R+L=J v.137

[RumHam]

So, in spite of your reservations, I must conclude that Targaryens can practice polygamy and incest with impunity. If you are really bothered about it, maybe you know of someone that objected to Rhaella and Aerys being incestuously wed?

The king arranged that marriage. The king can do or allow whatever he wants, he's the king.

After all, incest is the more egregious of the two.

I'm curious why you think this. I think most lords wouldn't begrudge the Targaryens being able to marry their sisters. It's just gross and unnatural. Some lords would probably be upset that they Targaryens could take multiple wives while they themselves could not.

[Kingmonkey]

These arguments are circular since you aren't seriously looking at all the players and the full picture.

(snip)

This option would directly conflict with Hightower's Kinsguard vows. A vow made to a Prince would never be made in a sense that he would forsake his King (which is what you are suggesting he does here). He wouldn't have made such a vow if it posed a risk to his order. What exactly do you think this vow do Rhaegar would have been? "I promise to stay at this tower no matter what and see your mistress and bastard to safety." Why would Hightower agree to such vow? He wouldn't.

And this is why it's your argument that's the circular one. IF you assume that the KG primary vow requires the KG to be at the side of the king above all other requirements, then yes another vow would be out of the question. I agree. If Team Protect is right, then Team Protect is right.

I do not make that assumption. I am not suggesting that he forsakes his king AT ALL. I am suggesting that we do not know who Hightower considered to be the king simply because he did not go to Dragonstone, because we cannot be sure that he would feel obliged to break other vows to fulfil the word rather than the spirit of his primary vow. I am suggesting that it is perfectly possible that Hightower might have considered Viserys to be the king, but that as he was totally safe on Dragonstone for the time being, he would NOT be forsaking Viserys by not rushing there, he would only be forsaking whatever duty had brought him to the ToJ in the first place. I am suggesting that this isn't even in question because we know for a fact that it has happened before (see Fell and Thorne). I am suggesting that the idea that vows and promises can conflict and make impossible choices for honourable men is one of the central themes of ASOAF, and that reading the ToJ scene as one with no such conflict is a weaker reading that one which sees the events of the ToJ being central to this theme.

[Lord Varys]

Vows don't mean all that much in Westeros now, or do they? The High Septon is the Voice of the Seven on Earth he can speak for the gods and unmake any vow made in the face of gods and men. And while we once thought that the old gods do not reply we very well know know that the gods the First Men this side of the Wall are worshipping are essentially the greenseers. They look through the eyes of weirwoods, and it seems to be that the Starks and other First Men actually speak/pray to the people behind the faces rather than practice the essentially 'treeless animism' the wildlings seem to practice - the stuff Varamyr's parents believed in.

Thus a (marriage) vow in the face of the old gods could be set aside rather easily if you happen to know a greenseer... That is, if you consider a greenseer a god and want to take a pretext to break your vow...

ML,

if you have read the above post you know that I've tried to give an explanation as to why the Faith/High Septon may have outlawed polygamy in union with Jaehaerys I while allowing the Targaryens to continue to practice incest and even administer their incestuous marriages. It was just a thought as this matter never comes up but it not unlikely. The idea is that the Faith conceded that the Targaryens can do with their women whatever the hell they want (i.e. marry them) whereas it continued to object against polygamy because this corrupted other innocent souls as well - the whole point of polygamy would be to not only take sister-wives, although polygamous incestuous marriages are also a possibility, of course.

Important other thing to this topic:

In ADwD the legality of marriage is actually discussed. Galazza Galare, the Green Grace, actually tells Daenerys that Meereen/the gods of Ghis would never consider her married to Hizdahr in a legally binding marriage should she not take him to husband in a Ghiscari ceremony. Appearances do matter, the intention of the people wanting to marry is irrelevant if the society they happen to live do consider the ritual you perform to be legally binding and valid. Just as gays struggle with that ridiculous real-word notion that marriage is restricted to husband and wife by 'god' or nature, and thus it is supposed to be impossible that a woman marries another woman or a man another man. But there are societies - Germany, where I live included (we only have 'Privilegierte Partnerschaften' legally equivilent to marriages for gays, not marriage itself) - in which a gay marriage is contested on those grounds.

