragons) there was a Lord Stark that they could have easily gotten behind (No Stark rebelled. Hard to get behind a King of the North when no king steps up), they chose to remain loyal. Thus choice was definitely involved and it was not just a matter of power. A choice indeed, a choice of the Starks to remain loyal to the Iron Throne. The meeting Robb called (on the pretext of freeing Ned) showed what the northern Lords really thought of that decision, When the Lords had the power they chose war.

2) Defying the Iron Throne under the command of the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. Defying the Throne by attacking the Boltons and Freys they have good reason to hate who happen to be enemies of the rightful heir,

3) I gave real reason the resentment of rule from the Iron Throne, and pretext.. get Ned from jail in King's Landing. You gave a definition of Pretext. Thanks for the quote. What is your real reason?

4) Not my choice...it isn't in the text. It is your choice to make up things like the highlighted portions of your paragraph.

A) you made up the part of Aerys not knowing about Lyanna (Remember Brandon and Rickard?). You made up the part about nobody knew. (Hightower went and got him KL to Dorne back to the Trident) I am sure you picked out what Aerys and Varys knew from their PoV chapters. In case those dont exist, You made it up.

B: )You have now invented a procedure for a hypothetical practice and used it to confirm the likelihood of said practice.

C) If is a mighty big word. How about when Aerys ordered Hightower to return Rhaegar, he could have ordered the return of Lyanna.

D) Now to finish you invent procedures for annulment, create a timeline for this procedure and a required location for your invented and created procedure to affirm these are unlikely.

5) I am saying that it is daft to creat and invent scenarios to support or defend a particular method of legalization. It is hardly necessary and hurts the credibility of your argument by proving that you have made your conclusion before the case has been made. The point is you can argue for or against any of them to no end. Or you can pose them as possibilities and move on to examining the text for further evidence that Jon is legitimate.

6) The rise of the wights by the Others has the same logical connection. A long forgotten practice brought back to prove that things that happened before can happen again. The only difference is that there were numerous other uprisings as in 9 years earlier Balon had declared himself king. That actually kills the connection but why let reason and text stop you now.

It is a bad example.... wildings-old gods-polygamy the north-old gods-possible polygamy was better.

Rhaegar's popularity was equal to the power of the dragons a better case still...

Roose Bolton's renewed practice of first night is a better example...

It is not my fault somebody chose an example of the Iron Throne's lack of power to control the north equates to an earlier lack of power of the Iron Throne amounting to control of the faith of the seven.

[corbon]

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

While I married an oriental, I'm as western as it gets and didn't enter the Orient until over 30 years old.

I simply disagree that it has as much importance in the west as you assume, perhaps outside some particularly inhibited areas of the US, or that your assessment has any relevance to respectfully laying an honour in a womans lap, especially when her lap is probably where her hands are, and is probably the only place that the honour actually can be physically laid in the circumstances.

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

1. polygamy

2. setting aside his first wife

3. Legitimizing his bastards

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

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

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.

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.

Legalisation of bastards is mentioned in the text as only available to Kings, which excludes Rhaegar. 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). However, by the same standard, setting aside a wife has got to be a lot more politically damaging than Polygamy, if polygamy is available.

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.

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

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

[King Benjen II]

Sure, here's my response: None of the regulars in this thread take his posts seriously, which is why he took his sideshow act to Heresy.

He was probably best known around here as someone who would make really bizarre observations. For example, he used to say that, while Lyanna is Jon's mother, we can't be sure who the father is because there were possibly a bunch of unaccounted for penises in her vicinity, during her disappearance. Because, you know, we can't really be sure that Lyanna wasn't sleeping with like four, five or maybe even twenty different guys during that time. Also, "Rhaegar could have been in Essos the whole time" prior to returning to KL, is another gem of his that I recall. So, to say that "he doesn't get it" would be putting it mildly.

It's not even an argument against the legitimacy theory that we have to make certain assumptions, based on inferences, because we don't have all of the evidence, or a proverbial smoking gun. It's simply the reality of where we are in the series five books into a seven or eight book series. And, fwiw, any theory is going to require a certain number of assumptions. For example, JNR assumes that the KG at the ToJ were getting information rapidly.

Btw, I don't think it should be lost on anyone that this 'analysis' was posted in a Heresy thread. If you have something important or relevant to R+L=J that you want put to the test, you post it here.

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.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

The one thing you pointed out was in wait for it... ESSOS and to a Targaryen with wait for it.... dragons. There are also wait for it.... wildings and dorthraki that engage in polygamy.

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.

[King Benjen II]

Do you really need the gaping holes pointed out?

Yes I do.