Jump to content

R+L=J v. 129


Kat

Recommended Posts

Okay, polygamy/succession/councils. It muddles together in my head at present. Better?

It is relevant to more than just polygamy. If Viserys was Aerys' heir ahead of Rhaegar's children, then (arguably) the person with the best claim out of Dany, (F)Aegon and Jon will be the person Viserys named as his heir: "His sister, Daenerys Stormborn, Princess of Dragonstone."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god, not this again.

We absolutely should NOT remove anything polygamy related.

They may not have been married, but it's ridiculous to say it should be taken out simply because a few people don't want to admit the possibility. And whether Viserys was named heir is irrelevant to the subject of polygamy.

Also, Dany would NOT come before Jon because she is female and females are passed over in Targaryen succession. Also, Aerys passed over Aegon, NOT Jon. So even if Viserys were heir, Jon is still in the line of succession.

So can we quit messing with the frighten' OP already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twinslayer,

are you suggesting that we remove this section, then?

If it were just up to me I would remove it. But I realize that there are a lot of people who would object. So instead of removing it, I would suggest a change to the answer that starts "No, in the case of an eldest son dying before the king..."

I would say: "Many people believe that, in the case of an eldest son dying before the king..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god, not this again.

We absolutely should NOT remove anything polygamy related.

They may not have been married, but it's ridiculous to say it should be taken out simply because a few people don't want to admit the possibility. And whether Viserys was named heir is irrelevant to the subject of polygamy.

Also, Dany would NOT come before Jon because she is female and females are passed over in Targaryen succession. Also, Aerys passed over Aegon, NOT Jon. So even if Viserys were heir, Jon is still in the line of succession.

So can we quit messing with the frighten' OP already?

After Dany and Aegon though.

If Viserys was heir, and made Dany his heir, then Dany is the rightful heir right now as the king proclaimed her his heir. If the king made her heir, she is not being passed over. Then would come Aegon as he's older than Jon. Then comes Jon last.

If Jon is Rhaegar's son, he's in the line of succession. He's just not where you keep saying he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god, not this again.

We absolutely should NOT remove anything polygamy related.

They may not have been married, but it's ridiculous to say it should be taken out simply because a few people don't want to admit the possibility. And whether Viserys was named heir is irrelevant to the subject of polygamy.

Also, Dany would NOT come before Jon because she is female and females are passed over in Targaryen succession. Also, Aerys passed over Aegon, NOT Jon. So even if Viserys were heir, Jon is still in the line of succession.

So can we quit messing with the frighten' OP already?

I was speaking about succession.

Every person is entitled to their opinion, sj4iy. If Twinslayer disagrees with what is written in the OP, we are allowed to talk about it and see what can be done so that most participants to this thread who adhere to R+L, are satisfied with the information written in the FAQ. We can't discuss every issue obviously, but since the question of succession is not even a part of the main theory, I don't see why it can't be removed from the FAQ if it raises more questions than answers.

Is the OP the work of a single poster, or does it belong to the R+L community?

ETA:

I proposed a slightly modified version earlier, and the only comment received was that, questions about marriage should not be removed. Is there a reason we cannot have a main section and a secondary section in the FAQ? It's a compromise solution between saying too much and saying too little. The secondary section is for questions that are not part of the main theory, this is what I proposed earlier, I've modified the title:

Other Things That Have Been Discussed Ad Nauseum and That You Should Read Before Posting:

Since Rhaegar was already married Jon is still a bastard, R+L changes nothing !

He might, or might not. There was a tradition of polygamy among Targaryens in the past, so the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna married is not easily ruled out. A pro-legitimacy argument is this: The presence of the three kingsguards at the Tower of Joy is best explained if they were defending the heir to the throne, which Jon would only be if he was legitimate.

But- Polygamy is illegal, isn't it ?!

Aegon I and Maegor I practiced polygamy. In Westeros, unlike a constitutional monarchy, royals are not subject to the law. So if there ever was a law against it, it did not apply to the Targaryens: In Chapter 33 it says "like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men". Examples demonstrate that it was considered an option for Targaryens: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Daenerys as a viable option, and she said the same about Quentyn Martell.

Obviously, the Kingsguard were keeping Lyanna as a hostage on Aerys's order...

If so, why would they have apparently made no effort to use this leverage against Robert and Ned? Some argue their Kingsguard vows would have taken precedence and still have required them to leave the Tower to protect Viserys when he became heir -- unless there was another that took precedence [Jon]. Others think they were guarding Lyanna as a hostage at the Tower of Joy. Some say that makes little sense: She would better be kept hostage at King's Landing, and wouldn't require kingsguards to guard her. The mere presence of three kingsguards implies something more important: guarding members of the royal family or maybe the heir.

