R+L=J v.111

[RumHam]

:dunno: Somewhere.

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.

like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men.

- That much for a common law for everyone. Besides, if there is a law against it, why does Jorah suggest it as an option for Dany? If dragons are the game changer, why did Jaehaerys set up such a law, and why did Daemon and Rhaenyra have problems with it while they still had dragons? Too many contradictions it the ban was codified; none if it wasn't.

Wasn't Jorah suggesting it because he wanted to be one of the two husbands? Anyway she would be a ruling queen and could do whatever she wanted, especially with dragons.

As far as the theory that Jaehaerys outlawed polygamy--I don't buy it. I have now had time to read his section more closely with that issue explicitly in mind. The reason that it gives for codifying the law is merely to have a unified law throughout Westeros rather than having separate customs in each region (the battles with the Faith are not mentioned in regard to that issue). Why would he outlaw a practice that was mostly just an issue for Targaryens (culturally no one else would engage in polygamy, in general), so why would he pass a law that would be specifically aimed against his own family?

The theory seems to be that he did it to appease the Faith. But that is not supported in the text. The text suggests that the codification was done before he approach the Faith for reconciliation. And the reconciliation was a trade in which the Faith agreed to put down their arms and allow themselves to be subject to outside justice (rather that claim to be their own judge and jury) in exchange for the Targ dynasty agreeing to always protect and defend the Faith. That sounds like an exchange in which Jaehaerys had the stronger bargaining power and the Faith knew it was as good a deal as they could get.

Why would Jaehaerys preemptively negotiate against himself by making polygamy illegal before he even approached the Faith for a reconciliation? It makes no sense to me that the unified laws would include a law against polygamy. We know it does not include a law against incest because the Targs kept marrying sisters. And the Faith hated incest as much or more than polygamy. So if they were required to swallow that incest would not be outlawed--logic would dictate that the Faith would have to accept that polygamy was not outlawed.

The reconciliation with the Faith and the creation of the unified code of law are two separate things, I never meant to suggest otherwise. I think it's likely that some kingdoms had outlawed polygamy while others like the Reach had not. In unifying the laws I think he would have gone with no polygamy. Because of the Faith and to head off inheritance problems that polygamy can cause.

I thought the consensus was that incest was illegal (Cat says it's against the laws of gods and men, I think) and the Targaryens just said fuck it. Never doubting that the king would support them.

[UnmaskedLurker]

The reconciliation with the Faith and the creation of the unified code of law are two separate things, I never meant to suggest otherwise. I think it's likely that some kingdoms had outlawed polygamy while others like the Reach had not. In unifying the laws I think he would have gone with no polygamy. Because of the Faith and to head off inheritance problems that polygamy can cause.

I thought the consensus was that incest was illegal (Cat says it's against the laws of gods and men, I think) and the Targaryens just said fuck it. Never doubting that the king would support them.

I think it was Lord Varys who suggested in the past that the law against polygamy was done to appease the Faith. Jaehaerys himself was married to his sister. He is not going to make his own marriage illegal (even if it was technically "grandfathered")--and two of his children married each other. So notwithstanding what Cat may have said (don't have the cite with me), it does not seem plausible that incest was illegal under the unified code.

And the inheritance problem is a practical reason not to engage in polygamy--and likely one of the cultural reasons that it was not practiced--but it makes no sense for Jaehaerys to write the unified code with polygamy as a crime. His grandfather and uncle practiced it--so culturally, he would not be offended by it. Making it illegal would seem to be an attack on his own family. Why would he pass a law that would basically only serve the purpose of being seen as an attack on his own family?

[RumHam]

I think it was Lord Varys who suggested in the past that the law against polygamy was done to appease the Faith. Jaehaerys himself was married to his sister. He is not going to make his own marriage illegal (even if it was technically "grandfathered")--and two of his children married each other. So notwithstanding what Cat may have said (don't have the cite with me), it does not seem plausible that incest was illegal under the unified code.

And the inheritance problem is a practical reason not to engage in polygamy--and likely one of the cultural reasons that it was not practiced--but it makes no sense for Jaehaerys to write the unified code with polygamy as a crime. His grandfather and uncle practiced it--so culturally, he would not be offended by it. Making it illegal would seem to be an attack on his own family. Why would he pass a law that would basically only serve the purpose of being seen as an attack on his own family?

Imagine he's trying to unify the kingdoms under one law and the Starks had made polygamy illegal, but it's still legal in the Reach. He would then probably take the "boo polygamy" side, especially if it was already illegal/frowned upon in most kingdoms and by the Faith. He wouldn't see it as an attack/problem for his family because he knows the King is above the law, for all intents and purposes it doesn't apply to him and those who rule after him. Also he probably wasn't the biggest fan of polygamy after the struggle with Maegor. He may have thought it wise to abandon the practice.