I really don't think why we should assume out of hand that a polygamous marriage in Westeros has to be considered to be legally binding by pretty much everyone if it is conducted in secret, without the knowledge/approval of the king and the legal guardian of one of the spouses involved, just because some guy one of the spouses supposedly descends from once married to of his sisters. That's a pretty shaky precedent for the validity of a marriage in a strictly monogamous society.

[Kingmonkey]

And I yet have to see how your blue explanation is supposed to fit. It presents not fleeing as some inherent quality and ignores both that the vow is an explanation and related to being KG.

Not at all. The Kingsguard are held to higher standards than other knights. The vow is the explanation for why they are there. That they are Kingsguards is an explanation for why they will not abandon that vow even when they are outnumbered and, presumably, being offered a way out. Simple.

[Alia of the knife]

Vows don't mean all that much in Westeros now, or do they? The High Septon is the Voice of the Seven on Earth he can speak for the gods and unmake any vow made in the face of gods and men. And while we once thought that the old gods do not reply we very well know know that the gods the First Men this side of the Wall are worshipping are essentially the greenseers. They look through the eyes of weirwoods, and it seems to be that the Starks and other First Men actually speak/pray to the people behind the faces rather than practice the essentially 'treeless animism' the wildlings seem to practice - the stuff Varamyr's parents believed in.

Thus a (marriage) vow in the face of the old gods could be set aside rather easily if you happen to know a greenseer... That is, if you consider a greenseer a god and want to take a pretext to break your vow...

ML,

if you have read the above post you know that I've tried to give an explanation as to why the Faith/High Septon may have outlawed polygamy in union with Jaehaerys I while allowing the Targaryens to continue to practice incest and even administer their incestuous marriages. It was just a thought as this matter never comes up but it not unlikely. The idea is that the Faith conceded that the Targaryens can do with their women whatever the hell they want (i.e. marry them) whereas it continued to object against polygamy because this corrupted other innocent souls as well - the whole point of polygamy would be to not only take sister-wives, although polygamous incestuous marriages are also a possibility, of course.

Important other thing to this topic:

In ADwD the legality of marriage is actually discussed. Galazza Galare, the Green Grace, actually tells Daenerys that Meereen/the gods of Ghis would never consider her married to Hizdahr in a legally binding marriage should she not take him to husband in a Ghiscari ceremony. Appearances do matter, the intention of the people wanting to marry is irrelevant if the society they happen to live do consider the ritual you perform to be legally binding and valid. Just as gays struggle with that ridiculous real-word notion that marriage is restricted to husband and wife by 'god' or nature, and thus it is supposed to be impossible that a woman marries another woman or a man another man. But there are societies - Germany, where I live included (we only have 'Privilegierte Partnerschaften' legally equivilent to marriages for gays, not marriage itself) - in which a gay marriage is contested on those grounds.

I really don't think why we should assume out of hand that a polygamous marriage in Westeros has to be considered to be legally binding by pretty much everyone if it is conducted in secret, without the knowledge/approval of the king and the legal guardian of one of the spouses involved, just because some guy one of the spouses supposedly descends from once married to of his sisters. That's a pretty shaky precedent for the validity of a marriage in a strictly monogamous society.

On the Old gods:

"The faith of the Old Gods is personal and less structured than other religions, though some basic social violations are proscribed by it, such as kinslaying, incest, and bastardy. It also upholds the laws of hospitality."

(I'm going to say both the Starks and the Wildlings broke a lot of these rules).

And the Wildlings adhered specifically to the old gods, while the likes of the Manderlys in the north and a few southern wives kept to the Seven in harmony. The Blackwoods in the south followed the old gods though the old gods and were looked upon with some hostility along with wargs.

(I suppose you could compare it to the same hostility that the Christians had for "pagan" Britain). Ironically the Normans, (descended from the former pagan Viking Rollo, and his men), would still be "cleaning up" Saxon England of their non-christian beliefs after they invaded.

In terms of marriages and appearances, it also extended to the bedding of course to make sure the union was consumated, but more in extreme was the "airing" of the bedding sheet the next morning to display maidens blood to prove it had been consumated, (though a vial of chickens blood might also be used in the case the maiden wasn't a maiden when she went to her marriage bed), and this was just for a mere noble woman, much less a royal woman.

[Avalatis]

Historically marriages had nothing to do with emotions or feelings they were solely about political alliances and the union between powerful families. The world needed to made publicly aware of such a fact.

