R+L=J v.138

[J. Stargaryen]

I see no reason to suspect that there was a SSA alliance as I've chronicled above. There were some marriages between great houses but that's no new thing. Ronnel Arryn was married to a daughter of Torrhen Stark, there were matches between the Baratheons and Lannisters in the past, and history also shows us that marriage pacts don't necessarily mean you side with your in-laws in war - hello there, Lysa, Walder, Alester etc.

Four great houses were intermarrying. I'm not sure to what end, but it absolutely would have undermined the crown's power, regardless if it was even a real plot to unseat the Targaryens, or anything along those lines. Not to mention, but they were doing it at a time when the Targaryens were especially vulnerable numbers wise; i.e., after all the deaths at Summerhall there were only a few left. So it was a numbers game the Targaryens were destined to lose. Curiously enough, stealing and then marrying Lyanna Stark begins to even out that numbers problem. The Targaryens couldn't out-marry the SAA, not unless they revived the practice of polygamy that is.

Oh, and do we know for a fact that Lord Rickard was not at Harrenhal? He does not show up in the story about the Knight of the Laughing Tree but this does not necessarily that he wasn't there.

There must always be a Stark in Winterfell.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I'm also going to throw Jon Conningtons name in there.

That disclaimer of Argon being "Rhaegars first born son by Elia of Dorne," has always seemed unusual to me.

So, he might have a notion of a second born son.

That is indeed a bit odd. I think it is more a hint for the readers, that Rhaegar had more than one son, while in-POV, it is just JonCon emphasizing how Aegon is Rhaegars heir.

[Lord Varys]

I think there isn't much difference between incest and polygamy. Both were illegal in the eyes of the Faith - both before the Conquest and afterwards. Both incestuous and polygamous marriages were done or brokered by kings. They made an exception for themselves.

The Faith conducts marriages in Westeros, thus its laws prevail in that matter. As there is no civil marriage in Westeros the king would most likely not come up with a law of his own but codifying/unifying the existing laws on that matter. It is far much easier to make an exception for yourself than to make a completely different set of rules for yourself. In fact, granting special dispensations and such is what the Pope has also always done in such matters.

This is an interesting point in itself as there really are people interested in the history of Westeros and not only focused on certain topics. But you do not necessarily have to assume that Rhaegar's second marriage was legal to believe that he staged such a wedding. This is just an interesting hypothetical as to how smart/stupid/politically savvy Rhaegar was and whether Lyanna's son would have had a good claim to the Iron Throne.

JS,

one great house was marrying into two others - Brandon married a Tully, and Lyanna Lord Baratheon. That was the original deal. Jon Arryn was never a part of that, and Lysa was supposed to marry Jaime.

In Westeros marriage contracts don't seem to establish lasting bonds, at least not necessarily. The ties between Robert, Ned, and Jon clearly helped to forge the rebel alliance but nothing suggests that this thing was intended as a lasting alliance or pact to accomplish anything special.

[J. Stargaryen]

That is indeed a bit odd. I think it is more a hint for the readers, that Rhaegar had more than one son, while in-POV, it is just JonCon emphasizing how Aegon is Rhaegars heir.

Agreed. It might be along the lines of Cersei thinking how she would have been the mother to Rhaegar's sons if they had been married. And then later Kevan thinks something similar. They can be easily overlooked or even dismissed as hypotheticals, but they might also be sly little nods to the readers.

[Ser Creighton]

I'm also going to throw Jon Conningtons name in there.

That disclaimer of Argon being "Rhaegars first born son by Elia of Dorne," has always seemed unusual to me.

So, he might have a notion of a second born son.

Ok but how much would that help Jon Snow, if JonCon jumped from one secret Targ to a second secret Targ? In terms of how Westeros would view it.

