[TWOIAF Spoilers] R+L=J v. 3

[UnmaskedLurker]

But we know now that Aerys did not attempt to replace Rhaegar with Viserys during his life, right? The quote was that after the Trident, Viserys was Aerys's new heir. So what is the significance that Rhaegar thought Aerys might replace the heir?

[RumHam]

But we know now that Aerys did not attempt to replace Rhaegar with Viserys during his life, right? The quote was that after the Trident, Viserys was Aerys's new heir. So what is the significance that Rhaegar thought Aerys might replace the heir?

He didn't attempt to but there were rumblings that he might

When Prince Rhaegar and his new wife chose to take up residence on Dragonstone instead of the Red Keep, rumors flew thick and fast across the Seven Kingdoms. Some claimed that the crown prince was planning to depose his father and seize the Iron Throne for himself, whilst others said that King Aerys meant to disinherit Rhaegar and name Viserys heir in his place.

[UnmaskedLurker]

He didn't attempt to but there were rumblings that he might

Yes, I knew about that quote. I guess my point is what do we think is the real significance of that quote?

[BearQueen87]

Yes, I knew about that quote. I guess my point is what do we think is the real significance of that quote?

Guess it comes down to "why Dragonstone?" Did the crown prince always live at KL? My guess is no given that the crown prince is always "the prince of Dragonstone" and supposed to practice ruling from there. So R and E going to DS isn't really strange. But the fact that there were rumors that got attributed to R's moving to DS might suggest that there was some sort of falling out between A and R. If not DS--given the history of princes to live and rule there--then what else?

[Winterfell is Burning]

One thing that TWOIAF makes clear is that there were no polygamous marriages after Maegor. It's unclear whether they were outlawed or not, but the fact that there hadn't been one in nearly 250 years (and even those were controversial and partially responsible in leading to war) and that Rhaegar didn't even had Aerys support make it clear he was completely delusional in thinking that it would work, even if they were legal in the first place (one thing that also makes the legality of them doubtful is the lack of consent by the King).

Also, even if somehow the world finds out that Jon is Rhaegar's son, the acceptance of him as legitimate is very, very doubtful.

[Alia of the knife]

That's a good question. Rhaegar might have suspected Aerys of plotting to do that. Sorta makes me wonder if Rhaegar has his own "little birds" at court (if R was living mostly on Dragonstone) who would tell him what Aerys was doing--perhaps Martell, Whent, and Dayne?

I think that is within the context of the historical references Martin may be drawing from, (and he directly referenced the fourteeth century and its laws for aSoIaF), that it may have been a long term plan of Aerys.

Its said he did not trust his son, nor his wife Rhaella, so he sends for Varys as his own spy. And again, while Aerys may have been mad, he may not have been wrong.

But conversely, if Rhaegar believed he was going to be at some point, screwed out of his and his own childrens birthright in favor of Viserys and his children, it would make sense that Rhaegar might look to preempt Aerys.

It also segways into Rhaegars actions with Lyanna after finding out that Aegon is Rhaegars last male heir with Elia, because if Aegon should die, so does Rhaegars line as Rhaenys cannot inherit under Westerosi law, and Kevans rembembering Rhaegar as wanting more sons.

Whether it was a mix of factors, and whether it involved setting Elia aside as Cersei feared for herself, or polygamy, and I think especially in this light of competition with Viserys, Rhaegar needed to marry again for any new children to be able to legitimately succeed his line and without question, inherit the throne.

[UnmaskedLurker]

One thing that TWOIAF makes clear is that there were no polygamous marriages after Maegor. It's unclear whether they were outlawed or not, but the fact that there hadn't been one in nearly 250 years (and even those were controversial and partially responsible in leading to war) and that Rhaegar didn't even had Aerys support make it clear he was completely delusional in thinking that it would work, even if they were legal in the first place (one thing that also makes the legality of them doubtful is the lack of consent by the King).

Also, even if somehow the world finds out that Jon is Rhaegar's son, the acceptance of him as legitimate is very, very doubtful.

