Jump to content

R+L =J v.105


Jon Weirgaryen

Recommended Posts

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

Yes, if you take one section I quoted in a different context and assume that's the entire statute, that would be true.

... and that the husbands of such women, if they have husbands, or, if they have no husbands in life, then the fathers or other next of their blood, have from henceforth the suit to pursue, and may sue against the same offenders and ravishers in this behalf, and to have them thereof convict of life and member, although the same women after such rape to consent to the said ravishers.

I gave you a quote above from a historian in the field specifically discussing this case and the subsequent statue as a means of legal recourse against those cases where abduction is used as an excuse to allow elopement rather than going through with arranged marriage. That's what the historians who specialise in this area say, I merely pass on their opinion. Mine is, I happily confess, purely an argument from authority. If you feel the experts who dedicate their lives to the study of this field are wrong, I urge you to take it up with them, because I don't have the expertise in the fine points of medieval law relating to rape and ravishment to debate this.

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

As an expert in the jurisprudence of the era, I am sure you are well aware that this was an era where the laws of Rome were being re-established and refined.

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.

No, I pointed to a woman who was ordered to return home to have her marriage arranged, and secretly arranged a marriage of her own to circumvent this. The difference between someone eloping after "I am going to arrange you marriage" rather than "I have already arranged your marriage" is simply splitting hairs.

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.

GRRM didn't say that it never happened, so he's not wrong. He said that a princess marrying the stable boy didn't happen. He said that the concept of arranged marriage wasn't questioned, which is not the same as saying that nobody ever attempted to circumvent it. The concept of murder being wrong isn't questioned either, but nonetheless, murders take place. He says "people went through with them", not "everyone went through with them without exception". It was normal and accepted to go through with them, just as it is normal and accepted to not murder someone who looks at you funny, or blows their nose in an irritating fashion. "People don't murder each other for no good reason" is a perfectly sound statement, while "Nobody ever murdered anyone for no good reason" isn't.

As I said, to think that never in all the millions of cases of arranged marriage did anyone ever try to circumvent it is howling at the moon. I do not contend that GRRM said this. Yes, if really did intend to say that, then he's flat out wrong and making a barking mad assumption. I don't believe this to be the case, I give him far more credit than that. He said that it wasn't questioned, not that it was never done. It was, and in cultures where arranged marriage is still a thing, still is done. And it has consequences, because the right and normality of it was unquestioned.

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...

Can you show that Lyanna did not elope? If not, then it remains a possibility, and to claim that she did not elope would be equally "fan fiction" as to claim that she did. And no, showing that various people believed she did not elope is not proof of anything other than what they believed.

We do not know if she was willing or not. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you saying that Aerys showing up was--at the least--a hope of Rhaegar's to persuade the lords at HH to agree to his conspiracy? So Varys and Aerys got played? Cause, I actually like that.

You can see it as loyalty or disloyalty... Rhaegar wanted Aerys at the tournament,

If you would like to go with disloyalty, Rhaegar showed the lords what his father was and what he was to make their deciding to support him an easy one. Rhaegar dragged the freak out and put him on display.... and got him to think it was his idea.

If you would like to go with loyalty, Rhaegar was acting against plots and rumors against his father coming from the great Lords, He managed to set up a public display of the king... including the adding of a new kingsguard.. he showed that Aerys was not a mad man locked in a tower incapable of dealing with them. Rhaegar tricked Aerys into seeing his son as a threat, to use Aerys reaction to deal with the real threat of the great Lords.

Either way, painting Aerys's appearance at HH as Rhaegar's failure rather than his triumph does not seem justified.

Were it not for Rhaegar killing all the smiles at HH, i would say it was disloyalty. That action, much like Aerys learning of the tournament, would seem to hurt his cause if his cause was to depose his father.

I hold that the purpose of the HH was a show of deception. The lords and the king would fear what they did not know. The lords would not know Aerys ability or alliances... other than the rumor Aerys would not leave the keep were false, Aerys would not know what lords were conspiring with his son... his scrutiny would be mistaken by the lords as awareness of their actual plots.

Harrenhal failed to halt the joining of the great houses. They formed marriage pacts that posed a grave threat to the Targaryens. Rhaegar taking Lyanna disrupted those plans more than anything his father could have done without open war. It also caused the Starks to act before they had the support of the riverlands. Divide and conquer...

Lyanna was the monkey in the wrench. They had a minimum confirmed 3 months together before Lyanna got pregnant. Lyanna gave birth at the end of the war that lasted a year...9 months back gave them 3 months plus the time Brandon and Rickard took to get to KL... plus the time it took for Jon Arryn to call his banners.

If we are looking for a love story... put it where we can show they were together.

Make the rebellion planned and the romance spontaneous.... rather than the other way around. It also makes it that much more tragic...theirs was a love started and crushed by a rebellion that could not be stopped...rather than theirs was a love crushed by a rebellion it started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you guys think Jon's reaction will be to finding out that Rhaegar is his father (whether he's legitimate or not)?

1. Shock

2. Anger. Jon is a rager.

3. Curiosity. How ? Why ? How ?

4. Screw that ! Ice zombie attacking right now !

5. Acceptance. "Anyways Ned would always be my father, right ? right ?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you guys think Jon's reaction will be to finding out that Rhaegar is his father (whether he's legitimate or not)?

