Jump to content

R+L =J v.105


Jon Weirgaryen

Recommended Posts

While it may be true that some medieval "abductions" may have taken place with the consent of the abductee, that doesn't mean we should conclude that all abductions in Westeros are consensual till proven otherwise. Thus far we haven't got a single person in the books who speaks of Lyanna having gone willingly without force with Rhaegar...and that includes Dany, who should be the one most inclined to take a lenient view of the matter.


Anne was very lucky it was handled so discreetly. If it had become common knowledge, she'd have been viewed as damaged goods, and her reputation would have been easily ruined.

Wow, I didn't know that. But was she lucky, really? If Anne had been 'damaged goods' Henry might not have considered her wife material - if she'd only been a mistress she might have survived their relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think GRRM hasn't read a whole lot of bodice-rippers, lol. I, on the other hand, am a total expert on that. The girl never runs off with the stable boy...unless it is a Duke or something in disguise pretending to be a stable boy for *waves hand* reasons. Or, if the guy is poor when they meet, he somehow manages to think she doesn't love him because of this (but is wrong about that), runs off and becomes a success and then drama ensues, but they end up together. That is the historical romance genre, at least in the modern era.

On topic, I think Lyanna was a willing participant just because of how strong-willed she has been presented in story and, meta-wise, heroes are not typically born of rape.

We have a possible hint of Lyanna's reaction to Rhaegar at the Harrenhal tournament---she sniffled at a sad song he played

We have nothing between that and the abduction--an unknown time and unknown interaction

After the abduction we have Rhaegar was with her until after the Battle of the Bells. We have her giving birth almost a year plus the time Brandon and Rickard took to get to King's Landing plus the time Ned took to get to the tower from King's Landing over Storm's End.--at a minimum Lyanna and Rhaegar were together full time for three months before conception.

We have Lyanna clutching a token from Rhaegar when she died.

Yes Lyanna loved Rhaegar and vice versa... the question should we place their love story in the unknown period between Harrenhal and Lyanna's abduction or in the known period after it.

Rhaegar had valid political reasons for taking Lyanna---stopping the Stormland's marriage bond with the north. He acted for his family. Love came after. It would also mean that Rhaegar did not father Aegon with Elia while he was in love with Lyanna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it may be true that some medieval "abductions" may have taken place with the consent of the abductee, that doesn't mean we should conclude that all abductions in Westeros are consensual till proven otherwise. Thus far we haven't got a single person in the books who speaks of Lyanna having gone willingly without force with Rhaegar...and that includes Dany, who should be the one most inclined to take a lenient view of the matter..

Not really. Dany only knows the story her brother Viserys told her. And again, her idea of romance is wrapped up in romance stories; think about how she wants to hear stories of Rhaegar's knightly deeds at tourneys and is a bit sad to learn that he never really went for that sort of thing. And like I said a page back, "the queen knew that was folly." Dany does recognize that what she thought about Daario coming to save the day from her wedding Hizdahr is rather ridiculous.

I agree love came after, mainly because I don't believe in love at first sight (or first sniffle), but still like to believe she went willingly. Love is not required for consent, but consent is damned important (to me).

I think she went perhaps unknowingly--as in, Lyanna and Rhaegar talked about leaving together but Rhaegar made the first move and took Lyanna unawares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree love came after, mainly because I don't believe in love at first sight (or first sniffle), but still like to believe she went willingly. Love is not required for consent, but consent is damned important (to me).

They had three months.... at a minimum to develop mutual feelings for eachother... They absolutely were together for that time.

Between Harrenhal and the abduction, we know nothing.... not how long it was.. not where Rhaegar was (other than with Elia for Aegon's birth) not where Lyanna was (possibly at Winterfell when her father promised her hand to Robert) We do not know if they could or did communicate in any way.

We do know of the marriage alliances planned... Stark to Tully, Stark to Baratheon... (The Tully-Arryn was not necessarily planned) If the arranged marriages that were planned happened.. Three great houses would be united opposed to Aerys with Dorne and the Tyrells. --Lannisters alienated, Ironborn aloof, Arryn questionable or hostile-

Had Aerys not united the Baratheons and Starks in a common cause of survival... the abduction may have worked to delay the rebellion or at least give the Targaryens a chance to win it. (On a side note calling for Jon Arryn to deliver the heads... came after Aerys had killed Jon's nephew and heir... Aerys had used the heirs as a threat against their fathers to get them within his reach... odd and ineffectual change of tactic)

Accidental love as a result of a planned rebellion

vs

Accidental rebellion as the result of a planned love

---By the by, I do not think the Trojan war happened because of Helen... there were real political and financial reasons for the war. the woman was just an excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On an interesting note your source is from literature of a period. Historical literature=/=history.