See above, in the Suggested Readings section.

Right.... There's this SSM though, where GRRM explicitly states that the Kinsgaurd were following Rhaegar's order....

The SSM you may be thinking of is probably this: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

We know from Barristan, protecting the king is the first and most important of all kingsguard duties. Jamie suggests some other KG to stay with the king when he wants to leave for the Trident and we also learn of a ritual that is performed when all KG meet and the king is guarded by someone who is not from the order.

"Protect vs Obey" is an ongoing subject of debate that is unlikely to be settled until we know more. Either viewpoint is compatible with R+L=J.

And...? Even if Jon was legit, he couldn't be 'King'. Rhaegar was never king himself, only a prince, so how can Rhaegar's son inherit anything? Plus Viserys was Aery's heir, it says so it the world book.

Targaryens follow the laws of primogeniture.That means inheritance passes to the eldest male child of the most senior line. So, Rhaegar's line takes precedence over Viserys...and so long as there was a possibility for Rhaegar to have another son, Viserys was only ever the heir presumptive of the IT. The world book is written with a Lannister bias, it was in the interest of the Lannisters to discredit both Targaryens and Martells.And it was written in hindsight (after Aegon's presumed death) by maesters who were not privy to Ned's dreams and memories. If Viserys does turn out to have been the heir... see the next answer.

Matters of succession are never that straightforward...

True. Succession quarrels are a part of medieval power play and even a very clear inheritance could well be contested. So maybe in King's Landing things did happen as the world book says. Rhaegar and Aerys may have been at odds over the succession. Rhaegar told Jaime before leaving for the Trident that he intended to call a council, and The Great Councils of the past have dealt with matters of succession. Who would have accepted such a change is a question worth asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was speaking about succession.

Every person is entitled to their opinion, sj4iy. If Twinslayer disagrees with what is written in the OP, we are allowed to talk about it and see what can be done so that most participants to this thread who adhere to R+L, are satisfied with the information written in the FAQ. We can't discuss every issue obviously, but since the question of succession is not even a part of the main theory, I don't see why it can't be removed from the FAQ if it raises more questions than answers.

Is the OP the work of a single poster, or does it belong to the R+L community?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone is allowed to express their views.

But the OP is a cheat sheet for the arguments FOR R+L=J. Its purpose is not to reflect the opinions of every single person who has one. Its purpose is to summarize the arguments supporting this theory and various facets of it. That way people are who new to the theory have a way to read all of the arguments, and people who wish to come in with a different POV can read up on them and then make their arguments accordingly.

The OP is the work of the community...actually, we just modified it a short time ago. And we went through all of these arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, polygamy/succession/councils. It muddles together in my head at present. Better?

I'll resspond to the other post when I get a little more time just walked in the door.

Just a few thoughts on inheritance and Jon. So what if Viserys was named ahead of Jon, Viserys is dead and the Targs were deposed. Of course Viserys would not be named ahead of Jon as Aerys had no clue he existed. But if he removed Rhaegar from the line it seems or said he was going too, we have no context for it in the books and again none of that matters as the house was deposed. Jon would be looking at reclaiming his house much like Dany, they may get some support but nobody will hand them the throne. FAegon is fake, but even if he was not he is also removed from the line as well and has to go through the same stuff Jon or Dany would and he is currently trying to do that, or at least Varys is using him to that end. Would the KG have supported one claim over another, we saw Selmy do that and specifically say he did not go to Viserys after the war because he was to much like his father. Plus it has happened before and we don't even know for certain if Rhaegar was removed, or if the KG would of known about it. For a guy who was removed from the family Aerys sure seemed fit to chase after him for his help and even use his friend as hand of the King. So guess what and this may sound shocking, but there seems to be some question marks, gasp Martin would not do that.

The allusion to Jon as a king in the text can refer to many things, King of Westeros, King in the North, King of the Wildlings, New Night's King. All of the above, or none of the above not all prophecies happen. Martin has left some questions, because he does not want people to know yet so some things are still in doubt and neither side can prove this or that as fact. By right, by Conquest, by birth, it may be all it may be none. It may have been the KG perspective that Jon was by right, and it may conflict with other things because that's what Martin does.

Given the wealth of Text evidence and clues, for R+L=J you would think there would be more to talk about than the insanity YoYo that is Polygamy, KG Vows, Succession and Bed of Blood. After Burning through like 20 threads in a few months doing the same damn thing, I am actually surprised the Mods have not temporarily locked it considering it's burning through a thread every couple of days and not going anywhere.