"Oh he is the secret son that survived now." Very war of the roses though. Not really the result you want in terms of that history. I think it will be a mix of a secret Santa, Dany, Prophecy, and Tyrion. I think someone may tell Jon before that, but in terms of national acceptance in Westeros. I think it will come from Dany's end. Though JonCon could play a sort of secret Santa as well, "There is another Targaryen" and then dead.

JonCon would of never gone to Eddard about Jon, but he would not have said anything about Jon Snow either in order to protect him. Though not sure Ned or JonS would have liked his thoughts on Lyanna, which leaves a question mark for me. JonCon can't just be a red herring, I know the symbolism of what Martin is doing there but there must be something more tangible to the story, some sort of cause and effect. It needs to have some sort of impact other than making things harder for Jon.

If Aegon is exposed as fake that only hurts Jon, and really has no effect on Dany. If he is real, then what is the point of Jon or Dany being Targs? See that is kind of the tough part for me, Dany's entire story is about her being the last of her family. She is the one actually doing all the Targ work and bringing back her family name. It's not a knock on Jon or what he has done, he just has not done it as a Targ. Aegon has not really done anything either, Varys and Illyrio have done everything for him, there plan, there resources, even Aegon going to the Gold Company, and going to Westeros, that was Tyrion.

It does bother me when anyone as of now hands the house to anyone but Dany, because as of now, she has done all the work for her house. The Dragons, the army, the gold, the power and identity are all returning on her back. Like her or not she is the one upholding the name of the Dragon and her house. Jon has tried to uphold the name of the Watch, not Stark or Targaryen, though he has had difficult struggles with his Stark family. Aegon has been on a boat basically fishing and going to private tutors. Not really a hard life or doing anything for his family name. They both may do things in the name of House Targaryen in the future but 5 books in it's been all Dany for house Targaryen. I don't like the idea that she sould reestablish her house and other people get credit for it, or get handed her house that she is rebuilding.

[Alia of the knife]

That is indeed a bit odd. I think it is more a hint for the readers, that Rhaegar had more than one son, while in-POV, it is just JonCon emphasizing how Aegon is Rhaegars heir.

That's true as well, (and I meant "Ageon" not Argon), damned auto- correct.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

2) Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.

I had been thinking about that...

In The Accursed Kings, all justice derives flows from the king*. That's both a saying and it is seen to actually happens, when judges who feel unfairly treated and nobles feeling unfairly treated appeal to the king. It also still exists this very day in the remainders of Norman law where anyone at any time may appeal to Robert I the first Duke of Normandy whenever they feel being mistreated.

Well, that's the real world, and might seem irrelevant for Westeros and the series. But in the first chapter of the first book, seventh paragraph, so right at the very start of it all: "In the name of Robert of the House Baratheon, the First of his Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm, by the word of Eddard of the House Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, I do sentence you to die."

Emphasis is by me. Eddard invokes the king Robert when pronouncing doom, err, justice.

My thinking: you can get away with everything when the king approves. Polygamy may be impossible by any law, given there was one, it would be lawful the moment the king approved. Haven't we been here before?

*) eta: just found the literal quote it in A Game of Thrones:

Ned knew. "All justice flows from the king," he told her.

AGoT 20 Eddard IV

...

That's true as well, (and I meant "Ageon" not Argon), damned auto- correct.

Couldn't someone out there create a Westerosi dictionary for automatic spell checking?

[Alia of the knife]

I had been thinking about that...

In The Accursed Kings, all justice derives from the king. That's both a saying and it is seen to actually happens, when judges who feel unfairly treated and nobles feeling unfairly treated appeal to the king. It also still exists this very day in the remainders of Norman law where anyone at any time may appeal to Robert I the first Duke of Normandy whenever they feel being mistreated.

Well, that's the real world, and might seem irrelevant for Westeros and the series. But in the first chapter of the first book, seventh paragraph, so right at the very start of it all: "In the name of Robert of the House Baratheon, the First of his Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm, by the word of Eddard of the House Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, I do sentence you to die."

