R+L=J v.122

[JonCon's Red Beard]

No, everything about the KG is about servitude to the king. They don't get to decide who that is, and we are specifically told by both Jaime and Barristan that doing so is the worst kind of KG.

I meant the plot. The plot referent to the KG is about what vows are honourable and what are not.

[RumHam]

I'm not sure I get what you mean with your first part. Do the lords of the north have to petition the people of the south to accept their true born children? The religion itself might not have many (or any) followers south of the Neck, but it isn't as if the religion and customs and those things done in the name of that religion itself becomes null and void.

I'm not saying wierwood marriages aren't recognized in the south. I'm saying that it's not going to help you get around the polygamy issue in the eyes of the people of the south. Which includes the king, high septon, the maesters and most of the population.

[Ygrain]

Excatly, the Daemon. Rhaenyra thing makes it clear polygamy is not an option.

By the same logic, marriage as such is not an option. Or is it?

If Daemon had married Rhaenyra while still married to Lady Royce you think Viserys would have been powerless to do anything about it?

Remind me, what did Aegon do about Maegor's polymarriage?

...

Nothing. He sent Maegor to exile but the marriage was consumed and held.

[BearQueen87]

I'm not saying wierwood marriages aren't recognized in the south. I'm saying that it's not going to help you get around the polygamy issue in the eyes of the people of the south. Which includes the king, high septon, the maesters and most of the population.

But Rhaegar would have been king (i his mind) which means he can get around the HS and the citadel. Just because he died doesn't negate the marriage of RL and make Jon a bastard.

And again, we're not even sure there is a polygamy issue. Cultural mores vs legal laws. That's what it is coming down to in the end.

[sj4iy]

Jon is legitimate if his parents married.

He would only be illegitimate is his parents didn't marry or their marriage was annulled.

It doesn't matter what this religion thinks of that religion or any nitpick like that. He was the crown prince- the second-most powerful man in all of Westeros- and the ONLY person who could have told him "no" was Aerys...and there is no evidence of that.

[MtnLion]

I'd like to see that evidence. We only have Maegor practicing polygamy in the Seven Kingdoms, and with some difficulty. He was exiled almost burned down the Starry Sept because the High Septon was against it.

I really don't think Martin ever said it was never made illegal, but if you provide a quote then I'll admit I was wrong.

Dude, you want it changed, prove that it should be changed.

The guide is currently making a positive statement that polygamy was never made illegal. There is no evidence for that statement.

The guide states what we know, that there is not instance stating that polygamy was made illegal, in spite of what some tend to suggest. GRRM says that it isn't off the table and that he will need to refer to his notes (or write some) to prove the point. He has also said that incest was a serious offense in the eyes of gods and men, but apparently that is not illegal, either. Nor does it take a dragon to force people to accept it, since Aerys and Rhaella were incestuously married.

Like I said, if you can prove that polygamy was specifically outlawed, then we can address the issue. Until then, the statement is correct.

[RumHam]

By the same logic, marriage as such is not an option. Or is it?

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Remind me, what did Aegon do about Maegor's polymarriage?

...

Nothing. He sent Maegor to exile but the marriage was consumed and held.

This was before Jaehaerys created the unified code of laws, so it probably would not have been illegal in the crownlands then. In any event when Maegor returned Aenys was dead and Maegor was king, so the issue of his continuing polygamy never came up. Other than with the Faith.

But Rhaegar would have been king (i his mind) which means he can get around the HS and the citadel. Just because he died doesn't negate the marriage of RL and make Jon a bastard.

Jon is legitimate if his parents married.

He would only be illegitimate is his parents didn't marry or their marriage was annulled.

It doesn't matter what this religion thinks of that religion or any nitpick like that. He was the crown prince- the second-most powerful man in all of Westeros- and the ONLY person who could have told him "no" was Aerys...and there is no evidence of that.

You guys may be right that once it's done it's done and thus Jon would be considered legitimate, I'm really not sure. There will probably be people on both sides of the argument in Westeros if the issue ever comes up. This has no bearing on if polygamy is legal or not.

