Which Theory Would You Be Most Satistfied To Learn To Be False?

[Destroyer of Nations]

Third. Aegon had two wives, so polygamous marriages did happen.

He had dragons, Rhaegar didn't. The only reason the faith and the smallfolk put up with it was because the Taragryens had fucking dragons. There hasn't been a polygamous marriage since the dragons died out.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

He had dragons, Rhaegar didn't. The only reason the faith and the smallfolk put up with it was because the Taragryens had fucking dragons. There hasn't been a polygamous marriage since the dragons died out.

The faith was a tool for the King's. Maybe at first they were a real force but they ended up as corrupt as anything else.

Aerys didn't have Dragons but he married his sister and nobody did anything about that. Incest is so horrible and everyone hates it but it is a Targaryen tradition and it is fine. Well polygamy is another Targaryen tradition, why would the faith and small folk act any different to that?

[Destroyer of Nations]

The faith was a tool for the King's. Maybe at first they were a real force but they ended up as corrupt as anything else.

Aerys didn't have Dragons but he married his sister and nobody did anything about that. Incest is so horrible and everyone hates it but it is a Targaryen tradition and it is fine. Well polygamy is another Targaryen tradition, why would the faith and small folk act any different to that?

So you think it was a coincidence that the Targaryen stopped practicing polygamy after the dragons died out?

Yeah, the faith is a tool for the kings, I'm sure Cersei would disagree with that.

[Pr1ncessAw3some]

Lemongate.

Jojenpaste.

Coldhands = Benjen.

Daario = Euron.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

So you think it was a coincidence that the Targaryen stopped practicing polygamy after the dragons died out?

Yeah, the faith is a tool for the kings, I'm sure Cersei would disagree with that.

That's because Cersie let the militant Faith take over. And they became militant because she and Robert destroyed the small folk over the years, especially during the War of the 5 Kings.

And if Rhaegar did marry twice then they didnt stop after the dragons died. Not all Targaryens married brother to sister, it would stop and then start again. Basically the same thing happened.

And if it did stop it more likely due to it usually ends bad for the future King's when their sibling rose up and tried to take the throne, not because the Faith made them stop.

No where in any of the books does it say the Faith threatened to rise up if the polygamy did not stop.

[Pr1ncessAw3some]

Also: Brandon + Lyanna = Jon.

No. Just no.

[TheLightning Lord]

That Varys is actually three kids stacked on top of each other.

[Destroyer of Nations]

That's because Cersie let the militant Faith take over. And they became militant because she and Robert destroyed the small folk over the years, especially during the War of the 5 Kings.

And if Rhaegar did marry twice then they didnt stop after the dragons died. Not all Targaryens married brother to sister, it would stop and then start again. Basically the same thing happened.

And if it did stop it more likely due to it usually ends bad for the future King's when their sibling rose up and tried to take the throne, not because the Faith made them stop.

No where in any of the books does it say the Faith threatened to rise up if the polygamy did not stop.

This is a direct quote by GRRM made during a chat session in 2008. (Have to admit, got it from the Citadel)

Maegor the Cruel has multiple wives, from lines outside his own, so there was and is precedent. However, the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

This is a direct quote by GRRM made during a chat session in 2008. (Have to admit, got it from the Citadel)

...the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object.

That is a long way from "The only reason the faith and the small folk put up with it was because the Targaryens had fucking dragons."

People objecting and not being able to do it are two different things.

Also, Rhaegar and Lyanna getting married at the Tower (or Isle of Faces) and being able to uphold the marriage at a later date are also two separate things.

It is illegal to rob a bank, but they get robbed everyday.

[Destroyer of Nations]

...the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object.

That is a long way from "The only reason the faith and the small folk put up with it was because the Targaryens had fucking dragons."

People objecting and not being able to do it are two different things.

Also, Rhaegar and Lyanna getting married at the Tower (or Isle of Faces) and being able to uphold the marriage at a later date are also two separate things.

It is illegal to rob a bank, but they get robbed everyday.

Doesn't make it legal.

The vast majority of lords and smallfolk subscribe to the Faith of Seven. It is not okay in their eyes to more than one living spouse. As such they might not agree to recognize the marriage. Getting married is one thing but it still has to be recognised by the proper authorities.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

Doesn't make it legal.

The vast majority of lords and smallfolk subscribe to the Faith of Seven. It is not okay in their eyes to more than one living spouse. As such they might not agree to recognize the marriage. Getting married is one thing but it still has to be recognised by the proper authorities.

Very true, but that is not an argument that it did not happen.

[JonisHenryTudor]

He had dragons, Rhaegar didn't. The only reason the faith and the smallfolk put up with it was because the Taragryens had fucking dragons. There hasn't been a polygamous marriage since the dragons died out.