Emphasis is by me. Eddard invokes the king Robert when pronouncing doom, err, justice.

My thinking: you can get away with everything when the king approves. Polygamy may be impossible by any law, given there was one, it would be lawful the moment the king approved. Haven't we been here before?

eta:

Couldn't someone out there create a Westerosi dictionary for automatic spell checking?

I know! I got a new phone, so all of these names aren't auto-populated yet :)

[Alia of the knife]

I had been thinking about that...

In The Accursed Kings, all justice derives from the king. That's both a saying and it is seen to actually happens, when judges who feel unfairly treated and nobles feeling unfairly treated appeal to the king. It also still exists this very day in the remainders of Norman law where anyone at any time may appeal to Robert I the first Duke of Normandy whenever they feel being mistreated.

Well, that's the real world, and might seem irrelevant for Westeros and the series. But in the first chapter of the first book, seventh paragraph, so right at the very start of it all: "In the name of Robert of the House Baratheon, the First of his Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm, by the word of Eddard of the House Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, I do sentence you to die."

Emphasis is by me. Eddard invokes the king Robert when pronouncing doom, err, justice.

My thinking: you can get away with everything when the king approves. Polygamy may be impossible by any law, given there was one, it would be lawful the moment the king approved. Haven't we been here before?

eta:

Couldn't someone out there create a Westerosi dictionary for automatic spell checking?

I know! I got a new phone, so all of these names aren't auto-populated yet :)

[J. Stargaryen]

JS,

one great house was marrying into two others - Brandon married a Tully, and Lyanna Lord Baratheon. That was the original deal. Jon Arryn was never a part of that, and Lysa was supposed to marry Jaime.

In Westeros marriage contracts don't seem to establish lasting bonds, at least not necessarily. The ties between Robert, Ned, and Jon clearly helped to forge the rebel alliance but nothing suggests that this thing was intended as a lasting alliance or pact to accomplish anything special.

You're right about Jon Arryn, but then he was already in close with the Starks and Baratheons, so the four-house alliance would still exist. And it doesn't even have to be a long lasting alliance. One generation can be enough, as we know. :)

But the larger point, and we saw this play out with RR, is that the Targaryens were no longer the clear cut power in the 7K once the SAA came together. If those lords had, say, started making demands of Aerys, or later Rhaegar, it would have been difficult to refuse them. The situation would have been somewhat similar to Egg's, and we know how desperate he became when his power had been undermined by the broken marriage alliances of his sons.

[Alia of the knife]

On the matter of JonCons intro., I think it's the emphasis on the mother as well.

Pure speculation here, but I've always assumed at some point Aegon would get into trouble and need to go to Jon, or get Jon to come to him, using their brotherhood to manipulate him.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

That's true as well, (and I meant "Ageon" not Argon), damned auto- correct.

Really? ;) :p

I know the battle with auto-correct... (I know, I know, oh, oh, oh)... It takes some determination, but in the end, you should be able to force auto-correct to properly learn the Targaryen names :)

Rhaenys,

if I think about the whole Chelsted issue and have the opportunity I'll ask George about that. I'm still quite sure that Chelsted was only burned after the Trident.

Cool :)

[Kingmonkey]

Sure, it might have happened -- or it might not have happened. GRRM has not told us either way. So if he intends for Rhaegar and Lyanna to have been married, then it did not happen. But we really cannot consider the "universal law" as a clue -- we are told almost nothing about it -- and we know incest kept happening (which offending the Faith even more than polygamy) -- and incest even happened without the King's permission (Aegon V's children). So the only clues we actually have been given suggest that there is no bar to polygamy under these circumstances. I don't see how your "evidence" really serves as helpful guidance one way or the other because it does not give us any insight into what GRRM is thinking or serve as something that appears to be a clue from GRRM.

Not sure what you mean by "evidence"? I didn't provide any, or make a claim that would require evidence. I was only pointing out that there is a place something might fit in. If you thought I'm trying to argue that there's a law against polygamy: don't worry, I'm not. We don't know.