Deep in his coma, Ned dreamt of himself in a vast, cavernous hall, ancient and long-abandoned. He looked down, and in his hand he saw a sword aflame, burning with an icy blue light, flickering strangely in the chill wind. A dark figure stepped out from the shadows, his own sword a mirror of the one Jon held, fiery red, like a dragon's breath, in the place of Jon's blue ice. Jon retreated back, uncertain as the man advanced, the light from both blades glimmering dully off his black armour.

Before Jon could think, the man was upon him. Instinctively, Jon raised his own blade to block, then countered with a slash of his own, easily parried. I do not know this man, Jon thought. Why does he pursue me? Some old foe of Lord Eddard? He did not know why the thought came to him so quickly, but he sensed a truth in it.

The man in black armour advanced on him, his blows powerful and confident. It was all Jon could to to block, block, block. His arms were tiring quickly, and he realised this implacable swordsman was too strong for him. He stepped back, seeking space, and back again, onto a narrow ledge, but still the swordsman came on, slashing and thrusting until Jon stumbled and fell. Holding his red flaming blade towards Jon, the man spoke in a chill voice "When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. Don't let yourself be killed, as Eddard Stark did."

Jon thought of his father; of Eddard Stark, the man who had loved him and treated him as almost a true son, when other bastards were so oft an afterthought. He could almost see them, ghostly figures watching the battle. There Ned, there his half brothers, Rickon and Bran, and Robb who had been as close to him as any full brother could be. There his sisters Sansa, and poor lost Arya, so fierce and brave. Behind Arya, another, older but so alike, a crown of blue winter roses upon her brow. Lyanna, he thought, though he had never seen her in life. Eddard's sister. He looked back at the man in armour, and saw then upon his breastplate, picked out in rubies, a three-headed dragon. And he understood.

A fury filled him, and lent strength by his rage, he raised himself and slashed again and again, raining fierce blows on the man in front of him. Rhaegar, who had kidnapped and raped his father's sister, who had started the rebellion and died at King Robert's hand at the Trident; this was the man he faced. He pressed forwards, his ice-blue blade crashing again and again against Rhaegar's red. Breaking past the man's guard he lay a crushing blow on the black pauldron on his foe's shoulder, bringing forth sparks and a cry of pain that echoed in the black helmet.

Now the battle turned. Driven by the pain of his blow, his foe pressed the attack, striking again and again 'til Jon felt he could hold the blade no longer. He is a far better swordsman than I Jon realised, and fear gripped his body like an icy blast. Suddenly a burning pain lanced through his arm, and he saw his blade of icy light tumble into the darkness below the ledge, and looked in disbelief of the stump of his arm, his hand severed at the wrist.

"Don't make me kill you, " Rhaegar told him, his voice rich and mocking. Jon tried to scramble back, further along the ledge, hoping desperately for a few more feet of space to put between himself and the dragon prince. Yet Rhaegar did not attack; instead, he reached out his hand, as if to offer Jon aid. "Jon, you do not yet realise your importance. The dragon needs three heads. Join me! Together we can end these conflicts that endanger the seven kingdoms, and turn back the white walkers."

For a moment, Jon did not know what to say, could not understand what was being offered to him. But then he remembered Eddard as well, and thought of Lyanna, his long-dead aunt. I'll never join you, Rhaegar. Rhaegar took a step forwards. "Eddard never told you what was truly behind the rebellion, Jon. He never told you what happened to Lyanna."

"He told me enough. He told me of the tower of Joy. My father was there. He slew your knights, but too late."

Rhaegar shook his head, slowly, sadly. "No, Jon. I am your father. Search your feelings and 105 threads on westeros.org, you know it to be true!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fury filled him, and lent strength by his rage, he raised himself and slashed again and again, raining fierce blows on the man in front of him. Rhaegar, who had kidnapped and raped his father's sister, who had started the rebellion and died at King Robert's hand at the Trident; this was the man he faced. He pressed forwards, his ice-blue blade crashing again and again against Rhaegar's red. Breaking past the man's guard he lay a crushing blow on the black pauldron on his foe's shoulder, bringing forth sparks and a cry of pain that echoed in the black helmet.

Now the battle turned. Driven by the pain of his blow, his foe pressed the attack, striking again and again 'til Jon felt he could hold the blade no longer. He is a far better swordsman than I Jon realised, and fear gripped his body like an icy blast. Suddenly a burning pain lanced through his arm, and he saw his blade of icy light tumble into the darkness below the ledge, and looked in disbelief of the stump of his arm, his hand severed at the wrist.

"Don't make me kill you, " Rhaegar told him, his voice rich and mocking. Jon tried to scramble back, further along the ledge, hoping desperately for a few more feet of space to put between himself and the dragon prince. Yet Rhaegar did not attack; instead, he reached out his hand, as if to offer Jon aid. "Jon, you do not yet realise your importance. The dragon needs three heads. Join me! Together we can end these conflicts that endanger the seven kingdoms, and turn back the white walkers."

For a moment, Jon did not know what to say, could not understand what was being offered to him. But then he remembered Eddard as well, and thought of Lyanna, his long-dead aunt. I'll never join you, Rhaegar. Rhaegar took a step forwards. "Eddard never told you what was truly behind the rebellion, Jon. He never told you what happened to Lyanna."

"He told me enough. He told me of the tower of Joy. My father was there. He slew your knights, but too late."

Rhaegar shook his head, slowly, sadly. "No, Jon. I am your father. Search your feelings and 105 threads on westeros.org, you know it to be true!"