The first part is true for nobility. It wasn't always true for the common folk. But since we're talking about nobility this is true. In parts of England and Scotland you could get married just by consent between two individuals (no priest or ceremony necessary). It was a present tense agreement between the man and woman. Not that this constitutes all the marriages of Europe and the world, but it shows that it didn't need to be a large public affair. Having witnesses would be necessary to prove the truth of it (so no disputes). Marriage contracts were important for land exchanges and wealth distribution.

Private marriages actually did occur in the early middle ages. These were marriages that were performed outside Churches and were not public affairs. The Church eventually banned such practices in the late middle ages as this caused significant headaches for the secular governments having to deal with spouses ditching each other and getting married again.

In the case of Rhaegar and Lyanna their marriage would have been witnessed by at least two honorable trustworthy knights Dayne and Whent.

This is why royal marriages in the West are, to this day, huge public events rather than private affairs - what they should be today as monarchs aren't really what they used to be, and that's a good thing.

Depends on what part of the medieval period and what country you're talking about. The only thing that was of public note was if the marriage was consummated often as that was important for the dynasty. In some cultures the royal family would not even send out invitations, courtiers would know to show up but that was about it.

Political alliances were the norm for royal weddings. That doesn't mean there were not any exceptions. Henry Tudor shows us that he didn't just marry for political alliances and was more than willing to buck religious tradition (even to the point to cause turmoil within his own Kingdom).

It was not a royal marriage but a secret and private marriage. Those do not really carry weight legally, and it is obvious why: If there is no public celebration/declaration of the marriage the public doesn't know that the royal spouse is supposed to be the royal spouse. He/she is not styled as king/queen, cannot exert any public power, does not have the status of a royal, and any children from such a union cannot publicly claim their birthrights as they aren't publicly the recognized and legitimate children of their parents.

You actually didn't demonstrate any legality in your follow on paragraph. Yes clearly no one knows of Lyanna and Rhaegar being married. That is the whole point of the mystery. That doesn't mean they don't have evidence and witnesses to said event.

Rhaegar's marriage to Lyanna would mean that he had entered into a polygamous marriage which was highly unusual even for the Targaryens and only two kings ever practiced polygamy. There are lots and lots of hints that polygamy was simply no longer a legal option since Jaehaerys I. If Targaryen polygamy was still an option in the Westeros from the days of Jaehaerys I we should have expected some of the following scenarios:

The Targaryens practiced incest, which isn't supported by their main religion or the vast majority of the people of Westeros. Polygamy has no evidence of being outlawed by the royal family, but a practice that was no longer followed. Just like the secular governments of Medieval Europe it became a headache dealing with inheritance and the power struggles when individuals got married multiple times. I imagine the Targaryens decided it was more of a headache than it was worth. That doesn't constitute making it illegal.

Your examples are not an either or for each character. Some might have been more religious (seeing polygamy as wrong), others wouldn't have necessarily married. Polygamy was a practice only done by the Targaryens. There is no reason to think that other houses would have welcomed such an arrangement.

Nothing of this sort happened which is a pretty big hint that Targaryen polygamy was officially dead

Being dead, doesn't mean illegal. It was a practice the family had moved away from.

who could also have taken Joanna Lannister as his second wife if polygamy was still a thing, come to think of it

And risk open war with his vassals? And alienating his good friend?

The Targaryens follow the Faith of the Andals. The Faith makes their marriages and can, on occasion, unmake them. The judgment of the High Septon should be decisive for the Targaryens in that matter - especially for those who want to ascend the Iron Throne.

Well it's a good thing the Targaryens don't practice incest... Oh wait.

With this in mind it is very unlikely that Rhaegar's marriage to Lyanna - if it took place - would have gone unchallegened.

I think you mean it would be challenged. And I agree it would be.

It was no public event which means everyone not wanting to accept could simply assert it did not happen and Rhaegar and Lyanna were thus not living as husband and wife.

There is no requirement that it is public. In this case you don't know who was at the wedding. We know Dayne and Whent (both honorable men who people would take at their word) would stand as witness to the ceremony. There were possibly more people who were at the ceremony.

They could also proclaim that polygamy was illegal and thus Rhaegar and Lyanna could not have married legally even if they had a ceremony.

As no law exists that relates to this, probably not going to happen. They might claim it is wrong and a sin against the 7, but illegal makes no sense when you're talking about the Monarchs who write the laws.

