R+L=J v.124

[BearQueen87]

I think the Alys Karstark situation is important for the fact that Jon Snow says "marriages are matters for the king". Seems very much like foreshadowing to me.

And a reference to the past if Rhaegar and his gang had plans to remove Mad Aerys in favor of Sane Rhaegar.

ETA: and it is said over and over that a son comes before an Uncle. Jon (the son of Rhaegar) would have come before Viserys (his father's brother)

[Alia of the knife]

The only thing that gives me pause is Martins statement regarding arranged marriages and the fact that it was the way of the times and people simply went through with them. They didn't question it.

With Lyanna, or Arya, my impression is that they would marry someone of their choice, or no one, and in Lyannas case, Rhaegar could very well fall into the same case as Robert in terms of not wanting to marry unless of course he was the one she loved.

I thought the situation with Alys was that she was being forced to marry someone for control of her inheritance, whereas Lyanna was already third in line.

Jon marries Alys to a man she pretty much will have control over, thus her inheritance remains within her control.

In fact, her father promises to marry her to a southern lord, but she remembers somewhat angrily that Robb killed him for killing Lannisters, so he never lived to make the arrangements.

[sj4iy]

But there's one aspect I haven't seen discussed, and that's the fact that Melisandre says that the Wildlings are a 'doomed people' to disappear off the face of the Earth. I think she has it wrong, though...I think that they will 'disappear' because there will no longer be a "North of the Wall", and that their peoples will once again be integrated with the peoples of the Seven Kingdoms...and Jon paved the way with a Thenn-Karstark wedding.

[IceFire125]

I think Rhaegar had his Targaryen cloak for Lyanna to wear (if not an extra one), but before their marriage in front of the heart tree, Rhaegar had the Stark wolf sewn somewhere next to or on top of the 3 headed dragon symbol of his house on the cloak.

Because this passage of Jon and Arya would totally make sense:

“Look at the arms on his surcoat,” Jon suggested.

Arya looked. An ornate shield had been embroidered on the prince’s padded surcoat. No doubt the needlework was exquisite. The arms were divided down the middle; on one side was the crowned stag of the royal House, on the other the lion of Lannister.

“The Lannisters are proud,” Jon observed. “You’d think the royal sigil would be sufficient, but no. He makes his mother’s House equal in honor to the king’s.”

“The woman is important too!” Arya protested.

Jon chuckled. “Perhaps you should do the same thing, little sister. Wed Tully to Stark in your arms.”

“A wolf with a fish in its mouth?” It made her laugh. “That would look silly. Besides, if a girl can’t fight, why should she have a coat of arms?”

Jon shrugged. “Girls get the arms but not the swords. Bastards get the swords but not the arms. I did not make the rules, little sister.”

**Lyanna could totally fight, at least joust; the King, the lords and knights of Westeros and Rhaegar himself, saw that first hand. That's why I think on the marriage cloak that will be revealed inside the crypt of Winterfell under Lyanna's statue, the 3 headed dragon next to or combine with the wolf of the Starks will be seen sown together.

[Dorian Martell]

HODOR HODOR!

[BearQueen87]

The only thing that gives me pause is Martins statement regarding arranged marriages and the fact that it was the way of the times and people simply went through with them. They didn't question it.

With Lyanna, or Arya, my impression is that they would marry someone of their choice, or no one, and in Lyannas case, Rhaegar could very well fall into the same case as Robert in terms of not wanting to marry unless of course he was the one she loved.

I thought the situation with Alys was that she was being forced to marry someone for control of her inheritance, whereas Lyanna was already third in line.

Jon marries Alys to a man she pretty much will have control over, thus her inheritance remains within her control.

That's true, but in both cases it's about the ambitions of the male father figure--either Rickard Stark or Arnolf Karstark. Stark wants to further his entire house and family; Arnolf wants to further his own personal power and that of his son. And in both situations, the daughters--Lyanna and Alys--aren't given an option.