:lmao: Rhaegar Vader and Jon Skywalker ! and the last line is priceless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, if you take one section I quoted in a different context and assume that's the entire statute, that would be true.

I gave you a quote above from a historian in the field specifically discussing this case and the subsequent statue as a means of legal recourse against those cases where abduction is used as an excuse to allow elopement rather than going through with arranged marriage. That's what the historians who specialise in this area say, I merely pass on their opinion. Mine is, I happily confess, purely an argument from authority. If you feel the experts who dedicate their lives to the study of this field are wrong, I urge you to take it up with them, because I don't have the expertise in the fine points of medieval law relating to rape and ravishment to debate this.

As an expert in the jurisprudence of the era, I am sure you are well aware that this was an era where the laws of Rome were being re-established and refined.

No, I pointed to a woman who was ordered to return home to have her marriage arranged, and secretly arranged a marriage of her own to circumvent this. The difference between someone eloping after "I am going to arrange you marriage" rather than "I have already arranged your marriage" is simply splitting hairs.

GRRM didn't say that it never happened, so he's not wrong. He said that a princess marrying the stable boy didn't happen. He said that the concept of arranged marriage wasn't questioned, which is not the same as saying that nobody ever attempted to circumvent it. The concept of murder being wrong isn't questioned either, but nonetheless, murders take place. He says "people went through with them", not "everyone went through with them without exception". It was normal and accepted to go through with them, just as it is normal and accepted to not murder someone who looks at you funny, or blows their nose in an irritating fashion. "People don't murder each other for no good reason" is a perfectly sound statement, while "Nobody ever murdered anyone for no good reason" isn't.

As I said, to think that never in all the millions of cases of arranged marriage did anyone ever try to circumvent it is howling at the moon. I do not contend that GRRM said this. Yes, if really did intend to say that, then he's flat out wrong and making a barking mad assumption. I don't believe this to be the case, I give him far more credit than that. He said that it wasn't questioned, not that it was never done. It was, and in cultures where arranged marriage is still a thing, still is done. And it has consequences, because the right and normality of it was unquestioned.

Can you show that Lyanna did not elope? If not, then it remains a possibility, and to claim that she did not elope would be equally "fan fiction" as to claim that she did. And no, showing that various people believed she did not elope is not proof of anything other than what they believed.

We do not know if she was willing or not. Simple as that.

Yes, if you take one section I quoted in a different context and assume that's the entire statute, that would be true.

Is the quote you posted the one you wanted to use? I only dealt with what was there. If you, like i did, find the quote provided fails to support the assertion... add the rest of the statute.

I can only respond to what was there.

I gave you a quote above from a historian in the field

You gave an excerpt from a book... entitled Domestic Violence in Medieval Texts Edited by Eve Salsbury her credentials as an editor are impressive...her field appears to be medieval literature.

specifically discussing this case and the subsequent statue as a means of legal recourse against those cases where abduction is used as an excuse to allow elopement rather than going through with arranged marriage.

The specific case does not address arranged marriage... The legal recourse is to disallow inheritance of women who are ravished and later consent to be ravished from inheriting from her husband or ancestors.

That's what the historians who specialise in this area say,

http://www.goodreads.com/author/list/364906.Eve_Salisbury

I merely pass on their opinion.

I gathered that

Mine is, I happily confess, purely an argument from authority.

I have thoughtfully included other works by the authority you cited

Four Romances of England: King Horn, Havelok the Dane, Bevis of Hampton, Athelston

Trials And Joys Of Marriage (Middle English Texts

Domestic Violence in Medieval Texts

Lybeaus Desconus

If you feel the experts who dedicate their lives to the study of this field are wrong, I urge you to take it up with them

If you could point to one that would be nice....

because I don't have the expertise in the fine points of medieval law relating to rape and ravishment to debate this.

Nor do I nor does Eve Salisbury

As an expert in the jurisprudence of the era, I am sure you are well aware that this was an era where the laws of Rome were being re-established and refined.

And I am still wondering why you brought them up.

No, I pointed to a woman who was ordered to return home to have her marriage arranged, and secretly arranged a marriage of her own to circumvent this. The difference between someone eloping after "I am going to arrange you marriage" rather than "I have already arranged your marriage" is simply splitting hairs.

Or Heirs as your cited statute would have it.

Avoiding having a marriage arranged is not the same thing as avoiding marriage that has been arranged. If you would like to go that route go in text to Alys Karstark. It is almost a perfect match for your scenario.

GRRM didn't say that it never happened, so he's not wrong.

He said that a princess marrying the stable boy didn't happen.

the arranged marriage, which you see constantly in the historical fiction and television show, almost always when there’s an arranged marriage, the girl doesn’t want it and rejects it and she runs off with the stable boy instead. This never fucking happened. It just didn’t.

He said that the concept of arranged marriage wasn't questioned,

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.

which is not the same as saying that nobody ever attempted to circumvent it.

Yeah, occasionally you would want someone else, but you wouldn’t run off with the stable boy.

The concept of murder being wrong isn't questioned either, but nonetheless, murders take place.

Step back... murder being wrong is never questioned... because it is wrong by definition... murder is unlawful killing. What makes a killing unlawful is constantly argued.

He says "people went through with them", not "everyone went through with them without exception". It was normal and accepted to go through with them,

correct

people went through with them. That’s how you did it. It wasn’t questioned.

just as it is normal and accepted to not murder someone who looks at you funny, or blows their nose in an irritating fashion.