We're not going to get any insight into GRRM's thinking on the subject beyond what's been discussed a hundred times before. Clearly the case is "not proven" or we wouldn't keep having these debates. My point was that it doesn't really matter -- it's possible such a law had been passed as a sop to the Faith in the past, it means nothing.

[markg171]

First of all, any sons of Rhaegar and Lyanna wouldn't be that far down the line of succession, once Rhaegar became king. And if R&L had a daughter, the prudent move would be to marry her to Aegon and unite Rhaegar's two lines. In which case, Rickard's great grandson would be the king, theoretically.

Next, in your rush to argue with someone you failed to understand the context of the hypothetical I presented. This isn't a case of deciding whether Lyanna will be Rhaegar's second wife or Robert's first. In my hypothetical, R&L show up and declare they are already married, possibly with a baby in hand. There's no longer a possible marriage alliance with the Baratheons. So Rickard's choice would be to ally with the Targaryens or go to war with them. As it was, the rebellion ended up being a pretty even affair that only prevailed thanks to Robert's war hammer. Had Rhaegar won that fight, the rebels would have bent the knee.

With all that in mind, how close the rebellion actually was, and how close it would have looked on paper beforehand, I think there's a realistic chance that Rickard would have agreed to R&L's marriage. Better to have grandchildren who are princes and princesses and live in peace, then have no grandchildren (through Lyanna) and war. Don't you think?

Did you just say that the rebellion was close?

[Ser Creighton]

On the matter of JonCons intro., I think it's the emphasis on the mother as well.

Pure speculation here, but I've always assumed at some point Aegon would get into trouble and need to go to Jon, or get Jon to come to him, using their brotherhood to manipulate him.

When you say brotherhood you mean Jon Snow right?

Intresingly enough Aegon's plan that he got from Tyrion, was to go to Westeros, get in trouble and wait for Dany to come save him. In truth though Tyrion set him up, he should of gone to Dany with the Gold Company. She would appreciate 10,000 elite troops and help from Illyrio and Varys. I am not sure how Jon Snow could help Aegon anytime soon though or how Dany could help him. That is why I think Tyrion thinks he is fake.

The thing is they were never intending on Jon Snow, it was originally about Dany, and Tyrion still made it about Dany but changed the location. Basically he got them out of the way. He probably had a reason for it.

I have seen both you and JCRB talk about this before, but I can't see why if Aegon wanted help he would go to Jon who has little to offer, when any has the Army, gold, Dragons and is the only known fully identified Targaryen.

The best plan for Aegon would of been to show up with the Gold Company and be like I heard you needs some help Aunty and Illyrio sent me. Given her gifts from Illyrio were 3 dragons eggs, Selmy, Belwas, and three full ships, I doubt she would look down on Aegon at all. Aegon and the Gold Company, and JonCon? Selmy would probably be all crying and shit, family reunion, family reunion. Dany may not have married him but she would not have turned her family away either. Family matters to her, she is desperate for it, she is lonely, that would of been the biggest gift in the world to her. She was willing to give the Dragons eggs to Viserys and ackowledged him as her king even when went all cray cray. Everything she ever got from Illyrio worked out really well for her. There is no way she turns him away. And coming with the Gold Company? Yunkai would shit there collective pants... Ok they already are, literally, but you know what I mean.

People say she is all my throne, my throne, that's not actually the case. She has not enjoyed ruling and feels very alone and wishes she had someone she could trust, she wishes she was not the last of her house. She dreams of actually living a quite life but feels she is meant to do this in large part because of the birth of the Dragons. The comet, the dragons, and the prophecies are all kind of like a big sign to her, which I mean can you blame her for thinking that it is a sign.