Finally, they could assert that it was up to the Faith and the king to decide whether such a marriage was legally binding, and the whole point of this thing is that Aerys had no possibly reason whatsoever to allow Rhaegar a second wife.

Neither of those work towards stating the marriage didn't occur. Marriage without consent of the King *could* be considered treasonous and there could be punishment given for such an offense. The faith of the 7 does not have a mandate on what marriage are valid are not. Either wise nearly all marriages in the North wouldn't be recognized. The High Septon can state they have sinned grievously and should be exiled or should divorce. But they he has no authority to claim a royal marriage is not legitimate.

And why is this important again?

Because your argument regarding the TOJ dream regarding Hightower, Ned, and Lyanna had no legs. The statements made only make sense in regards to one fact: Jon being a legitimate son of Lyanna and Rhaegar and the Kingsguard were not aware of any change in succession. Else the actions made by the characters involved and the perceptions of Ned make no sense. It requires large changes to the characters Martin has presented in order to pull off your perception of the exchange. Can Martin do this? Sure he can, he's the author. He can do whatever he wants. But it would be poor writing on his part especially since he has stated he doesn't like to lie to his readers.

If they did not believe it was then Lyanna's child could not possibly be the king.

There was already precedent with the start of the Dynasty. Whether or not Hightower and co thought the wedding was immoral wouldn't matter. They have precedent which shows that it was practice that had produced legitimate heirs in the history of Westeros.

[Kingmonkey]

I think our disagreement boils down to one central issue (while we certainly have other relatively minor disagreements, I think there is one central disagreement) -- and it really is the same issue that Team Protect vs. Team Obey always really boils down to in the end. That issue is whether it is plausible that the KG would believe that a vow they made to Rhaegar to protect Lyanna and Jon supersedes the vow of the KG to protect the king. It really is right there in the short-hand for the two sides (protect vs. obey).

I'd say that's a fair enough summary. Here's the thing -- I agree with you that the vow to protect their king would supersede other vows. It's the primary vow of the Kingsguard, after all. Funnily enough I'm actually closer to Team Protect than I am to Team Obey. The reason I find myself arguing against Team Protect more than Team Obey is that, to be honest, I find that the arguments put forwards by Team Protect more frequently demand that theirs is the only interpretation. "Must be", "not plausible", "The *only* logical decision" etc.

I'll put my point simply: I accept all the arguments that the duty to protect the king is the primary duty of the Kingsguard. However I do not believe this necessarily requires the 3KG to be with the king. That Fell and Thorne left the king without a Kingsguard so that they could be elsewhere protecting the kings heirs makes this clear. People can argue that the situation is different, but that's frankly not relevant unless they can show that the 3KG at the tower felt the same.

The Fell and Thorne incident is sufficient to absolutely demonstrate that it is possible for there to be circumstances in which members of the Kingsguard do NOT abandon other duties to be at the side of the king when the king is without Kingsguard protection. This being the case, the question is whether the 3KG at the ToJ could have considered their situation to be one in which their primary duty was overriding or not. Until we know more of what was going on behind the scenes at the ToJ, we simply cannot categorically state that they did not.

[Avalatis]

And this is why it's your argument that's the circular one.

I wasn't saying your argument was circular. I was saying that the arguments in this thread keep going in circles. If you only focus on was aspect of the picture and debate that, then just to another aspect of the picture and debate that (while ignoring if that is consistent with the other part) you can literally go on forever with this. Does the puzzle fit together? There is no sanity check in this case for team obey.

IF you assume that the KG primary vow requires the KG to be at the side of the king above all other requirements, then yes another vow would be out of the question. I agree. If Team Protect is right, then Team Protect is right.

I don't think anyone assumes that about the vow. The Kingsguard exist to ensure the King is protected. So I can definitely see a scenario where the Kingsguard (such as their meetings) don't have a Kingsguard on hand near the King. But they make certain for the time that they aren't guarding the King that his safety is ensured to the best of their ability.

I am suggesting that we do not know who Hightower considered to be the king simply because he did not go to Dragonstone, because we cannot be sure that he would feel obliged to break other vows to fulfil the word rather than the spirit of his primary vow.

Hightower is a Knight. Did he attempt to help Aerys wife when she was being raped? Did he attempt to help the poor souls who were burned? He swore vows as a Knight. So clearly he held his Kingsguard vows in higher value than his other vows.