That is clearly not the point I am making. I was responding to "polygamy does not happen" with it obviously did happen. There is also another issue at play here. Say Rhaegar married lyanna and people did not accept that, who is going to rebel over it? Let's for sake of argument suggest that Aerys is not mad, and did not provoke the Starks. Who in the 7 kingdoms is going to rebel when Rhaegar marries two women? That is a very tenuous thing to strike your banners over, and quite mad.

Also: Brandon + Lyanna = Jon.

No. Just no.

Yep.

Doesn't make it legal.

The vast majority of lords and smallfolk subscribe to the Faith of Seven. It is not okay in their eyes to more than one living spouse. As such they might not agree to recognize the marriage. Getting married is one thing but it still has to be recognised by the proper authorities.

Again what are the SF going to do about it? And in the event that people are unhappy, who is going to tell Rhaegar that Jon cannot rule? He is the crowned prince and this isn't 21st century Parliamentary Britain.

Sure some may rebel, but it seems that men like Aryn and Stark are going to rebel for more reasonable causes than marriage. But that wasn't my point anyway. The point was polygamous marriages have happened.

[Destroyer of Nations]

Very true, but that is not an argument that it did not happen.

I never said it didn't happen. It could have, I don't know. I just think whether or not they married is quite irrelevant. In front of what or who? A septon? I doubt it since it is not permitted by the Faith. Who else is there to conduct a marriage ceremony?

There is also the fact that just like Jon's parentage it can't really be proved. A letter can be forged, a witness can be lying.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

I never said it didn't happen. It could have, I don't know. I just whether or not they married is quite irrelevant. In front of what or who? A septon? I doubt it since it is not permitted by the Faith. Who else is there to conduct a marriage ceremony?

There is also the fact that just like Jon's parentage it can't really be proved. A letter can be forged, a witness can be lying.

If it was done in front of a Weirwood on the Isle of Faces? Then Bran would see it.

What if there is a Targaryen marriage cloak in Lyanna's tomb?

[JonisHenryTudor]

HBO? Cutting a character from an entire season is pretty much a way of saying that.

Haha fair enough. I always took that as them saving Bran for S6.

No actually you did and not just me. I took a look at your other posts and you are consistently bullying and derisive.

You are also flat wrong about the bastardy thing because absolutely the only reason a change in Jon's parentage would make any sense in the book is if the issue that had made Jon feel inferior was removed.

Regents University offers 'faith based' education which means that they ignore all facts that contradict their prejudices. Among their more notorious alumni was Monica Goodling the person who thought she had sworn an oath of loyalty to the President rather than the constitution and didn't comprehend the fact that the law applied to her.

I don't attend a Regent's University.....But ok....

I bully people into RLJ....ok...well I will just let this go.....

Bold - How ironic :).

I don't agree with that. Would it make Jon's storyline. seem a little disjointed? Probably. But Dany's, Tyrion's, Stannis', Arya's, Sansa's? No. Whether or not he stays a Stark does nothing for their storylines.

I meant Jon's. You are correct that the rest of the characters would be fine, but since Jon plays an integral role in the story having his entire backstory have no point whatsoever would just create a really awkward situation.

Consider this. Dany as RH in the sense that she never makes it to Westeros nor do her dragons. That would just not make any sense whatsoever and her entire story would be pointless. It would create mess since many characters are tied into her arc directly or indirectly. That is more or less what I am getting at.

[JonisHenryTudor]

The majority of "endgame" theories/speculation/discussion seem to focus on Dany, Jon, Tyrion, and maybe one or two others. They seldom mention Bran at all

Personally I expect Bran to have a major role, but I wonder if people leave Bran out because it is not necessarily clear what Bran will be doing? Whereas Jon and Dany seem to have "clear" paths. At any rate I agree that believing Bran does nothing is a silly notion. I was more or less curious what people are saying to the contrary.

Having said that, I think all pov characters will have some role in the end game, for better or worst.

[Destroyer of Nations]

Haha fair enough. I always took that as them saving Bran for S6.

I don't attend a Regent's University.....But ok....

I bully people into RLJ....ok...well I will just let this go.....

Bold - How ironic :).

I meant Jon's. You are correct that the rest of the characters would be fine, but since Jon plays an integral role in the story having his entire backstory have no point whatsoever would just create a really awkward situation.

Consider this. Dany as RH in the sense that she never makes it to Westeros nor do her dragons. That would just not make any sense whatsoever and her entire story would be pointless. It would create mess since many characters are tied into her arc directly or indirectly. That is more or less what I am getting at.

I don't fully agree with that. Have there been hints? Absolutely. But those are just that... hints. If GRRM decided to pull out the rug from under all the R+L=J fanboys, I don't think it would make that much difference to the storyline.