No, that's the name of the book. The case is historical.

(snip)

Note the important part of this is that by giving her consent, she is considered partially liable for the offense of her own "kidnapping" and "rape".

By consenting she is absolving her kidnapper/rapist. In doing so she is no longer a victim. There is no offense. There is also no defense for leaving her husband or family.

You've misunderstood the case. The consent of the 'victim' absolved the perpetrator of crime against her, but not against her family. The purpose of the statue was to allow for a complaint by the family of the 'abducted' woman even if she had no complaint. That was the 'loophole' that was supposedly being closed.

This is about jurisprudence, and understanding the cultural concepts it implies. The laws of Constantine, from a simpler age, made it more overt: A person seizing a woman without her consent or leading her away willingly who has not previously made an agreement with her parents would be put to death. 'Rape' and 'ravishment' were not held to be solely a crime against the woman, but also against the family, as it represented a loss of property.

If you really want to go into a drawn-out discussion of the history of the legal formulation of rapuit et abduxit then... well honestly I'm not interested. Not my area. In an attempt to short-cut a lot of quote/answer stuff here, I'll just leave you this quote and hope that it clarifies your understanding of this case.

The Statue of Rapes of 1382, initiated by Sir Thomas West's petition to John of Gaunt, reinscribed the focus of the Westminster statues in order to counter the possibility of elopement. It seems that some young women had discovered that a parentally arranged marriage could be balked by an arranged abduction, just as earlier jurists suspected.

- Chaucer's "Wife", the Law, and the Middle English Breton Lays by Eve Salisbury,

in Domestic Violence in Medieval Texts

You'll find formulations like this common in discussions of relevant medieval law. I won't defend the point any more than this, because this isn't my subject area, I'm simply communicating what historians say about it. Feel free to take it up with them if you don't agree.

If you really need an example, and don't think that West was noble enough to substitute for Lyanna,

I think a case where the girl claims rape and the family denies it... is not an example of the the family claiming rape and the girl denying it. The nobility of the person was not questioned. the relevance was.

I have no idea what case where a girl claims rape and the family denies it you're referring to. The nobility of the person involved absolutely IS relevant. Remember the princess and stable boy issue? Remember GRRM's reference to the class structure of the time? The West case is far less of a class jump than princess/stableboy. Issues of dowry, bride price and marriages of alliance were vastly less important for peasants than for nobles or royalty, and lower class women had considerably more freedom. The daughter of a petty nobleman would have considerably less. A princess, none.

Mary Tudor was married to the king of France, who died without issue. The new king tried to arrange another marriage for her. Henry recalled her to England to arrange a new marriage to his own advantage instead, and she secretly married the guy Henry sent to fetch her.

There was not an arranged marriage in this example. There is an attempt to arrange a marriage.

Seriously? I mean... seriously?

That doesn't mean that nobody ever ever ever tried to avoid it,

OK... lacking an example from history, do we have another from aSoIaF? Lyanna is specified as kidnapped. Is there a woman that has been betrothed and opts to flee over marriage, or chooses another husband?

What? I should look for an example of something I'm saying was "considered abnormal, outrageous, and illegal"? How about the possibility that there isn't an example, due to it being "considered abnormal, outrageous, and illegal"? Personally I'm quite content with assuming that the historical efforts related above to change statute to close a loophole allowing women to get out of arranged marriages by staging an abduction suggests that women tried to get out of arranged marriages by staging an abduction. I'd also say that if you think that of all those millions of arranged marriages, not once did anyone try to get out of them, I think you're howling at the moon.

The issue is not whether there were very rare exceptions, but that these very rare exceptions were, yep, very rare exceptions -- not the norm. There are lots of things that are "considered abnormal, outrageous, and illegal", and it would equally be absurd if fiction treated them as normal and without consequence, but that doesn't mean they never happened.