Hightower as a character would not have made a vow that would have made him forsake his King. Yes this includes not bothering to see if he was in danger or not. He doesn't seem troubled at all. He seems confident of his purpose there.

But even if we assume there was some other vow in play. We have evidence that Hightower follows the Kingsguard vows before any other.

I am suggesting that it is perfectly possible that Hightower might have considered Viserys to be the king, but that as he was totally safe on Dragonstone for the time being

He has no way to know if Viserys is safe. We see this in the Kingsguard meeting. They ensure the King is safe before leaving him without Kingsguard protection. We as the readers know that Viserys was betrayed on Dragonstone and he was forced to flee across the ocean. Hightower would not have just assumed Viserys was safe (as we know such an assumption is wrong). He would have sent a Kingsguard to ensure that the King is safe. That would mean he is surrounded by trustworthy people.

Hightower would have valued his Kingsguard vows higher than another vow. He would not have made a vow that could have potentially came into conflict with his order. Him sending a single Kingsguard to Viserys (if not all 3 going with no other vow in place) would be the only logical decision he could have made based on his character

I am suggesting that the idea that vows and promises can conflict and make impossible choices for honourable men is one of the central themes of ASOAF, and that reading the ToJ scene as one with no such conflict is a weaker reading that one which sees the events of the ToJ being central to this theme.

.Hightower was an older man. We have already seen what he does when faced with a moral question vs. his duty. His duty to the Kingsguard won out.

[MtnLion]

The Fell and Thorne incident is sufficient to absolutely demonstrate that it is possible for there to be circumstances in which members of the Kingsguard do NOT abandon other duties to be at the side of the king when the king is without Kingsguard protection. This being the case, the question is whether the 3KG at the ToJ could have considered their situation to be one in which their primary duty was overriding or not.

But, there is another part of this to consider, that being how Ned viewed the actions of the three at the tower. Ned only knows about the Kingsguard's vow to protect the king with their lives. He never states any other purpose for the Kingsgurad to live up to, to garner his respect as a shining example to the world. So, until you can show how Ned thought that there might be some other purpose for the three Kingsguard to stay and fight him at the tower, we must perceive it as in keeping with their vow to protect the king with their lives.

[RumHam]

if you have read the above post you know that I've tried to give an explanation as to why the Faith/High Septon may have outlawed polygamy in union with Jaehaerys I while allowing the Targaryens to continue to practice incest and even administer their incestuous marriages. It was just a thought as this matter never comes up but it not unlikely.

I would also add that stopping Targaryen incest was probably out of the question while the dragons still lived. They needed their blood pure to be able to ride them (or at least they believed they did, don't wanna start that argument here.)

I tend to think Jaehaery's unified laws would have outlawed both polygamy and incest. The king is above the law, so it really wouldn't have been an issue for the Targaryens, the king can wave his hand and suddenly it's ok in that instance. At one point someone says incest is against the laws of gods and men. That could be just an expression, but I think it probably means incest is illegal. It's one of the things Cersei is being tried for, after all.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Kingmonkey-

You, LV and RumHam have raised too many points for me to take the time right now to address all of them -- but one of the points you make requires me to respond. I understand your argument that under certain circumstances, the KG can leave the King without a KG and not necessarily be seen as violating their vows if a more pressing mission is at hand. But a KG would never say to someone else that he cannot guard the king because his vows require him to do something else. In the situation you point out, the KG would say that protecting the heirs was their assigned duties and they knew that there was a separate plan to protect the king (or something like that -- you get the basic idea). But it would be nonsensical for the KG to say they are bound not to protect the king because they swore a vow to do something else.

But that is exactly what you are asking use to believe here. Hightower does not just say that the KG are at the ToJ because of a vow. Hightower says that they cannot go to DS and be with Viserys because their vows require them to stay at ToJ. Ned asks why they are not on DS with Viserys, and the KG say that they do not flee (which makes no sense if Viserys is king) and Hightower add that they made a vow. So Hightower is explicitly stating that going to DS would be a breach of their vows -- or that their vows require them to stay at ToJ and preclude going to DS.

Please explain how it can makes sense for a KG to state that the KG are honor bound not to go to the new king -- who they have no idea whether he is safe or not (as Avalatis accurately describes) -- because they are fulfilling a different vow. If you can convince me that there are any circumstances in which such a statement by a KG could make sense, I might moderate the strength of my views on this issue.