[The Wolves]

So I was thinking and maybe someone already said this but in light of the World book

I was thinking that maybe Rhaegar saw some document mentioning the

Pact of Ice and Fire between the Starks and Targs during the Dance of the Dragons civil war and he thought that he needed Lyanna because a potential union between the Starks and Targs had been called Ice and Fire mentioned

[UnmaskedLurker]

So I was thinking and maybe someone already said this but in light of the World book

I was thinking that maybe Rhaegar saw some document mentioning the

Pact of Ice and Fire between the Starks and Targs during the Dance of the Dragons civil war and he thought that he needed Lyanna because a potential union between the Starks and Targs had been called Ice and Fire mentioned

This precise theory has been discussed in the WoIaF version of this thread (pinned in the sub-forum). And yes, I have been in favor of a variation of that theory even before WoIaF came out.

[BearQueen87]

So I was thinking and maybe someone already said this but in light of the World book

I was thinking that maybe Rhaegar saw some document mentioning the

Pact of Ice and Fire between the Starks and Targs during the Dance of the Dragons civil war and he thought that he needed Lyanna because a potential union between the Starks and Targs had been called Ice and Fire mentioned

I feel like UnmaskedLurker and I are going to start chanting "one of us...one of us..." soon.

[Alia of the knife]

I know GRRM confirmed it by way of the App. definitely.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I feel like UnmaskedLurker and I are going to start chanting "one of us...one of us..." soon.

Well, over the past few months, we have had to dodge a number of slings and arrows shot in our direction over this issue. It is nice to see that GRRM appears to be looking out for us.

[The Twinslayer]

As far as the theory that Jaehaerys outlawed polygamy--I don't buy it.

I have now had time to read his section more closely with that issue explicitly in mind. The reason that it gives for codifying the law is merely to have a unified law throughout Westeros rather than having separate customs in each region (the battles with the Faith are not mentioned in regard to that issue). Why would he outlaw a practice that was mostly just an issue for Targaryens (culturally no one else would engage in polygamy, in general), so why would he pass a law that would be specifically aimed against his own family?

The theory seems to be that he did it to appease the Faith. But that is not supported in the text. The text suggests that the codification was done before he approach the Faith for reconciliation. And the reconciliation was a trade in which the Faith agreed to put down their arms and allow themselves to be subject to outside justice (rather that claim to be their own judge and jury) in exchange for the Targ dynasty agreeing to always protect and defend the Faith. That sounds like an exchange in which Jaehaerys had the stronger bargaining power and the Faith knew it was as good a deal as they could get.

Why would Jaehaerys preemptively negotiate against himself by making polygamy illegal before he even approached the Faith for a reconciliation? It makes no sense to me that the unified laws would include a law against polygamy. We know it does not include a law against incest because the Targs kept marrying sisters. And the Faith hated incest as much or more than polygamy. So if they were required to swallow that incest would not be outlawed--logic would dictate that the Faith would have to accept that polygamy was not outlawed.

A few thoughts on this.

First, the Faith hated polygamy more than it hated incest.

Maegor could not find a septon who would perform a polygamous marriage for him. But Jaehaerys and Alysanne apparently had no trouble finding a septon to do a brother-sister marriage.

Second, if Jaehaerys wanted to demonstrate his willingness to compromise, he could not outlaw incest without voiding his own marriage. The Faith would have to know that that was a non-starter. However, he was not in a polygamous marriage, so it cost him nothing personally to outlaw polygamy.

Third, he outlawed First Night. We know from the Princess and the Queen that the Targs practiced that in Dragonstone prior to to Jaehaerys' reign. So, the Targs stopped First Night, stopped polygamy, and continued incest.

Fourth, I don't think it is a coincidence that the only examples of Targaryen polygamy stopped when Jaehaerys was trying to make peace with the Faith.

[UnmaskedLurker]

A few thoughts on this.

First, the Faith hated polygamy more than it hated incest.

Maegor could not find a septon who would perform a polygamous marriage for him. But Jaehaerys and Alysanne apparently had no trouble finding a septon to do a brother-sister marriage.

Second, if Jaehaerys wanted to demonstrate his willingness to compromise, he could not outlaw incest without voiding his own marriage. The Faith would have to know that that was a non-starter. However, he was not in a polygamous marriage, so it cost him nothing personally to outlaw polygamy.

Third, he outlawed First Night. We know from the Princess and the Queen that the Targs practiced that in Dragonstone prior to to Jaehaerys' reign. So, the Targs stopped First Night, stopped polygamy, and continued incest.

Fourth, I don't think it is a coincidence that the only examples of Targaryen polygamy stopped when Jaehaerys was trying to make peace with the Faith.