[BearQueen87]

You guys may be right that once it's done it's done and thus Jon would be considered legitimate, I'm really not sure. There will probably be people on both sides of the argument in Westeros if the issue ever comes up. This has no bearing on if polygamy is legal or not.

FWIW, I don't think Westeros is going to give a fig about Jon's bastardy or legitimacy once the dust settles. I think that's for him on a personal level (and it demonstrates the kind of man his father and mother were) and it might play in with Dany.

[RumHam]

The guide states what we know, that there is not instance stating that polygamy was made illegal

That's actually not what it said (I see it's been changed, thanks.) It said definitively that polygamy was never made illegal. This was what I took issue with.

FWIW, I don't think Westeros is going to give a fig about Jon's bastardy or legitimacy once the dust settles. I think that's for him on a personal level (and it demonstrates the kind of man his father and mother were) and it might play in with Dany.

Me neither, and yes it would be a nice touch for his personal arc if he was not actually a bastard.

[MtnLion]

That's actually not what it said (I see it's been changed, thanks.) It said definitively that polygamy was never made illegal. This was what I took issue with.

I changed nothing in the quotes. I went back and fetched them in, and that is exactly what is there. We know that polygamy was practiced, therefore it was not illegal at those times. All I am asking for is where you get proof that polygamy is made illegal at any point. I am asking for you to support your claim that it was made illegal. And, if it was made illegal, try to explain why incestuous marriages were not made illegal, first. We have a basis for this, incest is a big no-no in the eyes of gods and men, from the books, yet Aerys and Rhaella are incestuously married. Obviously incestuous marriages are not illegal, and keep in mind that Aerys was not king when he married Rhaella.

[jobmartell]

What's more important in regard to aSoIaF, proof that R+L=j or proof that R & L married?

[sj4iy]

FWIW, I don't think Westeros is going to give a fig about Jon's bastardy or legitimacy once the dust settles. I think that's for him on a personal level (and it demonstrates the kind of man his father and mother were) and it might play in with Dany.

Me neither, and yes it would be a nice touch for his personal arc if he was not actually a bastard.

I agree. Jon will have to prove himself, whether he's legitimate or a bastard. It certainly won't change his personality, but it would be an interesting twist to his arc, to realize that he is not the bastard he has always believed himself to be.

[markg171]

There is this thing called context, you should try it sometimes:

Something his father had told him once when he was little came back to him suddenly. He had asked Lord Eddard if the Kingsguard were truly the finest knights in the Seven Kingdoms. “No longer,” he answered, “but once they (= the knights of KG) were a marvel, a shining lesson to the world.”

“Was there one (= a knight of KG) who was best of all?”

“The finest knight (= the knight of KG) I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed.” Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more. Bran wished he had asked him what he meant.

Context again.

Something his father had told him once when he was little came back to him suddenly. He had asked Lord Eddard if the Kingsguard were truly the finest knights in the Seven Kingdoms. “No longer,” he answered, “but once they were a marvel, a shining lesson to the world.”

“Was there one who was best of all (= the best of those marvelous shining lessons)?”

“The finest knight (= the best of those marvelous shining lessons) I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed.” Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more. Bran wished he had asked him what he meant.

You might want to mark that Ned doesn't name any of the legendary KG of the distant past but a man he knew personally.

Alright, let's imagine a situation when you are going to cheat on your wife and you know that she will disapprove. Are you going to tell her about your intentions?

Now, if, for some reason, your wife approves, or at least is not adverse, for whatever reason, are you going to tell her?

BS. Everything about KG is defined by protecting the king and dying for him if need be.

For someone who wants to talk about context, you're pretty bad at it.

Bran asks him if the KG were the best knights in the world. Bran does not ask them if they are the best KG. The whole conversation is about knights, not KG.

Secondly, I posted this in the last thread but it bears repeating:

Um, the fact that he only named Arthur as a great knight and not any others?