I feel the same way about her and Jon, if she knew for a fact who Jon really was. All he would have to do is spend a little time with her, give her a hug and say don't worry will figure it out. No more feeling like the last of her people, no more lonely grief and issolation, family, real family who is not Viserys, a child of her brother who she idolizes. It would take some time for her to get to know him, but she would never hurt him. Not if she knew, no chance. And if Rhaegar and Lyanna is a love story she is going to be giddy about that, she is going to love that, she likes those kinds of stories. R+L=J would be a Joy to her.

If either Aegon or Jon are actual Targs, she is not going after them. I will bet you will not need a great Council for Jon, one way or another, she will put him on the throne if that is what he wants. Believe me I don't think she wants it as much as people think. It is not even in the same catagory of how much she wants family.

I mean if you are in Dany shoes, you are basically the richest most powerful woman in the world. Do you really want to rule if you have someone you can dump the job on? Jon, Tyrion have fun running the country, me and cousin Sansa are going to the Watergardens, we earned a vacation. Then we are going on world tour, we are in a band, Mother of Lemoncakes, laters.

Jon: Ummmmm so, I'm the king of this place?

Tyrion: Yup

Jon: And your the hand right?

Tyrion: Yup

Jon: Well have fun ruling in my place, because I am marcing my sweet ass back to Winterfell, needs to be repaired, so I am going to do that, have fun ruling the shit hole.

Tyrion: Jon, Jon, I thought we were friends do have any idea how many bad memories I have of this place?

Jon: You do underrstand how Starks have done in this place right?

Tyrion: Yeah but I have not done any better.

Jon: Tyrion, the woman took half the gold in Essos, slavers bay, Qarth, Volantis, she has more money that god. Take some and go build a new palace across the river. Rebuild the Riverlands, lower taxes we don't really need the gold, maybe an aquaduct you're good with plumbing, help set up the slave refugees, you literally have an army of skilled Essosi refugees, masons, smiths, glass blowers, artisans, farmers, everything you can think of, and they have nothing to do and you have access to a giant ass mountain of gold, go nuts. See you in a few years, don't screw it up ba bye.

[J. Stargaryen]

You said that a war where the royalists won 1 battle out of 10 was close.

Yeah, the rebels won almost all of the battles. I'm well aware of that. And the one they lost was non-decisive. And good for them, because if it had been, or they had lost any of those other battles, they all would have been executed as traitors, end of rebellion. So when I said it was close, I was talking about things like military strength and the close calls and long odds the rebels faced. Even after the early successes of the rebels, the loyalists were able to bring a larger army to the Trident, which speaks to the long odds the rebels faced. And if Robert had fallen at the BotB or the Trident, it's probably game over for the rebels. There's also the siege of Storm's End. If Davos hadn't smuggled in his onions, SE might have fallen, which would have been disastrous for the rebels. The rebels were in a few dicey situations. Any one of which had gone the other way, and they likely lose the war. Whereas the Targaryens were still in relatively decent shape until the Trident. That is, the Targaryens could basically afford to lose all of the battles and still win the war just by winning the last one, or even just by having Rhaegar kill Robert. The rebels didn't have that luxury. They were always close to losing the war, even when they were winning the battles. Remind you of anyone else in the series?

[Lord Varys]

JS,

nothing suggests that a political alliance part of those marriage contracts and friendships, though. TWoIaF gave no hint that Hoster-Rickard-Jon become buddies during the War of the Ninepenny Kings. In fact, it is entirely reasonable to assume that Ned became Jon's ward mainly because the Starks had kin in the Vale - through Lord Rickard's aunt - and thus decided to foster Ned with him rather than some other lord. The fact that Domeric Bolton was fostered in the Vale, too, does not lead to speculation about a lesser lord conspiracy destined to overthrow their respective overlords. And being fostered with a great lord does not seem to be a big deal, either. Even Walder Frey considers it both proper to ask Jon Arryn to foster one of his sons and rude/disrespectful that the request is denied.