We know that they outlawed first night. We don't have--to my knowledge--any direct statement about incest or polygamy. There is some evidence polygamy was not outlawed, but to avoid the need to continue spoiler tags, it is being discussed in the R+L=J thread in TWOIAF sub-forum (starting at the end of the now locked v.2 and continued in the v.3 that I started), so I won't repeat the evidence here.

[The Twinslayer]

Wasn't Jorah suggesting it because he wanted to be one of the two husbands? Anyway she would be a ruling queen and could do whatever she wanted, especially with dragons.

Yeah, Jorah had an ulterior motive.

But Connington says that Aegon would not be free to take 2 wives, and Barristan thinks that if Hizdahr dies, Dany might be free to take a new husband. I would trust them before Jorah on what is legal in Westeros.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Yeah, Jorah had an ulterior motive.

But Connington says that Aegon would not be free to take 2 wives, and Barristan thinks that if Hizdahr dies, Dany might be free to take a new husband. I would trust them before Jorah on what is legal in Westeros.

These thoughts are not really relevant. Of course, politically, taking a second spouse is problematic--whether technically legal or illegal. The issue is not whether taking a second spouse creates a problem--it does. If the first spouse is a political marriage--taking a second spouse undoes the benefit of that political union because the first spouse is not going to be happy about it. That is a separate from question from whether polygamy is technically illegal. Those statements would be made regardless of the technical legal question.

[BearQueen87]

Yeah, Jorah had an ulterior motive.

But Connington says that Aegon would not be free to take 2 wives, and Barristan thinks that if Hizdahr dies, Dany might be free to take a new husband. I would trust them before Jorah on what is legal in Westeros.

Ah, I tried to resist. Gotta do the Jorah thing now.

I don't deny that Jorah has an another motive--he is in love after all. But his possessive and controlling nature don't lend itself to what your suggesting...that Dany take two husbands just so he can have her. He's suggesting that she CAN have two husbands, him and one other. He's not saying "just marry me" he's actively counseling, in that moment, that Dany can have two husbands like Aegon the Conqueror. Trust me, Jorah does not want her to have another husband. But he recognizes that it's a possibility for Dany.

As to your second point about JonCon, I think that has more to do with the culture of Westeros than anything legal. Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's popular. JonCon, who is trying to sell his perfect prince to a broken realm, knows that FAegon must play by the cultural rules, even if there is no law against polygamy.

[RumHam]

You guys have overlooked this key piece of evidence that polygamy is legal:

Bronn shrugged. “You once told me that if anyone ever asked me to sell you out, you’d double the price.”

Yes. “Is it two wives you want, or two castles?”

“One of each would serve. But if you want me to kill Gregor Clegane for you, it had best be a damned big castle.”

[BearQueen87]

You guys have overlooked this key piece of evidence that polygamy is legal:

Are you making our case for us? lol. But interesting catch! Tyrion might be joking (he does that, bless him) but he could also be making a serious offer since his life is on the line.

[Ygrain]

The reconciliation with the Faith and the creation of the unified code of law are two separate things, I never meant to suggest otherwise. I think it's likely that some kingdoms had outlawed polygamy while others like the Reach had not. In unifying the laws I think he would have gone with no polygamy. Because of the Faith and to head off inheritance problems that polygamy can cause.

That Reach thing is weird. Did the Reach have a different religion? I was under the impression that all of Seven Kingdoms minus the North were the Faith. So, if the lord of the Reach is of the Faith, and the Faith hates polygamy, how come he had more than one wife? Good old "might makes right"? Or they weren't actually legal wives but, say, official concubines?

Plus, one more aspect: even if Jaehaerys did outlaw polygamy, I doubt very much that the law would apply to the Targaryens themselves, just like the incest thing.

First, the Faith hated polygamy more than it hated incest.

... says an outside source of unknown credibility. Why don't the books say so anywhere?

[Mithras]

The First Men practiced thralldom and polygamy. Andals were also slavers in Essos.

[Salafi Stannis]

A little thought on Jon possibly becoming king: do you think that the way he was elected Lord Commander might be a foreshadowing for how it would be done? If the realm was split between two candidates neither of which would yield, might a third one to whom both parties were neutral, actually benefit?

Well, unless Howland Reed manages to convince everybody who matters that this isn't just some Northern bastard kid and actually the heir to the Targaryen dynasty, I don't think so.

[Ygrain]

Well, unless Howland Reed manages to convince everybody who matters that this isn't just some Northern bastard kid and actually the heir to the Targaryen dynasty, I don't think so.

Well, that revelation is kinda prerequisite. So, my question relates to the scenario IF it is revealed.

[Salafi Stannis]

Well, that revelation is kinda prerequisite. So, my question relates to the scenario IF it is revealed.

Oh, OK, but I do often wonder how on Earth it Howland could reveal it, and I think someone else might know about Jon's parentage too.