Though it is not comparable to the previous statement... it is normal and accepted..

"People don't murder each other for no good reason" is a perfectly sound statement,

People do murder each other for good reason.... if we would cancel the negatives. The statement is false... a killing with justification is lawful. Murder is unlawful killing.

while "Nobody ever murdered anyone for no good reason" isn't.

yes all murders lack good reason... murder happens and somebody does it... the statement is false.

As I said, to think that never in all the millions of cases of arranged marriage did anyone ever try to circumvent it is howling at the moon. I do not contend that GRRM said this. Yes, if really did intend to say that, then he's flat out wrong and making a barking mad assumption. I don't believe this to be the case, I give him far more credit than that. He said that it wasn't questioned, not that it was never done. It was, and in cultures where arranged marriage is still a thing, still is done. And it has consequences, because the right and normality of it was unquestioned.

It is not done in his books...

Can you show that Lyanna did not elope?

Robert says he kidnapped her..

Dany says he kidnapped her...

2 sources in the text...

If not, then it remains a possibility,

without a counter example in text... it is not possible.

and to claim that she did not elope would be equally "fan fiction" as to claim that she did.

Lyanna was kidnapped... in text not fanfiction.

And no, showing that various people believed she did not elope is not proof of anything other than what they believed.

You are asking for a first person account from a non viewpoint character that died years before the first events in the text to verify what we know about Lyanna.

To which I can claim Lyanna never died... or Lyanna was never born.. what various people believed about her death and birth are not proof that she was born or died... just that they believed she was born or died.--- so yes we are kind of stuck with second hand accounts of lots of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can see it as loyalty or disloyalty... Rhaegar wanted Aerys at the tournament,

If you would like to go with disloyalty, Rhaegar showed the lords what his father was and what he was to make their deciding to support him an easy one. Rhaegar dragged the freak out and put him on display.... and got him to think it was his idea.

If you would like to go with loyalty, Rhaegar was acting against plots and rumors against his father coming from the great Lords, He managed to set up a public display of the king... including the adding of a new kingsguard.. he showed that Aerys was not a mad man locked in a tower incapable of dealing with them. Rhaegar tricked Aerys into seeing his son as a threat, to use Aerys reaction to deal with the real threat of the great Lords.

Either way, painting Aerys's appearance at HH as Rhaegar's failure rather than his triumph does not seem justified.

Were it not for Rhaegar killing all the smiles at HH, i would say it was disloyalty. That action, much like Aerys learning of the tournament, would seem to hurt his cause if his cause was to depose his father.

I hold that the purpose of the HH was a show of deception. The lords and the king would fear what they did not know. The lords would not know Aerys ability or alliances... other than the rumor Aerys would not leave the keep were false, Aerys would not know what lords were conspiring with his son... his scrutiny would be mistaken by the lords as awareness of their actual plots.

Harrenhal failed to halt the joining of the great houses. They formed marriage pacts that posed a grave threat to the Targaryens. Rhaegar taking Lyanna disrupted those plans more than anything his father could have done without open war. It also caused the Starks to act before they had the support of the riverlands. Divide and conquer...

Lyanna was the monkey in the wrench. They had a minimum confirmed 3 months together before Lyanna got pregnant. Lyanna gave birth at the end of the war that lasted a year...9 months back gave them 3 months plus the time Brandon and Rickard took to get to KL...( plus the time it took for Jon Arryn to call his banners.

If we are looking for a love story... put it where we can show they were together.

Make the rebellion planned and the romance spontaneous.... rather than the other way around. It also makes it that much more tragic...theirs was a love started and crushed by a rebellion that could not be stopped...rather than theirs was a love crushed by a rebellion it started.

If one were to also give thought to the idea that Lyanna is in fact the pregnant girl in the Fisherman's Daughter story, and Ned helped her escape to Dorne via The Bite/White Harbor while en route to WF to call his banners, it also goes a long way toward explaining Ned's torment and guilt over the situation - if he aided Lyanna due to her newfound relationship with Rhaegar that arose from R's political machinations AGAINST the Southron Alliance in the game of thrones, the honorable Ned Stark essentially betrayed his house, his allies, and their cause....all for the love of his sister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one were to also give thought to the idea that Lyanna is in fact the pregnant girl in the Fisherman's Daughter story, and Ned helped her escape to Dorne via The Bite/White Harbor while en route to WF to call his banners, it also goes a long way toward explaining Ned's torment and guilt over the situation - if he aided Lyanna due to her newfound relationship with Rhaegar that arose from R's political machinations AGAINST the Southron Alliance in the game of thrones, the honorable Ned Stark essentially betrayed his house, his allies, and their cause....all for the love of his sister.

Could Lyanna have been pregnant that early? The entire Rebellion lasts a year; wouldn't she have gotten pregnant a bit later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you feel the experts who dedicate their lives to the study of this field are wrong, I urge you to take it up with them

If you could point to one that would be nice....

You'll probably want to start with J.B Post's Ravishment of Women and the Statutes of Westminster, from Legal Records and the Historian: Papers presented to the Cambridge Legal History Conference, pub. 1978. That seems to be the landmark paper on the subject. Can't find it online, but it's widely referenced in the stuff I've already pointed you at, and highly influential amongst writers in the field.

As a little hint, you shouldn't be looking for experts in the field only amongst those who work solely in that field, you won't find many. It's a narrow subject matter, so don't be startled to find that the people involved might publish in other subject areas too. Even Post is a specialist in the history of medieval law in general.