Jon seems like the kind of honourable bloke who looks up to his 'father', he chose to make a vow to the Night's Watch. Is he really going to break that vow to start playing Prince? I think he'll stay exactly where he is... at the Wall. Should he survive or be brought back to life, obviously. Does it matter then whether or not he's a bastard Stark or a bastard Targaryen? I don't think it does.

There is quite the difference between Jon and Dany's storyline. Dany's is tied to several others, Tyrion for example, Jorah, Barristan, probably Aegon, Euron and Victarion. Jon's not really tied to anyone.

[JonisHenryTudor]

I don't fully agree with that. Have there been hints? Absolutely. But those are just that... hints. If GRRM decided to pull out the rug from under all the R+L=J fanboys, I don't think it would make that much difference to the storyline.

Jon seems like the kind of honourable bloke who looks up to his 'father', he chose to make a vow to the Night's Watch. Is he really going to break that vow to start playing Prince? I think he'll stay exactly where he is... at the Wall. Should he survive or be brought back to life, obviously. Does it matter then whether or not he's a bastard Stark or a bastard Targaryen? I don't think it does.

There is quite the difference between Jon and Dany's storyline. Dany's is tied to several others, Tyrion for example, Jorah, Barristan, probably Aegon, Euron and Victarion. Jon's not really tied to anyone.

Oh I agree that Jon will not leave the NW unless good reason. I am also in the boat with people arguing that FTW was a way to release Jon of his vows. No I don't necessarily take up the "I am a Prince banner", but the idea that Martin spent so much time throwing hints in there and having Ned focus on Lyanna, etc, just to have Jon actually be a bastard seems pointless. What I was arguing in that first post (and I admit it was brief without much explanation) is that for Martin to spend so much time on it, it probably plays some role in Jon's future arc that is not simply "Wow I am not Ned's bastard, I am something else". If that is the only point of Martin's approach to this, he would be a terrible writer; but I don't believe that is why Martin brought that element into the story.

When I responded that people hoping that RLJ is false, are essentially asking for a broken story, I am looking at the purpose of so much time spent on something that is pointless. We are not talking about a character hearing a prophesy once, believing something, and then proven wrong later; no this is something that is the summation of many, many hints scattered throughout the series. I guess my stance is that there is something important about it, that is why Martin used it.

1. If it is false - that is one hell of a road trip for no purpose at all. So either, nope you are Ned's bastard. Or ohhhhh all the hints, no you are really just a bastard of these people. That just doesn't make any structural sense.

2. If it is true - it will have a purpose that is meaningful outside of Jon feeling better about himself.

Thus my post that hoping it is not true opens the door for a disjointed story for Jon, and a lot of pointless hints, etc. If it is true, the importance of the union will not be undermined by Jon's status, bastard or not. It will have a real importance to Jon's arc in the very least.

[HexMachina]

Oh joy, R+L=J/polygamous marriage debate has spilled over into another thread. Again. Yay!

[KnightTime]

Oh I agree that Jon will not leave the NW unless good reason. I am also in the boat with people arguing that FTW was a way to release Jon of his vows. No I don't necessarily take up the "I am a Prince banner", but the idea that Martin spent so much time throwing hints in there and having Ned focus on Lyanna, etc, just to have Jon actually be a bastard seems pointless. What I was arguing in that first post (and I admit it was brief without much explanation) is that for Martin to spend so much time on it, it probably plays some role in Jon's future arc that is not simply "Wow I am not Ned's bastard, I am something else". If that is the only point of Martin's approach to this, he would be a terrible writer; but I don't believe that is why Martin brought that element into the story.

When I responded that people hoping that RLJ is false, are essentially asking for a broken story, I am looking at the purpose of so much time spent on something that is pointless. We are not talking about a character hearing a prophesy once, believing something, and then proven wrong later; no this is something that is the summation of many, many hints scattered throughout the series. I guess my stance is that there is something important about it, that is why Martin used it.

1. If it is false - that is one hell of a road trip for no purpose at all. So either, nope you are Ned's bastard. Or ohhhhh all the hints, no you are really just a bastard of these people. That just doesn't make any structural sense.

2. If it is true - it will have a purpose that is meaningful outside of Jon feeling better about himself.

Thus my post that hoping it is not true opens the door for a disjointed story for Jon, and a lot of pointless hints, etc. If it is true, the importance of the union will not be undermined by Jon's status, bastard or not. It will have a real importance to Jon's arc in the very least.

Jon might be dead though but unlikely. He wouldn't have had does dreams of the tombs in winter fell were he was not welcome cause he is a stark. My guess is that Jon is coming back but Jon snow is dead.