To clarify, as I think you've misunderstood the entire point of what I'm saying, when I said that:

If the same mores were in place in Westeros, it could have been perfectly normal for them to consider Rhaegar to have kidnapped and raped Lyanna even if they knew she had consented

I'm not saying that Lyanna consented, I'm suggesting that it is possible (as there is clear historical precedent) for it to have been described as abduction and rape even if she had consented and they were aware of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to arranged marriages amongst medieval nobility, I think it's also important to remember that sons were subjected to the will of their families too. Though they weren't regarded as the chattel of their father's the way daughters were, sons who defied their father's marital plans could also be severely punished or see their plans thwarted.

Yep, very good point.

We don't really know what Aerys thought of Rhaegar's actions. He might have been involved, or he might have been furious with Rhaegar. Rhaegar's timing might even have been about sending a message to Aerys, or Rhaegar's comments to Jaime about calling a council and how he's been meaning to get around to it for a while might suggest that he felt he had left things too late, and his abduction of Lyanna was a way to forestall her marriage to Robert before he had a chance to take the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the text says:

He dreamt he was back in Winterfell, limping past the stone kings on their thrones. Their grey granite eyes turned to follow him as he passed, and their grey granite fingers tightened on the hilts of the rusted swords upon their laps. You are no Stark, he could hear them mutter, in heavy granite voices. There is no place for you here. Go away.

The Stone Kings are telling him specifically that he's not a Stark. He thinks it's because he's a bastard, when in truth, it's because he's a Targaryan.

Nah, the dream is just a reflection of his insecurity. He is, as Maester Aegon proclaims "a son of Winterfell" and what matters is that he is the son of Lyanna - as for the crypts, whatever is drawing him down is in those lower, forbidden levels. :cool4:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were thousands, tens of thousand, perhaps hundreds of thousands of arranged marriages in the nobility through the thousand years of Middle Ages and people went through with them. That’s how you did it. It wasn’t questioned..--GRRM



I think what's missing off the end of GRRM's commentary is that while we can cite examples of attempts to escape or frustrate arranged marriages, it always ended in tears. The abduction happened, whether consensual or otherwise and far from living happily ever after, as a direct result of the abduction both the principals wound up dead in pretty short order and the kingdom was plunged into bloody war.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what's missing off the end of GRRM's commentary is that while we can cite examples of attempts to escape or frustrate arranged marriages, it always ended in tears. The abduction happened, whether consensual or otherwise and far from living happily ever after, as a direct result of the abduction both the principals wound up dead in pretty short order and the kingdom was plunged into bloody war.

And the prize for "Yup" goes to Black Crow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's the name of the book. The case is historical.

You've misunderstood the case. The consent of the 'victim' absolved the perpetrator of crime against her, but not against her family. The purpose of the statue was to allow for a complaint by the family of the 'abducted' woman even if she had no complaint. That was the 'loophole' that was supposedly being closed.

This is about jurisprudence, and understanding the cultural concepts it implies. The laws of Constantine, from a simpler age, made it more overt: A person seizing a woman without her consent or leading her away willingly who has not previously made an agreement with her parents would be put to death. 'Rape' and 'ravishment' were not held to be solely a crime against the woman, but also against the family, as it represented a loss of property.

If you really want to go into a drawn-out discussion of the history of the legal formulation of rapuit et abduxit then... well honestly I'm not interested. Not my area. In an attempt to short-cut a lot of quote/answer stuff here, I'll just leave you this quote and hope that it clarifies your understanding of this case.

You'll find formulations like this common in discussions of relevant medieval law. I won't defend the point any more than this, because this isn't my subject area, I'm simply communicating what historians say about it. Feel free to take it up with them if you don't agree.

I have no idea what case where a girl claims rape and the family denies it you're referring to. The nobility of the person involved absolutely IS relevant. Remember the princess and stable boy issue? Remember GRRM's reference to the class structure of the time? The West case is far less of a class jump than princess/stableboy. Issues of dowry, bride price and marriages of alliance were vastly less important for peasants than for nobles or royalty, and lower class women had considerably more freedom. The daughter of a petty nobleman would have considerably less. A princess, none.

Seriously? I mean... seriously?

What? I should look for an example of something I'm saying was "considered abnormal, outrageous, and illegal"? How about the possibility that there isn't an example, due to it being "considered abnormal, outrageous, and illegal"? Personally I'm quite content with assuming that the historical efforts related above to change statute to close a loophole allowing women to get out of arranged marriages by staging an abduction suggests that women tried to get out of arranged marriages by staging an abduction. I'd also say that if you think that of all those millions of arranged marriages, not once did anyone try to get out of them, I think you're howling at the moon.