I'll give you this from Stolen Women in Medieval England: Rape, Abduction and Adultery, 1100-1500, by Prof. Caroline Dunn of Clemson University, Durham University, University of Washington and others. Her bio describes her as "...a scholar of medieval Europe with a particular focus on women’s roles and social networks in late medieval England" which isn't too specific, but hopefully close enough for your needs.

In emphasising that the Westminster Statutes conflated the language of ravishment with the primary intent of thwarting consensual abductions, J.B Post then noted that the late thirteenth-century legislation 'failed to affect behaviour' and thus led directly to the introduction of the 1382 stState of Rapes. This law explicitly condemned females who participated in consensual abductions, stating that, if a woman consented at any time - before, during or after the abduction - her male relatives (no longer only the Crown) gained the right to prosecute the offenders...

You may find her Damsels in Distress or Partners in Crime? The Abduction of Women in Medieval England interesting as well. Both are (partially) readable on Google books, and you'll even find one or two examples of legal cases involving women conspiring in their 'abduction' by one man when marriage had been arranged to another, which I'm sure you'll enjoy!

The concept of murder being wrong isn't questioned either, but nonetheless, murders take place.

Step back... murder being wrong is never questioned... because it is wrong by definition... murder is unlawful killing. What makes a killing unlawful is constantly argued.

Yes, and when elopement is understood to mean running away without permission, then elopement is also wrong by definition.

Funny story: elope comes from Anglo-Norman aloper, which could mean either run away or be abducted.

Can you show that Lyanna did not elope?

Robert says he kidnapped her..

Dany says he kidnapped her...

2 sources in the text...

If not, then it remains a possibility,

without a counter example in text... it is not possible.

If you don't get the concept of the unreliable narrator you're going to run into a lot of problems with ASOIAF. Neither Dany nor Robert were there, or as far as we know heard the story from a witness or primary source. Additionally, as the historical examples I have given demonstrate, the term kidnap could be used in cases where the woman went willingly.

Your "without a counter example in the text it is not possible" just doesn't make any sense. You'll find examples of people staying dead when they are killed in aGoT and no counter-examples. Didn't make that impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Well Anne Boleyn was incredibly ambitious and she really wanted to marry up. Her secret betrothal with Percy was merely her first attempt to score a powerful and prestigous marriage. The Percy's were one of the oldest families in England, who'd come over from France in the train of William the Conqueror. Though Anne's maternal uncle was the Duke of Norfolk, the Boleyn's had only recently emerged from the merchant class and the Percy marriage was a reach for her.

It is ironic that later she'd have an even more illustrious suitor in the king. Anne was always very clear that she would never consent to being Henry's mistress. Her sister had been his mistress and Anne knew where that road led to; several bastards and being pawned off to a lesser lord the king had bribed to marry her. Anne was more like Margaerie; she wanted to be the queen [not shocking the same actress has played both of them ;)] She apparently managed to hold Henry off from fully consumating the relationship for almost seven years and yet still hold his interest, a feat I doubt even the Queen of Thorns could pull off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I pointed to a woman who was ordered to return home to have her marriage arranged, and secretly arranged a marriage of her own to circumvent this. The difference between someone eloping after "I am going to arrange you marriage" rather than "I have already arranged your marriage" is simply splitting hairs.

In Westeros there may not be a difference between those two situations, but in medieval times, there most definitely was. According to medieval cannon law, a betrothal or a pre-contract was legally considered a semi-binding contract that was negotiated not only between the couple but, their families as well. It could be formed merely by the exchange of vows between the couple in the future tense (I will take you as my husband/wife) but if after saying these vows the couple had sex, the physical consummation was considered by the church to have transformed the betrothal from a semi-binding contract into an actual legal marriage.

A pre-contract could be dissolved by either of the parties, but there usually was a financial penalty involved and negotiations had to be satisfactorily settled between the families of the two parties and all church dispensations granted before the couple could be legally betrothed again to different people. If a betrothal was not formally ended before one of the couple married a third party, any subsequent marriage could be considered invalid in the eyes of the Church.

With medieval nobility, betrothals were often very public and festive affairs where the bride and groom's families would negotiate the terms of the marriage and the financial and property considerations before the engaged couple would exchange their vows in the future tense in front of witnesses. So for a woman who has already had her marriage arranged by her family and has been publicly betrothed to then run off and elope with a third party would have been a much bigger deal than a woman who knows her father (or brother) is going to start searching for a match for her, and decides to elope with some handsome rake first.

The marriage of Mary Tudor and Charles Brandon that you mentioned was the later rather then the former. She'd been called home and she knew that Henry was probably going to sell her off to the highest bidder again but no formal match had been made, so she took matters into her own hands. However, being a member of the royal family made eloping even more dangerous for her than if she were just the daughter of a duke, which brings me to my next 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.

It's one thing to elope with the daughter/son of a high lord, it's quite another thing to run off and elope with a member of the royal family without the king's permission, let alone do it with his male heir. In this case, the only opinion that ultimately matters is the kings, no one else's. He's going to be the one to determine the severity of the consequences.

Charles Brandon's marrying a royal princess in secret and without the kings permission was technically an act of treason and many members of Henry VIII's privy council urged him to either imprison or execute Brandon for it. Henry was royally pissed, but Mary was his favorite sister and Charles Brandon was one of his best friends. With Cardinal Wolsey mediating the situation (seriously, that man could fix anything), Brandon got to keep his head but got hit with a heavy fine and the couple had to be remarried again in public with the king's blessing.