Another thing is that despite all the slights the lords suffered Jon Arryn and Robert Baratheon had to subdue their own bannermen first. And Hoster Tully couldn't even rely on all his bannermen. That's hardly a situation suggesting those men (or their father) was planning to move against the king/the dynasty without a good reason. And Brandon/Rickard certainly wasn't a ploy to get a pretext to rebel.

Considering that Rickard was the one who would have been at heart of this conspiracy we should assume he would have been able to count upon his co-conspirator Hoster Tully's help and would not have been forced to go to KL alone - rather accompanied by Hoster and a good portion of his men if he felt he did not have the time to raise his own men.

My take on that is that the connections between four great houses greatly helped the rebellion along but it does not seem as if he there was any conscious effort to form a power bloc against the Targaryens.

[Angalin]

Skip the personal sniping, people. It's tiresome.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Not sure what you mean by "evidence"? I didn't provide any, or make a claim that would require evidence. I was only pointing out that there is a place something might fit in. If you thought I'm trying to argue that there's a law against polygamy: don't worry, I'm not. We don't know.

We're not going to get any insight into GRRM's thinking on the subject beyond what's been discussed a hundred times before. Clearly the case is "not proven" or we wouldn't keep having these debates. My point was that it doesn't really matter -- it's possible such a law had been passed as a sop to the Faith in the past, it means nothing.

The point I have been trying to make -- over and over again -- is that GRRM gives clues to solve most of his mysteries. But in most cases, he does not give the clues in a way that makes the solution 100% guaranteed. That simply is how he "rolls" (so to speak). In a few cases, I think the clues are so strong that any solution to the contrary would be incredibly hard for GRRM to explain. I think most everyone agrees that R+L=J (in its most basic form, i.e., that Rhaegar and Lyanna are the parents of Jon) falls into that category. But most of the mysteries are not quite that decisive regarding the extent of the evidence (and even R+L=J is not accepted by 100% of people).

So when the evidence is gathered, for example, to show how GRRM has pointed to the likelihood that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married in a polygamous ceremony, I get a little frustrated when people "invent" possibilities that would preclude such a marriage -- such as Jaehaerys I agreed to a law to outlaw it when he unified the laws. Of course GRRM could invent 1,000 ways to make such a marriage impossible. And he sometimes gives new information that comes out of nowhere (like the wildfire plot explaining Jaime's behavior in killing Aerys). But of course I know that GRRM has ways to make the marriage impossible. He is the author, and he can do what he wants. I don't need a list of theoretical ways in which GRRM might do this -- I know he might do this. My point is that there is all this evidence -- precedent -- of the marriages of Aegon I, the marriages of Maegor I, the marriage of Jaehaery II and Shaera, and these marriages suggest why Rhaegar would have believed he could marry Lyanna. And of course I know that the situation with Rhaegar and Lyanna is not exactly like these precedents. GRRM would never make it that simple.

But there are no counter-examples. We have no marriages anywhere in WOIAF in which even the king could say that a validly performed marriage was not a marriage. None. So inventing ways in which GRRM might reveal that such a marriage really could not happen is possible -- of course it is possible -- but making up what some of those ways might be does not make it more likely because it is not really evidence or clues. It just tells me what I already know -- that if GRRM wants to add more information to make such a marriage impossible, he can do so. I just don't think listing those hypothetical situations adds anything to the analysis.

[Consigliere]

I really don't get this polygamy debate. The author basically spelled it out in SSM's that polygamy is not illegal. The fact that the author believes he, if necessary, can make up cases of polygamy post Maegor shows that in Martinverse polgamy is not established as being illegal. Not to mention the fact that he states there "was and is precedent". People keep pointing to these "codified laws" of Jaehaerys I, yet there is zero evidence that polygamy was made illegal in these laws. Added to that, we have instances of polygamy in the main series and, in the case of Craster, it is not his polygamy that is condemned but rather the incest.