The issue is not whether there were very rare exceptions, but that these very rare exceptions were, yep, very rare exceptions -- not the norm. There are lots of things that are "considered abnormal, outrageous, and illegal", and it would equally be absurd if fiction treated them as normal and without consequence, but that doesn't mean they never happened.

To clarify, as I think you've misunderstood the entire point of what I'm saying, when I said that:

I'm not saying that Lyanna consented, I'm suggesting that it is possible (as there is clear historical precedent) for it to have been described as abduction and rape even if she had consented and they were aware of it.

You've misunderstood the case. The consent of the 'victim' absolved the perpetrator of crime against her, but not against her family. The purpose of the statue was to allow for a complaint by the family of the 'abducted' woman even if she had no complaint. That was the 'loophole' that was supposedly being closed.

Against those offenders and ravishers of ladies, and the daughters of noblemen, and other women, in every part of the said realm, in thee days offending more violently, and much more than they were wont, it is ordained and stablished, that wheresoever and whensoever such ladies, daughters and other women aforesaid be ravished, and after such rape to consent to such ravishers, that as well the ravishers as they that be ravished, and every of them, be from thenceforth disabled, and by the same deed be unable to have or challenge all inheritance, dower or joint feoffment after the death of their husbands and ancestors.

It precludes a ravisher... and a woman who consents later to be ravished from inheriting from husbands and ancestors.

---Note the absence of criminal charges.

---Note the absence of the intent of the family..

---Note the absence of punishment for the rapist or ravisher

I understand what is in the law you cited, as well as what is not there.

This is about jurisprudence,

It is my understanding that jurisprudence is the study of law... as we only looked at a law, we were checking a precedent.

and understanding the cultural concepts it implies.

In studying jurisprudence or searching for precedence as a means of understanding cultural concepts... examples. not implication are relevant.

The laws of Constantine, from a simpler age, made it more overt: A person seizing a woman without her consent or leading her away willingly who has not previously made an agreement with her parents would be put to death.

Let us keep apples in the apple basket and oranges in the orange basket...

'Rape' and 'ravishment' were not held to be solely a crime against the woman, but also against the family, as it represented a loss of property.

Under the laws of constantine, rape was not a crime against the woman at all. It was a crime against the man that was responsible for the woman. Constantine simply changed it from a private wrong to a public one....Justinian took things a bit further... but legal history and the evolution of rape starting 500 plus years before the time in question is probably not appropriate for RLJ

---we were nowhere near a crime against the woman, the family, or the woman being property

.

If you really want to go into a drawn-out discussion of the history of the legal formulation of rapuit et abduxit then... well honestly I'm not interested. Not my area

Then stop--

In an attempt to short-cut a lot of quote/answer stuff here, I'll just leave you this quote and hope that it clarifies your understanding of this case

Lovely quote that references a West's petition and draws from it an idea common in historical fiction and television...which we covered earlier.

I quite understand the case... if a woman claims to be ravished and later consents to the ravisher.. she and he are barred from inheriting...

Seriously? I mean... seriously?

The question was did women run away from an arranged marriage. You pointed to the failure to arrange a marriage. That seriously is not the same thing.

What? I should look for an example of something I'm saying was "considered abnormal, outrageous, and illegal"?

If you would like to assert such yes.. GRRM stated people went through with them. it was not questioned.

For it to be considered abnormal, outrageous, and illegal what GRRM said must be wrong... people must have questioned arranged marriages and not gone through with them for others to consider them abnormal, outrageous, or illegal.

How about the possibility that there isn't an example, due to it being "considered abnormal, outrageous, and illegal"?

If there is not an example, GRRM is right and people went through with arranged marriages without questioning them.

Personally I'm quite content with assuming that the historical efforts related above to change statute to close a loophole allowing women to get out of arranged marriages by staging an abduction suggests that women tried to get out of arranged marriages by staging an abduction.

Aside from the fact that statute does not mention arranged marriages and covers women that were already married it may be considered --- oh who am i kidding...

The statute states women who were ravished and then consent to being ravished may not inherit from their ancestors or husbands-- the husbands (if women were using abduction to avoid arranged marriages, the husbands do not belong in the discussion)

I'd also say that if you think that of all those millions of arranged marriages, not once did anyone try to get out of them, I think you're howling at the moon.

I did not say what I think... I quoted GRRM..