We don't seem to know yet all of the rules governing the marriages of the royal family in Westeros. There has been mention in tPatQ and RK that royals are expected to at least ask the king for permission to marry first, but as to whether or not it would be considered treason if they didn't and married in secret is hard to say. Rhaenyra and Maegor both married without their king's permission and only got brief exiles.

I'd venture to guess that just like in medieval history, it would all boil down to the nature of the individual king and their relationship with the offending family member in question. Now we still don't know everything what was really going on between Aerys and Rhaegar. However, I don't think it's out of left field for me to say that unless he was seriously planning on overthrowing his father or somehow Aerys knew all about his son's plans to take Lyanna as a second wife and gave his approval, it does not seem like a particularly wise or safe move on the crown prince's part. At best, Aerys could disinherit/exile them and at worst, Aerys could wake up one morning on the wrong side of his paranoid crazy train, decide that both his son and Lyanna were treasonous threats to his authority and burn them alive.

You'll probably want to start with J.B Post's Ravishment of Women and the Statutes of Westminster, from Legal Records and the Historian: Papers presented to the Cambridge Legal History Conference, pub. 1978. That seems to be the landmark paper on the subject. Can't find it online, but it's widely referenced in the stuff I've already pointed you at, and highly influential amongst writers in the field.

As a little hint, you shouldn't be looking for experts in the field only amongst those who work solely in that field, you won't find many. It's a narrow subject matter, so don't be startled to find that the people involved might publish in other subject areas too. Even Post is a specialist in the history of medieval law in general.

I'll give you this from Stolen Women in Medieval England: Rape, Abduction and Adultery, 1100-1500, by Prof. Caroline Dunn of Clemson University, Durham University, University of Washington and others. Her bio describes her as "...a scholar of medieval Europe with a particular focus on women’s roles and social networks in late medieval England" which isn't too specific, but hopefully close enough for your needs.

You may find her Damsels in Distress or Partners in Crime? The Abduction of Women in Medieval England interesting as well. Both are (partially) readable on Google books, and you'll even find one or two examples of legal cases involving women conspiring in their 'abduction' by one man when marriage had been arranged to another, which I'm sure you'll enjoy!

Yes, and when elopement is understood to mean running away without permission, then elopement is also wrong by definition.

Funny story: elope comes from Anglo-Norman aloper, which could mean either run away or be abducted.

Thanks for all of the reading recommendations! I don't know a great deal about medieval abductions and I look forward to learning more.

Oh! And you're Vader/Rhaegar, Luke/Jon post was EPIC! :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said excellent. There is a difference between doing something well and doing it excellently. Also, I think you need to remember audience here. Selmy (who is really Whitebeard ATM) is telling Dany (who has rather romantic big brother hero worship goggles about Rhaegar) about her brother, whom Dany considered the Last of the Dragons for a long time. She's saddened to learn that Rhaegar didn't really like the lists and was given to doom and gloom.

So yes Rhaegar did things well but that doesn't mean he can't slip up or do something less well

well or excellent.. take your pick

Getting caught plotting against his father is neither.

Getting the king to show his face in public for the first time since Duskendale is both,

King Aerys was one such. By the end, even Rhaegar saw that plain enough. Jon Con..aDwD chapter 24

The year of the false spring was far from the end. The passage can be seen as a comment on Rhaegar being late to see his father had been poisoned by mistrust.

I just have to say, that Rhaegar was not always the best at things.. Rhaegar also lost tourneys he participated in, you know..

So the argumentation that "Rhaegar did everything excellent" + "Aerys left the Red Keep for the first time since Duskendale to go to Harrenhal" = "Plan of Rhaegar succeeds, he got Aerys out of the Red Keep" isn't a good one.

And by the way, whay would the motivation of Rhaegar have been? Why on earth would he want to get Aerys out of the Red Keep? That doesn't help him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deep in his coma, Ned dreamt of himself in a vast, cavernous hall, ancient and long-abandoned. He looked down, and in his hand he saw a sword aflame, burning with an icy blue light, flickering strangely in the chill wind. A dark figure stepped out from the shadows, his own sword a mirror of the one Jon held, fiery red, like a dragon's breath, in the place of Jon's blue ice. Jon retreated back, uncertain as the man advanced, the light from both blades glimmering dully off his black armour.

Before Jon could think, the man was upon him. Instinctively, Jon raised his own blade to block, then countered with a slash of his own, easily parried. I do not know this man, Jon thought. Why does he pursue me? Some old foe of Lord Eddard? He did not know why the thought came to him so quickly, but he sensed a truth in it.

The man in black armour advanced on him, his blows powerful and confident. It was all Jon could to to block, block, block. His arms were tiring quickly, and he realised this implacable swordsman was too strong for him. He stepped back, seeking space, and back again, onto a narrow ledge, but still the swordsman came on, slashing and thrusting until Jon stumbled and fell. Holding his red flaming blade towards Jon, the man spoke in a chill voice "When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. Don't let yourself be killed, as Eddard Stark did."