So, just watching some old episodes of GoT. I'm particularly interested in Melisandre's parts.

She says something very interesting to Stannis after Blackwater:

"You are the son of fire, you are the warrior of light. You will sweep past this pretender and that one. You will be king."

Is it the "that one" which caught your eye? I have not seen that episode in probably years so I am a little rusty to it's full context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll resspond to the other post when I get a little more time just walked in the door.

Just a few thoughts on inheritance and Jon. So what if Viserys was named ahead of Jon, Viserys is dead and the Targs were deposed. Of course Viserys would not be named ahead of Jon as Aerys had no clue he existed. But if he removed Rhaegar from the line it seems or said he was going too, we have no context for it in the books and again none of that matters as the house was deposed. Jon would be looking at reclaiming his house much like Dany, they may get some support but nobody will hand them the throne. FAegon is fake, but even if he was not he is also removed from the line as well and has to go through the same stuff Jon or Dany would and he is currently trying to do that, or at least Varys is using him to that end. Would the KG have supported one claim over another, we saw Selmy do that and specifically say he did not go to Viserys after the war because he was to much like his father. Plus it has happened before and we don't even know for certain if Rhaegar was removed, or if the KG would of known about it. For a guy who was removed from the family Aerys sure seemed fit to chase after him for his help and even use his friend as hand of the King. So guess what and this may sound shocking, but there seems to be some question marks, gasp Martin would not do that.

The allusion to Jon as a king in the text can refer to many things, King of Westeros, King in the North, King of the Wildlings, New Night's King. All of the above, or none of the above not all prophecies happen. Martin has left some questions, because he does not want people to know yet so some things are still in doubt and neither side can prove this or that as fact. By right, by Conquest, by birth, it may be all it may be none. It may have been the KG perspective that Jon was by right, and it may conflict with other things because that's what Martin does.

Given the wealth of Text evidence and clues, for R+L=J you would think there would be more to talk about than the insanity YoYo that is Polygamy, KG Vows, Succession and Bed of Blood. After Burning through like 20 threads in a few months doing the same damn thing, I am actually surprised the Mods have not temporarily locked it considering it's burning through a thread every couple of days and not going anywhere.

Well, according to the world book, Rhaegar was not disinherited. Aerys passed over Aegon AFTER Rhaegar's death. So by that measure, Jon would still be in the line of succession if he were legitimate. But as you say, even if this news were widely known (which I doubt), the KG may very well disagree with it and refuse to support Viserys' claim over a legitimate son of Rhaegar.

Is it the "that one" which caught your eye? I have not seen that episode in probably years so I am a little rusty to it's full context.

"Son of fire" caught my eye. As well as the talk about 'pretenders'. I think the show has been using Mel to foreshadow things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone is allowed to express their views.

But the OP is a cheat sheet for the arguments FOR R+L=J. Its purpose is not to reflect the opinions of every single person who has one. Its purpose is to summarize the arguments supporting this theory and various facets of it. That way people are who new to the theory have a way to read all of the arguments, and people who wish to come in with a different POV can read up on them and then make their arguments accordingly.

The OP is the work of the community...actually, we just modified it a short time ago. And we went through all of these arguments.

I know the OP was reworked, but I missed a big part of that discussion....and the questions of succession do not constitute in any direct manner, an argument against R+L, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the OP was reworked, but I missed a big part of that discussion....and the questions of succession do not constitute in any direct manner, an argument against R+L, imo.

I agree that succession is only a facet of the theory. I don't actually agree with everything in the OP myself, but I'm fine with it as it is. I just think we should leave it be for a while until there's some new information to add.

Also, I'm now looking through the show to add more show hints to the document, so if anyone has suggestions, I'm all for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that succession is only a facet of the theory. I don't actually agree with everything in the OP myself, but I'm fine with it as it is. I just think we should leave it be for a while until there's some new information to add.Also, I'm now looking through the show to add more show hints to the document, so if anyone has suggestions, I'm all for them.

I take it you have Ned Stark and Robert fighting over Dany during the small council? Ned standing between the Blue rose and Robert wanting to kill a Targaryen child. In fact an unborn Targaryen child as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you have Ned Stark and Robert fighting over Dany during the small council? Ned standing between the Blue rose and Robert wanting to kill a Targaryen child. In fact an unborn Targaryen child as well.

Ooh, I didn't even think of that. That's a good one.

I can't believe that the blue roses on those stained glass windows are coincidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...