R+L=J v.122

[RumHam]

Uh, no. I can find evidence of polygamous marriages without difficulty. I can also find evidence of Martin saying that the practice was never made illegal.

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.

[sj4iy]

This part of the Reference Guide needs to be updated for two reasons. First, we now know that there are not any other, less prominent examples of polygamy. Aegon (who took two wives before he converted to the Faith) and Maegor (who could not find a Septon to grant him a second marriage) are the only Targ men who took two wives.

Second, it is not correct to say that polygamy was never outlawed. We know that the Faith ibjected to polygamy, that Jaehaerys the Conciliator enacted a new code of laws after Maegor (the last polygamist) died, and that there are no known examples of polygamy after Jaehaerys passed the new laws. At most, you could say "the practice might not have been outlawed when Jaehaerys the Conciliator passed a new code of laws and reconciled with the Faith..."

That's still an assumption. There's no way to know exactly what was in that code of laws, nor can you prove that polygamy was even mentioned in it.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

I'll repeat what I said in the past thread, because I don't even know what we are discussing anymore. GRRM can't be clearer than he is already because otherwise, he would be revealing the big mystery of the books. We can't have textual evidence, but we have witnesses. In a controlled environment like a literary work, everything that is said or thought is intended by the author for US READERS to make conclusions (not assumptions) and in the same way, everything is controlled. If a character thinks about some event, but s/he's not specific about it, then such event is more important than it looks like. For example, Ned remembering Lyanna. He remembers a promise, but he never says what the promise is. Also, Ned calls the tower where he found her, a "tower of joy", named by Rhaegar, who is called melancholic by another character. This means that the gloomy Rhaegar was happy in that tower. And who was in that tower? Lyanna.

That's the only "FACTS" we have about them. Marriages, polygamy or the fate of Jon as an eventual prince or messiah is up to every reader's preference. But that Jon is a product of R and L, there is no much debate about it.

So, it's not like RLJ is some theory that people want to happen. RLJ is a theory with a very sustained bunch of evidence that readers have been analysing book after book for more than ten years (the first RLJ thread is from 2006, do the maths). So, come here and say "no, you're wrong, it doesn't fit" just because some random user think they have suddenly discovered the wheel, it's a bit disrespectful.

[RumHam]

Aegon (who took two wives before he converted to the Faith)

Actually this is not correct. I thought so too, but I asked Ran and apparently it was one of Aegon's fore-bearers who converted, and the secular Aegon embraced the Faith for political reasons. So that "Aegon converted for political reasons" SSM is now out of date, like many of the others. Ran should really go through and strike thru the parts that are untrue, but I understand he's a busy guy.

Edit: even if we can't come together on the legality of polygamy, can we at least agree the "may have been other example after Maegor" line should go?

[The Twinslayer]

That's still an assumption. There's no way to know exactly what was in that code of laws, nor can you prove that polygamy was even mentioned in it.

I am not making any assumption. The Reference Guide states positively that polygamy was never outlawed. My point is that we don't know whether polygamy was outlawed or not, and there is evidence to support the inference that it was outlawed.

I am not saying that the Reference Guide should say: "polygamy was outlawed." I am just saying that it should not say that polygamy was never outlawed.

But going back to my first point, is there anyone who thinks that the Reference Guide should continue to say that Ned told the KGs that Aegon was dead? Because that statement is demonstrably false and it really ought to be removed.

[sj4iy]

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.

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Polygamy

The Targaryens flouted convention...convention isn't "law".

As far as the Targs giving up the practice after they converted to the Faith of Seven, well, the best explanation is this:

The 10 commandments state "Thou shall not commit adultery", but there's no law against it. Having an affair goes against your faith, and the convention of that faith, but you won't be arrested for it. Nor would you be required, by law, to stop having an affair.

Just like there is no known law in Westeros that would require a polygamous marriage to be dissolved or invalidated it from the start.

[BearQueen87]

I am not making any assumption. The Reference Guide states positively that polygamy was never outlawed. My point is that we don't know whether polygamy was outlawed or not, and there is evidence to support the inference that it was outlawed.

I am not saying that the Reference Guide should say: "polygamy was outlawed." I am just saying that it should not say that polygamy was never outlawed.

But going back to my first point, is there anyone who thinks that the Reference Guide should continue to say that Ned told the KGs that Aegon was dead? Because that statement is demonstrably false and it really ought to be removed.

But evidence to support an inference is rather shaky. But I do get your point. The problem is that I don't know who wrote the Guide. I think J. Star probably updates it more than any of us...but I suppose some more ambiguity might be helpful for some. Especially if it means we don't have to have the Legit Debate every three threads.

[RumHam]

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Polygamy

The Targaryens flouted convention...convention isn't "law".

The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact that he does not mention the law among the things they were defying is because he's talking about "Targaryen kings." Kings are not bound by the laws, they can ignore or change them.

As far as the Targs giving up the practice after they converted to the Faith of Seven, well, the best explanation is this:

They actually didn't, as I said before Aegon was apparently raised in the Faith, at least nominally.

[markg171]

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Polygamy

The Targaryens flouted convention...convention isn't "law".

As far as the Targs giving up the practice after they converted to the Faith of Seven, well, the best explanation is this:

The 10 commandments state "Thou shall not commit adultery", but there's no law against it. Having an affair goes against your faith, and the convention of that faith, but you won't be arrested for it. Nor would you be required, by law, to stop having an affair.