What Rhaegar thought in terms of having his polygamous marriage recognized is difficult to know for sure. I think he thought he had enough support in Westeros to get away with it, but we will have to wait for later books to find out for sure whether he married Lyanna and why he thought it would work.

As to its impact in the future given that Rhaegar's plans obviously are now moot, it might not matter. But if it does matter, it will simply be used by those who are pressing for Jon to be King because of what he did during the Battle for the Dawn (not because of his birthright) as an additional argument in his favor--that he is the legit son of Rhaegar. But it will only be a "cover story" for those who want Jon to be King for completely different reasons--it won't be the reason they want him to be king. So a "cover story" merely needs to be plausible--it does not have to be unambiguously convincing.

[RumHam]

What Rhaegar thought in terms of having his polygamous marriage recognized is difficult to know for sure. I think he thought he had enough support in Westeros to get away with it, but we will have to wait for later books to find out for sure whether he married Lyanna and why he thought it would work.

As to its impact in the future given that Rhaegar's plans obviously are now moot, it might not matter. But if it does matter, it will simply be used by those who are pressing for Jon to be King because of what he did during the Battle for the Dawn (not because of his birthright) as an additional argument in his favor--that he is the legit son of Rhaegar. But it will only be a "cover story" for those who want Jon to be King for completely different reasons--it won't be the reason they want him to be king. So a "cover story" merely needs to be plausible--it does not have to be unambiguously convincing.

Hey, it's a post from you on this subject that I totally agree with! That doesn't happen often. :)

[Noelle Snow]

Sort of the same way they used Robert's Targ ancestry as the reason he's got the better "claim" for the throne when in reality he took it by conquest.

[sj4iy]

If Jon rides a dragon, has a burning sword and saves the world, I doubt that many people will care whether or not he's legitimate.

However, being legitimate may be part of the reason he IS able to do all of that. If Martin has made Jon legitimate, then there's a reason for it. We don't know what that is yet, but I don't think he'd stick that in there and not have it matter somehow.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Hey, it's a post from you on this subject that I totally agree with! That doesn't happen often. :)

:cheers:

[Moondancer]

Well, of course, the two outlying ones [storylines] - the things going on north of the Wall, and then there is Targaryen on the other continent with her dragons - are of course the ice and fire of the title, "A Song of Ice and Fire" .

(!) Interesting.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Well, of course, the two outlying ones [storylines] - the things going on north of the Wall, and then there is Targaryen on the other continent with her dragons - are of course the ice and fire of the title, "A Song of Ice and Fire" .

(!) Interesting.

You don't actually think that there is only one intended meaning for the title do you? I think GRRM is being a little flippant and telling the truth--but not the whole truth. I think GRRM has many other intended meanings for the title--but that one was one of the obvious ones.

[J. Stargaryen]

You don't actually think that there is only one intended meaning for the title do you? I think GRRM is being a little flippant and telling the truth--but not the whole truth. I think GRRM has many other intended meanings for the title--but that one was one of the obvious ones.

GRRM has also said he's known for titles with multiple meanings. Specifically when asked about ASoIaF, iirc. I do think the most obvious instances of ice & fire are the Others and dragons. The big clue here is the former appears in the prologue, and the latter in AGoT's final chapter. So, they bookend the opening novel of the series.

[UnmaskedLurker]

GRRM has also said he's known for titles with multiple meanings. Specifically when asked about ASoIaF, iirc. I do think the most obvious instances of ice & fire are the Others and dragons. The big clue here is the former appears in the prologue, and the latter in AGoT's final chapter. So, they bookend the opening novel of the series.

Yes, and didn't he also say another time that A Song of Ice and Fire is what this period in Westeros history would eventually be known as? If I am remembering correctly, then he has given at least two different explanations publicly. As many around here know, I also believe that Jon is A Son(g) of Ice (Lyanna) and Fire (Rhaegar), personified, but of course GRRM cannot mention that meaning at this time. I think is also has other, more metaphorical meanings concerning the balance between opposing forces necessary in the world. And I also suspect that there are other meanings as well. GRRM is a tricky one, isn't he?