Jon thought of his father; of Eddard Stark, the man who had loved him and treated him as almost a true son, when other bastards were so oft an afterthought. He could almost see them, ghostly figures watching the battle. There Ned, there his half brothers, Rickon and Bran, and Robb who had been as close to him as any full brother could be. There his sisters Sansa, and poor lost Arya, so fierce and brave. Behind Arya, another, older but so alike, a crown of blue winter roses upon her brow. Lyanna, he thought, though he had never seen her in life. Eddard's sister. He looked back at the man in armour, and saw then upon his breastplate, picked out in rubies, a three-headed dragon. And he understood.

A fury filled him, and lent strength by his rage, he raised himself and slashed again and again, raining fierce blows on the man in front of him. Rhaegar, who had kidnapped and raped his father's sister, who had started the rebellion and died at King Robert's hand at the Trident; this was the man he faced. He pressed forwards, his ice-blue blade crashing again and again against Rhaegar's red. Breaking past the man's guard he lay a crushing blow on the black pauldron on his foe's shoulder, bringing forth sparks and a cry of pain that echoed in the black helmet.

Now the battle turned. Driven by the pain of his blow, his foe pressed the attack, striking again and again 'til Jon felt he could hold the blade no longer. He is a far better swordsman than I Jon realised, and fear gripped his body like an icy blast. Suddenly a burning pain lanced through his arm, and he saw his blade of icy light tumble into the darkness below the ledge, and looked in disbelief of the stump of his arm, his hand severed at the wrist.

"Don't make me kill you, " Rhaegar told him, his voice rich and mocking. Jon tried to scramble back, further along the ledge, hoping desperately for a few more feet of space to put between himself and the dragon prince. Yet Rhaegar did not attack; instead, he reached out his hand, as if to offer Jon aid. "Jon, you do not yet realise your importance. The dragon needs three heads. Join me! Together we can end these conflicts that endanger the seven kingdoms, and turn back the white walkers."

For a moment, Jon did not know what to say, could not understand what was being offered to him. But then he remembered Eddard as well, and thought of Lyanna, his long-dead aunt. I'll never join you, Rhaegar. Rhaegar took a step forwards. "Eddard never told you what was truly behind the rebellion, Jon. He never told you what happened to Lyanna."

"He told me enough. He told me of the tower of Joy. My father was there. He slew your knights, but too late."

Rhaegar shook his head, slowly, sadly. "No, Jon. I am your father. Search your feelings and 105 threads on westeros.org, you know it to be true!"

This was epic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by the way, whay would the motivation of Rhaegar have been? Why on earth would he want to get Aerys out of the Red Keep? That doesn't help him?

I think the only way it would help him is if Aerys did something crazy at HH thereby proving Rhaegar's point that Aerys needed to go. But that's a really huge gamble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could Lyanna have been pregnant that early? The entire Rebellion lasts a year; wouldn't she have gotten pregnant a bit later?

"about a year"..."close to a year"...."near on a year"....we really don't know that means specifically, or what GRRM intended as the actual start of the rebellion. (Or I haven't seen that textual ref or SSM pinpointing a date or event as "the" start, anyway.) If you adhere to a looser timeline the way George seems to do, it could work:

Lyanna disappears

Brandon gets word and rides to KL

Aerys takes him and his party hostage and sends summons to Rickard in WF

Rickard assembles his men, goes to KL and meets his end

Aerys calls for Ned and Bob's heads

Jon Arryn calls his banners and sends Ned to WF to do same

Ned takes perilous journey through mountains from Vale to WF to avoid Targ-controlled Gulltown

All of this would take a couple of months, I think. Borrell also says that Ned LEFT the FD with a bag of silver and a baby in her belly - meaning, the FD was clearly not already visibly pregnant at the time. If the FD is Lyanna, it is feasible that she is very newly pregnant (think Rhaella-ish) which could conceivably have her giving birth close to the Sack depending on your operative interpretation of "about a year".

Granted, it's just a postulation on my part. But, I just kept wondering why GRRM would insert such a random Jon Snow Origin Theory into the fifth book - a bit late for a red herring, really, considering that 1) R+L = J had been hotly discussed by the Devoted for years already, and 2) ADWD was released only a few months after the premiere of the show, meaning that the Unsullied who might pick up the books as a result of the show would still have to plow through the first four novels to get to that red herring.

So, I put my writer's hat on and asked why I would do that if I were GRRM, and my conclusion was that after setting the stage for R+L = J fifteen years prior, GRRM may have been asking himself the same question that many fans have been asking, which is "How in the name of the old gods and the new did Lyanna Stark and the Prince of Dragonstone get down to effing Dorne in the middle of a rebellion without anyone noticing?"

IMO it's possible that Ned aided Lyanna in her relocation. I keep going back to his talk with Arya about Nymeria, and Arya confessing that she made Nymeria run away to avoid punishment for biting Joffrey. Arya says (paraphrasing) "It was right, wasn't it?" and Ned replies that it was still a lie, but the lie was "not without honor". And of course in their respective situations, father and daughter were forced to watch others they love pay the price for their noble lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll probably want to start with J.B Post's Ravishment of Women and the Statutes of Westminster, from Legal Records and the Historian: Papers presented to the Cambridge Legal History Conference, pub. 1978. That seems to be the landmark paper on the subject. Can't find it online, but it's widely referenced in the stuff I've already pointed you at, and highly influential amongst writers in the field.

As a little hint, you shouldn't be looking for experts in the field only amongst those who work solely in that field, you won't find many. It's a narrow subject matter, so don't be startled to find that the people involved might publish in other subject areas too. Even Post is a specialist in the history of medieval law in general.