There were thousands, tens of thousand, perhaps hundreds of thousands of arranged marriages in the nobility through the thousand years of Middle Ages and people went through with them. That’s how you did it. It wasn’t questioned..--GRRM

http://entertainment...sy-and-history/

The issue is not whether there were very rare exceptions, but that these very rare exceptions were, yep, very rare exceptions -- not the norm. There are lots of things that are "considered abnormal, outrageous, and illegal", and it would equally be absurd if fiction treated them as normal and without consequence, but that doesn't mean they never happened.

If it was illegal we need a law. If it was outrageous... we need some outrage If it is merely abnormal... we need an example

I would prefer not to comb through history for a woman running away from an an arranged marriage. I prefer to say it did not happen. Because I lack an example for it happening.

The books are much easier to go through than history... there is not an example of a woman running away from an arranged marriage... aside from the fanfiction that Lyanna eloped...

To clarify, as I think you've misunderstood the entire point of what I'm saying, when I said that:

I'm not saying that Lyanna consented, I'm suggesting that it is possible (as there is clear historical precedent) for it to have been described as abduction and rape even if she had consented and they were aware of it.

Interesting note... In the virginia slave statutes, it became a law in 1669 that a master could not be charged with the murder of a slave. http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/24-sla.htmlThis%C2'>

There was not a master charged with the murder of a slave before 1669...

Laws are enacted on fears of what might happen as well as examples of what has happened. Without a case to cite,the law was enacted based on fears of what might happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, the dream is just a reflection of his insecurity. He is, as Maester Aegon proclaims "a son of Winterfell" and what matters is that he is the son of Lyanna - as for the crypts, whatever is drawing him down is in those lower, forbidden levels. :cool4:

Well, considering that almost every other dream he has had is prophetic, I somehow doubt it XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, the dream is just a reflection of his insecurity. He is, as Maester Aegon proclaims "a son of Winterfell" and what matters is that he is the son of Lyanna - as for the crypts, whatever is drawing him down is in those lower, forbidden levels. :cool4:

Maybe Howland Reed is just chillin' down there.

Well, considering that almost every other dream he has had is prophetic, I somehow doubt it XD

I think Jon has to open Lyanna's tomb. Whether or not he moves into the lower levels of the crypt is possible, but I'll be very disappointed if he doesn't peek inside Lyanna's tomb and find something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were thousands, tens of thousand, perhaps hundreds of thousands of arranged marriages in the nobility through the thousand years of Middle Ages and people went through with them. That’s how you did it. It wasn’t questioned..--GRRM

I think what's missing off the end of GRRM's commentary is that while we can cite examples of attempts to escape or frustrate arranged marriages, it always ended in tears. The abduction happened, whether consensual or otherwise and far from living happily ever after, as a direct result of the abduction both the principals wound up dead in pretty short order and the kingdom was plunged into bloody war.

Citing examples of things that do not happen and showing what would happen if they did....Like flying cows pooping and killing unsuspecting pedestrians.--or you could just leave out the flying cow.

Stark-Baratheon-Tully and possibly Arryn great houses bound to each other through marriage posed no threat to theTargaryens

Breaking breaking up that alliance (by pure chance) was the cause of the war...

Were it not for Rhaegar and Lyanna falling in love before the marriages were completed... The Stormlands, the North, the Riverlands, and the Vale would have been happy to submit to the rule of the "mad king" (the fact that their combined strength was greater than the Targaryens and their allies did not play in to arranging the alliance)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Howland Reed is just chillin' down there.

Jon is in a coma and finally makes his way to the end of the catacombs. There he finds HR sitting on the tomb:

Howland Reed: (looks at his watch) Damn, boy. Took you long enough, didn't it?

I think Jon has to open Lyanna's tomb. Whether or not he moves into the lower levels of the crypt is possible, but I'll be very disappointed if he doesn't peek inside Lyanna's tomb and find something.

Agreed. There's something in her out-of-the-ordinary tomb he's supposed to find down there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Howland Reed is just chillin' down there.

I think Jon has to open Lyanna's tomb. Whether or not he moves into the lower levels of the crypt is possible, but I'll be very disappointed if he doesn't peek inside Lyanna's tomb and find something.

I think either Eddard or Lyanna will tell him the truth.Agreed on the Lyanna's tomb thing,in my opinion it's a dragon egg,Rhaegar's harp,Lyanna's wedding cloak,Dark Sister my favourite crackpot or his father's sword,some kind of degree legitimisation by Rhaegar,maybe,something from those.

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...