Just like there is no known law in Westeros that would require a polygamous marriage to be dissolved or invalidated it from the start.

Margaery Tyrell was literally just arrested for committing adultery...

[sj4iy]

The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact that he does not mention the law among the things they were defying is because he's talking about "Targaryen kings." Kings are not beholden to the laws, they can ignore or change them.

I just explained why they were. People defy convention all the time without legal ramifications. To equate the two is to miss a fundamental and important difference. Kings are obviously above the law...but only to the point that their subjects allow it.

They actually didn't, as I said before Aegon was apparently raised in the Faith, at least nominally.

It doesn't matter what his faith was...like most people, the Targs seem to have used to faith when it was convenient and discarded it when it no longer suited them.

[BearQueen87]

Margaery Tyrell was literally just arrested for committing adultery...

By the faith, not the lawmakers. There is a difference between religious morality and between political law. The faith of the 7 is not the only religion in the realm and it does not dictate what is legally right and wrong, only what is morally right and wrong in THEIR faith.

ETA: consider this: Robert was never arrested for adultery, right? But everyone knew he was cheating. You're dealing with a new HS who plays by some very strict rules of his faith

[JonSnow4President]

Margaery Tyrell was literally just arrested for committing adultery...

.... on the king.

[Kingmonkey]

Okay. Help me understand what you mean here. Because part of the reason I've wanted to consider the possibility that Aegon passed by the tower of joy is that it actually appears to simplify some things in the story that otherwise are difficult and complicated to explain.

And I'm not sure how my proposal "multiplies" the number of locations involved - especially given that the tower of joy would be on the way to Starfall. If Lyanna was at Starfall, and Ned was delayed in reaching her because of the encounter at the tower of joy, then surely he'd forever after associate those two events in his mind/dreams. So why must Lyanna have been present at the tower of joy itself?

It multiplies Lyanna's reported locations. Why give the impression she's at the ToJ and then have her secretly turn out to be at Starfall? This would complicate the story and diminish a pivotal moment of AGoT. It would weaken the mythic parallels. GRRM would want a very good reason for doing all of that.

[RumHam]

I just explained why they were. People defy convention all the time without legal ramifications. To equate the two is to miss a fundamental and important difference.

It doesn't matter what his faith was...like most people, the Targs seem to have used to faith when it was convenient and discarded it when it no longer suited them.

I think I'm misunderstanding what the bolded "they" is referring to. Unless you're saying you think convention and the law are mutually exclusive? They're really not. People can still have conventions like "don't kill people" without the law being involved. I'm not saying convention and law are the same thing, but there is overlap. And again there's no reason for Martin to mention the law when he's talking about what a king can and can't do.

[wolfmaid7]

I just explained why they were. People defy convention all the time without legal ramifications. To equate the two is to miss a fundamental and important difference. Kings are obviously above the law...but only to the point that their subjects allow it.

It doesn't matter what his faith was...like most people, the Targs seem to have used to faith when it was convenient and discarded it when it no longer suited them.

Can i ask a question and it goes to something i've seen expressed a lot here.So you are saying the honorable Rheagar acted dishonorably and he was one of those who acted above the law when it suited him thus the polygamists marraige he involved himself with? It goes to connection about Rheagar.But am i making a fair assesment here.

[BearQueen87]

Can i ask a question and it goes to something i've seen expressed a lot here.So you are saying the honorable Rheagar acted dishonorably and he was one of those who acted above the law when it suited him thus the polygamists marraige he involved himself with? It goes to connection about Rheagar.But am i making a fair assesment here.

Well was polygamy illegal? Because if it wasn't then R isn't acting above the law at all. There is no law to act above. Morality and legality are not one and the same. You can talk about if R was morally right when he (if he) married L, but if there is no law against it, then is he acting dishonorably? Is breaking the law = acting dishonorably (what if it is for a good cause, saying killing someone who is trying to kill you or your family?) And if you are not breaking the law at all does that mean you aren't acting dishonorably?

[markg171]

By the faith, not the lawmakers. There is a difference between religious morality and between political law. The faith of the 7 is not the only religion in the realm and it does not dictate what is legally right and wrong, only what is morally right and wrong in THEIR faith.

ETA: consider this: Robert was never arrested for adultery, right? But everyone knew he was cheating. You're dealing with a new HS who plays by some very strict rules of his faith

Well the Faith never had an army during Robert's time. They couldn't arrest him. Laws are enforceable, and the Faith couldn't enforce them.

Seeing as all that changed was the Faith's ability to enforce their rules, you could say that the Faith does and always did have laws. In fact, that's why they were disarmed as they used to cause too much trouble.

[markg171]

.... on the king.

And what about Cersei and the Kettleblacks? They were all arrested too.

[RumHam]

I might be wrong, but aren't Cersei and Margaery only being charged because adultery against the king is treason?

[BearQueen87]

Well the Faith never had an army during Robert's time. They couldn't arrest him. Laws are enforceable, and the Faith couldn't enforce them.

Seeing as all that changed was the Faith's ability to enforce their rules, you could say that the Faith does and always did have laws. In fact, that's why they were disarmed as they used to cause too much trouble.

Well, the Faith was also totally under the King's control--both the Targs and the Baratheon's. They tend not to fight the royal power as much, army or not. The new HS is a total anomaly which is why he gives Cersei fits.

I might be wrong, but aren't Cersei and Margaery only being charged because adultery against the king is treason?

I believe so? (eep. I need AFFC re-read)