But there's one aspect I haven't seen discussed, and that's the fact that Melisandre says that the Wildlings are a 'doomed people' to disappear off the face of the Earth. I think she has it wrong, though...I think that they will 'disappear' because there will no longer be a "North of the Wall", and that their peoples will once again be integrated with the peoples of the Seven Kingdoms...and Jon paved the way with a Thenn-Karstark wedding.

Perhaps like Rhaegar envisioned the world being after the second War For the Dawn and he wanted to help "pave the way" as you put it with a Stark-Targ marriage (a marriage of ice and fire...which is played out literally at an Ice Wall by a Fire Priestess)

[Alia of the knife]

That's true, but in both cases it's about the ambitions of the male father figure--either Rickard Stark or Arnolf Karstark. Stark wants to further his entire house and family; Arnolf wants to further his own personal power and that of his son. And in both situations, the daughters--Lyanna and Alys--aren't given an option.

That's also true for the men though.

Aerys, Rhaegar, Brandon, Ned, Robb, none of them had any choices.

I think that was Martins point of his statement on arranged marriages, because they were the underpinning of the social foundations of the times, and couldn't be unraveled.

[BearQueen87]

That's also true for the men though.

Aerys, Rhaegar, Brandon, Ned, Robb, none of them had any choices.

I think that was Martins point of his statement on arranged marriages, because they wre the underpinning of the social foundations of the times, and couldn't be unraveled.

That's also true, I agree. So Lyanna and Rhaegar are unique in that they chose each other, we imagine at least. We aren't given many details about how the marriage of Alys and Sigorn comes about behind the scenes, but Alys does go more willingly than she would have to another individual. And despite his Thenn-ness (new word!) Sigorn is willing, though not for love but because it's his best option.

[Ser Leftwich]

It does not have to be about just Lyanna's wedding to Robert. Suppose Lyanna had recently learned of Brandon's getting it on with someone, maybe Ashara, or that said someone that Brandon was with had gotten pregnant.

Would Lyanna's wolfblood cause her to suggest her own kidnapping or disappearance to get Brandon's attention and get Brandon to do the right thing?

(Was there a recent SSM (or new to me) along the lines of GRRM saying "I will have to deal with Rhaegar, Lyanna, and Ashara at some point.")

[Anythingatall]

And a reference to the past if Rhaegar and his gang had plans to remove Mad Aerys in favor of Sane Rhaegar.

ETA: and it is said over and over that a son comes before an Uncle. Jon (the son of Rhaegar) would have come before Viserys (his father's brother)

What if Jon wasn't born before Rhaegar and Aerys died (which, as I understand it, is the case)

[BearQueen87]

What if Jon wasn't born before Rhaegar and Aerys died (which, as I understand it, is the case)

We know Jon was born after Rhaegar's death and probably Aerys'

We know from this e-mail that Jon’s birth is 8-9 months prior to Daenerys’s, and that Daenerys is born almost precisely 9 months after the death of Rhaegar and the Sack of King’s Landing. This would place Jon’s birth within one month, give or take, of the Sack.

[Ser Leftwich]

What if Jon wasn't born before Rhaegar and Aerys died (which, as I understand it, is the case)

It does not matter when Jon was born, if Jon's father was Rhaegar and Jon was legitimate. As long as he is verifiable as Rhaegar's son. (See the example about Jaime being willing to arrange a marriage for Jeyne Westerling (Stark), but only after 2 years.)

“You’ll have your marriages,” said Jaime, “but Jeyne must wait two full years before she weds again.” If the girl took another husband too soon and had a child by him, inevitably there would come whispers that the Young Wolf was the father. -AFfC p. 661

[Anythingatall]

We know Jon was born after Rhaegar's death and probably Aerys'

We know from this e-mail that Jon’s birth is 8-9 months prior to Daenerys’s, and that Daenerys is born almost precisely 9 months after the death of Rhaegar and the Sack of King’s Landing. This would place Jon’s birth within one month, give or take, of the Sack.

It seems to me that Viserys was (at least briefly) the true king (of the Targ line).