The fact that you exclude Jaime is laughable. Ned says that the KG ("they") used to be a shining example. By excluding Jaime, you're purposely bringing the KG to a number of people who you think are acceptable to your position in this argument. But that's not what Ned said. He said that THEY used to be great. You cannot just arbitrarily knock off KG members when Ned talks about all of them as being an example of greatness. The fact that Ned doesn't consider Jaime to be a good KG actually showcases the opposite of what you're saying. Ned already thought there was rot in the KG at the time of Aerys' KG just off Jaime alone so they, Aerys's KG, cannot be the KG who Ned speaks of. Then when you add in to the fact that we know Hightower stood by and watched as Aerys murdered people, Lewyn broke his vow of celibacy and had a paramore, Darry let the king rape his queen and beat her, and Barristan switched allegiances, we can actually see that the KG in Ned's life cannot be the group of knighthood that Ned considers to be a shining example. He stopped believing the KG were the greatest knights in the realm before the story started.

If Ned is talking about the KG as a whole as a shining example, which he is because he says "they", he cannot be possibly be talking about the ones from his lifetime because they, the KG in his lifetime, were not shining examples.

Thirdly, of course Ned named Arthur. The quote says "the finest knight I ever saw". Ned is talking about someone he met personally. He never met Symeon Star Eyes or any other legendary knight because they were dead or never even existed. Ned never calls Arthur the greatest knight of all time. He specifically only calls him the best he personally knew. There is a major difference.

None of your argument for Elia approving makes any sense. There's nothing in the text to give any indication that she did, but there is evidence that says she didn't. Arguing that she did, is based off no evidence available.

Not only that, but at the time of the vision, we do not yet know that Elia cannot have anymore children. It is Jon Con who tells us that in Dance that the maesters later informed Rhaegar that she is no longer able to conceive. The vision is of right after Aegon is born. There's nothing to indicate that they know that she cannot conceive again at this moment. The fact that Rhaegar does not kidnap Lyanna for many months after Aegon is born further suggests that they did not know that Elia could no longer conceive as it indicates that they tried but couldn't conceive. Furthermore, Rhaegar's statement that there must be a 3rd child, does not mean he is saying he intends to cheat on her. In fact, that does not even make sense to suggest that he is saying he intends to cheat on her, as the only 3 headed dragon in the story is Aegon, Rhaenys, and Visenya, who were all full siblings. Rhaegar wanted a Visenya, not an Orthys.

[sj4iy]

What's more important in regard to aSoIaF, proof that R+L=j or proof that R & L married?

Well, Jon being their son, legitimate or not, is the most important part in regard to the story. ASOIAF simply doesn't make any sense without it.

As far as marriage, it is simply another facet of this theory, and is not nearly as important as the main part of the theory itself; however, it does answer some further questions about the theory.

[markg171]

wouldn't there be anyone in Dorne that would know that Elia was pissed off by Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna or that he ran off with/kidnapped her? wouldn't we have heard about it given the fact that Doran wants fire and blood (targ/martell on the throne and to serve up some vengeance) and Oberyn went to KL to have Lannisters (and lackies) answer for the crimes against his sister and her kids? there was another Martell in KL the whole time as a KG, right? I would think that if she was so disapproving someone would have said something somewhere..Doran (I don't think) doesn't want vengeance for what Rhaegar did. Doesn't he want vengeance for the death of his family members? And she was the princess of the realm, one day to be a queen...would she really be so distressed about a teenage girl in the crowd (even of a prominent family) getting the crown of love and beauty? maybe the 'all smiles' bit was referring more to the crowd and not Elia herself

Robert, one of the people who Rhaegar pissed off when he took Lyanna, drove a spike through Rhaegar's heart. Why would the Martells need to talk about being angry at Rhaegar, when he got what was coming? Rhaegar's been dead for 17 years, it's not something that needs to come up. The slight he made was corrected by Robert.

Secondly, Oberyn actually does mention Rhaegar and Lyanna. He doesn't sound happy about it

Another wedding. My sister Elia and Rhaegar Targaryen, the Last Dragon. My sister loved him. She bore his children. Swaddled them, rocked them, fed them at her own breast. Elia wouldn’t let the wet nurse touch them. And beautiful, noble Rhaegar Targaryen left her for another woman. That started a war. And my sister, you know what they did to her?