[J. Stargaryen]

Yes, and didn't he also say another time that A Song of Ice and Fire is what this period in Westeros history would eventually be known as? If I am remembering correctly, then he has given at least two different explanations publicly. As many around here know, I also believe that Jon is A Son(g) of Ice (Lyanna) and Fire (Rhaegar), personified, but of course GRRM cannot mention that meaning at this time. I think is also has other, more metaphorical meanings concerning the balance between opposing forces necessary in the world. And I also suspect that there are other meanings as well. GRRM is a tricky one, isn't he?

That sounds familiar, but I don't know for sure.

This is my first time reading this. Please elaborate. :P

I do agree that people need to keep in mind what answers GRRM can realistically give at this point in time. The Others & dragons = ice & fire is safe enough, and also (partially) true. I wouldn't read too much into it though.

[Moondancer]

You don't actually think that there is only one intended meaning for the title do you? I think GRRM is being a little flippant and telling the truth--but not the whole truth. I think GRRM has many other intended meanings for the title--but that one was one of the obvious ones.

Imagine I do. I am fixed like that. And?

I think that idea of layered meanings and symbolism as well as direct connection in a single phase is preposterous.

[IceFire125]

please delete, wrong thread.

[Bael's Bastard]

One thing that TWOIAF makes clear is that there were no polygamous marriages after Maegor. It's unclear whether they were outlawed or not, but the fact that there hadn't been one in nearly 250 years (and even those were controversial and partially responsible in leading to war) and that Rhaegar didn't even had Aerys support make it clear he was completely delusional in thinking that it would work, even if they were legal in the first place (one thing that also makes the legality of them doubtful is the lack of consent by the King).

Also, even if somehow the world finds out that Jon is Rhaegar's son, the acceptance of him as legitimate is very, very doubtful.

I don't think polygamy was restricted for followers of the Old Gods, and that the present situation where their followers among the nobility below the Wall do not seem to practice it is a result of influence of the Faith.

I think incest and polygamy were both probably outlawed by the Faith from the time they arrived in Westeros. I just don't think they were ever able to restrict the Targaryens on these things when they arrived in Westeros.

It was the incestuous marriage of Aenys I's daughter Rhaena and son Aegon that the Faith rebelled over, and they continued the rebellion against Maegor, who had numerous polygamous marriages.

But there is no indication that the Targaryens ever accepted any ban on incest or polygamy for themselves after the Faith's rebellion ended.

Jaehaerys I was married to his sister Alysanne, no different than the marriage between their elder sister and brother which set off the rebellion. They married their daughter Alyssa and son Baelon, no different than the marriage which set off the rebellion.

They clearly continued to practice incest, the very thing the Faith used to justify their rebellion against Aenys. I don't see any reason to see a lack of further polygamous marriages as Targaryen acceptance of any ban by the Faith. I just think polygamy was unusual (though not forbidden) for Targaryens in the first place, while incest was common for them.

IIRC Daemon Blackfyre even thought he could pull off having multiple wives within the last century and a half, but Aerys IV or Daeron II did not allow him to. I am sure it had more to do with politics or diplomacy than laws.

And IMO, the biggest issues with Rhaegar marrying Lyanna were political or diplomatic in regard to the Great Houses, not the laws of the Faith. I don't think a marriage would have been considered a non-marriage, nor do I think their children would have been considered bastards. But I think it would have caused a lot of problems (whether plotting in secret, or open defiance) with the Great Houses at the time.

[Ser Duncan of Flea Bottom]

I saw a theory, it's posted in a video on youtube about Jon being the son of Brandon and Ashara and Daenerys being the daughter of Rhaegar and Lyanna.

At first I thought it would be impossible, as we are told Daenerys was born in Dragonstone. But then I wonder, was she really born in there? She doesn't know for certain she was, all her sources about her childhood come from Viserys. Also we have that queer thing about the lemon tree in the house of the red door in Braavos and we know there is no lemon trees in Braavos, what we can see it can be a fabrication, a lie someone told her, possibly Viserys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-u2gUM4Vvc

the video above is the first of three videos about this subject, it worth to watch it. It's a bit old, so sorry if you all already heard about this theory.