I am just rereading GoT and it occurred to me for the first time that Jon was likely born after the deaths of his Father and Grandfather. So I rushed to the thread to see you had handily commented on succession, I am not arguing with you or anything, just trying to clarify what went on :)

[Anythingatall]

It does not matter when Jon was born, if Jon's father was Rhaegar and Jon was legitimate. As long as he is verifiable as Rhaegar's son. (See the example about Jaime being willing to arrange a marriage for Jeyne Westerling (Stark), but only after 2 years.)

“You’ll have your marriages,” said Jaime, “but Jeyne must wait two full years before she weds again.” If the girl took another husband too soon and had a child by him, inevitably there would come whispers that the Young Wolf was the father. -AFfC p. 661

It matters as (as far as I am concerned) as it invalidates the argument that the Kingsguard staying with a pregnant Lyanna supports Jons legitimacy. If the Kingsguard truly wanted to guard the King because "vows" they would have gone with Viserys lest Lyanna bore a girl or a still born child etc. I like the idea that the Kingsguard were in on a plan to play "king makers" again.

It also matters as history has shown that there are no hard and fast rules as far as the Iron Throne succession goes so it's another spanner in the works of a potential Jon Snow claim.

Anyway like I said I didn't post to argue or challenge, just to clarify.

[Ygrain]

It seems to me that Viserys was (at least briefly) the true king (of the Targ line).

I am just rereading GoT and it occurred to me for the first time that Jon was likely born after the deaths of his Father and Grandfather. So I rushed to the thread to see you had handily commented on succession, I am not arguing with you or anything, just trying to clarify what went on :)

If the succession follows the RL situations, then in case of an unborn child there is interregnum during which no-one is king until the child's gender and thus the place in the succession line can be established.

Besides, it is not so much Jon's birth date that matters but the time when the KG at ToJ learned about the Sack, which could have been weeks, even a month or so after the Sack and Jon was already born or so close to term that waiting a couple of days didn't make a difference.

[Anythingatall]

If the succession follows the RL situations, then in case of an unborn child there is interregnum during which no-one is king until the child's gender and thus the place in the succession line can be established.

I will have to take your word on that though I would imagine in RL it varies depending on country/culture/time in history?

Ultimately the line of succession seems determined by who has the most power anyway.

[The Twinslayer]

And a reference to the past if Rhaegar and his gang had plans to remove Mad Aerys in favor of Sane Rhaegar.

ETA: and it is said over and over that a son comes before an Uncle. Jon (the son of Rhaegar) would have come before Viserys (his father's brother)

Son before uncle refers to the son of the last lord versus the uncle of the last lord. The last lord was Rickard. The question is whether Rickard's son (Harrion) comes before Rickard's uncle (Arnolf). It has no application to the Aegon v. Viserys debate, which has to do with whether a grandson (of King Aerys) comes before a son (of Aerys).

Also, Jon proves that he does not understand how Targ succession works, since he says that a daughter (Alys) also comes before an uncle (Arnolf) by all the laws he knows. That would be true for Starks, Freys, Lannisters, etc. But not for Targs.

[Ygrain]

I will have to take your word on that though I would imagine in RL it varies depending on country/culture/time in history?

Ultimately the line of succession seems determined by who has the most power anyway.

I'm talking a lawful succession, not a power grab.

You can check historical examples of interregnum while there was an unborn child on the wiki, the two prominent examples are medieval France and Spain.

[RumHam]

A son always comes before an uncle, a daughter does unless we're talking about the Iron Throne. The only reason Viserys would be ahead of Jon is if Aerys proclaimed him his heir as the worldbook indicates.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

The best ideas always come ex post. It might go on "But should your hot brother turn up, I might come up with something that will make him breathless." On a second thought, it would break the pace of the dialogue, though :frown5:

/just don't tell GRRM I wrote some fanfic/

Why, that's how it all happened. ;)

As for Lyanna's wedding cloak... Arthur might have lent her his, the white would do, but how would they arrange the grey direwolf? With coal, and "you will get this washed later"? (I swear, I haven't even drunk anything, I don't know where this comes from :D)

Happy new year, (two more hours and you and I and @Rhaenys_Targaryen are over in 2015... now back to my party guests :D )