Lewyn dies before we ever get his perspective, but we know that Elia was used as a hostage to ensure his loyalty. That suggests that he too wasn't happy about the situation, otherwise Aerys wouldn't question his loyalty.

And all the smiles most definitely referred to Elia as well. We see in the quote above that Elia loved Rhaegar. We also see in the quote referring to all the smiles dying, that Elia is specifically mentioned as being in attendance as Rhaegar rode by her. So when you say all the smiles died, that must include Elia.

[BearQueen87]

What's more important in regard to aSoIaF, proof that R+L=j or proof that R & L married?

The former

[IceFire125]

Jon isn't in the running to be leader. Everybody's parentage is in question except for Dany she "has" a claim.So the same can be said of her and even Ageon if he's fake or not Jon will be in the same boat as him having to proove who he is.If either of them proves to be capable leader the people accept them.

There's another and imo a more plausible option the people will not care about a Monarchy anymore and there will be no more throne.There is forshadowing of that if one connects the dots. Jon's destiny does not lay on the iron throne,he'll have a throne yes just not that one.

Jon in his consciousness does not want to be a leader but he was chosen to be and entrusted for purpose.

You are doing him a great wrong. Jon Snow was Lord Mormont’s own steward and squire. He was chosen for that duty because the Lord Commander saw much promise in him. As do I.

Lord Janos was red-faced and quivering. “The beast,” he gasped. “Look! The beast that tore the life from Halfhand. A warg walks among us, brothers. A WARG! This … this creature is not fit to lead us! This beastling is not fit to live!”

...

“My lord,” he said, “will you tell me what’s happened here?”

Maester Aemon answered, from the far end of the hall. “Your name has been put forth as Lord Commander, Jon.”

“You have my thanks, Lord Snow. For the half-blind horse, the salt cod, the free air. For hope.”

More importantly, Jon was chosen to carry a burden of the 'hard life', the world... yet he will carry that burden without him even knowing it.

No doubt the boy had made the mistake of thinking that the Night’s Watch was made up of men like his uncle. If so, Yoren and his companions were a rude awakening. Tyrion felt sorry for the boy. He had chosen a hard life … or perhaps he should say that a hard life had been chosen for him.

as did his Father...

It was something (Rhaegar) had to do, a task the world had set him.

And as King Jon will do what he has been placed in his heart to do... to protect. It is this, that will favor him with the gods, old AND new.

Why do the gods make kings and queens, if not to protect the ones who can’t protect themselves?

**Even if protecting the ones that he is expected to destroy. Jon will not destroy the Others once he learns that they are not truly evil. He will defend them as well, but at the cost of more human lives in the process. This is Jon's ultimate conflict with his heart (self), it's his curse, he is that balance, and his is the song of ice and fire.

[Kingmonkey]

Actually we know that Elia did not approve of Rhaegar and Lyanna

ALL the smiles. That means Elia too.

ALL? So that includes Rhaegar too. 'Cos he was there. I mean if he was still smiling, it wouldn't be ALL the smiles, would it?

So Rhaegar did not approve of Rhaegar and Lyanna. Boy was he conflicted!

Well no, it's just that "all" isn't actually literally all the smiles, it's just a bit of poetic language.

[Alia of the knife]

I doubt Rhaegar was the smiling type. But from her image in the WB, Elia didn't look too thrilled.

[Kingmonkey]

They crowned Rhaegar first.

Nah. “Far away,” Ser Gerold said, “or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne..."

My theory is that the 3KG had been arguing about what to do right up until the moment the news came that Aerys and Aegon were dead. At that point, Hightower would have quickly come around to whatever exactly Arthur and Ozzy had been championing because the alternatives had vanished. I suspect that Arthur's sad smile is the result of a phyrric victory over Hightower in who to champion. When everyone's on the same page, Hightower takes charge as Lord Commander of the KG and Arthur is honour bound to follow Hightower down the path that leads to fighting Ned.