I'll give you this from Stolen Women in Medieval England: Rape, Abduction and Adultery, 1100-1500, by Prof. Caroline Dunn of Clemson University, Durham University, University of Washington and others. Her bio describes her as "...a scholar of medieval Europe with a particular focus on women’s roles and social networks in late medieval England" which isn't too specific, but hopefully close enough for your needs.

You may find her Damsels in Distress or Partners in Crime? The Abduction of Women in Medieval England interesting as well. Both are (partially) readable on Google books, and you'll even find one or two examples of legal cases involving women conspiring in their 'abduction' by one man when marriage had been arranged to another, which I'm sure you'll enjoy!

Yes, and when elopement is understood to mean running away without permission, then elopement is also wrong by definition.

Funny story: elope comes from Anglo-Norman aloper, which could mean either run away or be abducted.

If you don't get the concept of the unreliable narrator you're going to run into a lot of problems with ASOIAF. Neither Dany nor Robert were there, or as far as we know heard the story from a witness or primary source. Additionally, as the historical examples I have given demonstrate, the term kidnap could be used in cases where the woman went willingly.

Your "without a counter example in the text it is not possible" just doesn't make any sense. You'll find examples of people staying dead when they are killed in aGoT and no counter-examples. Didn't make that impossible.

You'll probably want to start with J.B Post's Ravishment of Women and the Statutes of Westminster, from Legal Records and the Historian: Papers presented to the Cambridge Legal History Conference, pub. 1978. That seems to be the landmark paper on the subject. Can't find it online, but it's widely referenced in the stuff I've already pointed you at, and highly influential amongst writers in the field.

Ravishment of Women and the Statutes of Westminster, Lovely paper and a lovely topic.. though I am still not sure what field that may be in.. is it its own or part of another?

As a little hint, you shouldn't be looking for experts in the field only amongst those who work solely in that field, you won't find many. It's a narrow subject matter, so don't be startled to find that the people involved might publish in other subject areas too. Even Post is a specialist in the history of medieval law in general.

Common law and statutory laws are followed by most nations in the world. A combination of both is necessary for justice to be served.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Common_Law_vs_Statutory_Law

Common law is also known as case law. Statute law is also known as written law.

Statutes will not contain an example of a historical event. Common law or case law will. A specialist in the history of medieval law in general should know of relevant case law.

--the 1659 virginia statute is an excellent example of erroneous conclusions that result from using statute to establish a historical event. http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/24-sla.html It contains a statute prohibiting something that had never happened.

I'll give you this from Stolen Women in Medieval England: Rape, Abduction and Adultery, 1100-1500, by Prof. Caroline Dunn of Clemson University, Durham University, University of Washington and others. Her bio describes her as "...a scholar of medieval Europe with a particular focus on women’s roles and social networks in late medieval England" which isn't too specific, but hopefully close enough for your needs.

Does it contain a historical example of a woman running away from an arranged marriage?

Not challenging the authority here... just the relevance of her contribution to the discussion.

Yes, and when elopement is understood to mean running away without permission, then elopement is also wrong by definition.

Funny story: elope comes from Anglo-Norman aloper, which could mean either run away or be abducted

1590s, "to run off," probably from Middle Dutch (ont)lopen "run away," from ont- "away from" (from Proto-Germanic *und- which also gave the first element in until) + lopen "to run," from Proto-Germanic*hlaupan (source also of Old English hleapan; see leap (v.)). Sense of "run away in defiance of parental authority to marry secretly" is 19c.

In support of this OED compares Old English uðleapan, "the technical word for the 'escaping' of a thief." However there is an Anglo-French aloper "run away from a husband with one's lover" (mid-14c.) which complicates this etymology; perhaps it is a modification of the Middle Dutch word, with Old French es-, or it is a compound of that and Middle English lepen "run, leap" (see leap (v.)).

The oldest Germanic word for "wedding" is represented by Old English brydlop (cognates: Old High German bruthlauft, Old Norse bruðhlaup), literally "bride run," the conducting of the woman to her new home. Related: Eloped; eloping

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=elope

Give or take... note the absence of "abducted"... also note running off to get married is 19th century. and the use of the term to mean "run off" is from the late 16th century.

The etemology from the 14th century is a running off after a marriage.

If you don't get the concept of the unreliable narrator you're going to run into a lot of problems with ASOIAF.

An unreliable narrator remains infinitely superior to unreliable fanfiction. Discrediting the narrator does not mean the opposite of what he or she says must be true. Nor does it mean that nothing the narrator says is reliable.

Neither Dany nor Robert were there, or as far as we know heard the story from a witness or primary source.

There is no witness or primary source available. Refusing to accept the given second hand account, does not support fanfiction. It simply leaves it as an unknown.

Additionally, as the historical examples I have given demonstrate, the term kidnap could be used in cases where the woman went willingly.

aside from the fact you gave a statute rather than a historical example...and in the example the woman was alleging the kidnapping... ok

Your "without a counter example in the text it is not possible" just doesn't make any sense. You'll find examples of people staying dead when they are killed in aGoT and no counter-examples. Didn't make that impossible.

Accepting the second hand account of the abduction confirms abduction. Refusing to accept the account leaves the abduction as an unknown event. To turn the unknown event into running away, you need some text.

People staying dead: Robert, Ned, Robb, the vast majority of the red wedding guests, the people Arya killed... counter examples Cat and Dondarrion--- that is just people confirmed dead... many more reported dead that really were not.

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...