Jump to content

Archived

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

HelenaExMachina

R+L=J v.154

Recommended Posts

UL,

 

Lyanna and Rhaegar could have traveled a lot, I guess. Be and feel free under the trees and all that. I'm not saying this would have taken long, but they would have to travel to the tower anyway, right? And this doesn't seem to anything they would take as a 'final destination'. And perhaps they were already on their way back from Dorne when they stranded there. Or not. My main trouble with that simply is the fact that they would have wanted to go and stay there.

 

The KG presence at the tower only 'proves' something if you insist that the knights knew all the stuff the fever dream indicates (which is not clear), and if you insist that they would be willing to push their interpretation of the line of succession against anyone else's - the Queen Dowager, Aerys' chosen heir, and all the Lords of the Realm included (if, say, Rhaella and Robert had decided to call a Great Council to settle the succession three days later).

 

This simply is not a view I think a Kingsguard is allowed to have. Not if they take their roles as loyal servants seriously. They are there to protect and obey the king (and his family), not to make or unmake kings. Their presence at the tower can easily be explained without referring to Jon Snow - just because they were protecting Lyanna (which would have been the reason Ned would give to everyone anyway). They can die as much in the defense of Lyanna and her young son if he is only a prince - or even just a bastard. It would be still doing their duty.

 

But I have to say I find the 'last stand/honorable death wish' idea that came up a while back to explain the fever dream conversation much more convincing than any belief that they were doing anything for Lyanna or her child. They obviously dwell in the past there, and they want to get a clean exit because they seem to think the Targaryen dynasty is done - and if so, they are not going to shy back from the fact that as Kingsguard they should not outlive Aerys II or Rhaegar.

 

True. I do not understand why some people always feel KG is in a position to decide who is the new heir. 

After both Areys and Rhaegar died, a grand council may still decide Viserys is the new king over baby Aegon or Jon, which they had done in the history.

Why can KG simply decide Jon (even a legit one) is the heir over Viserys? because they thought themselves as grand council?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Grand Council. That makes no sense. Stuff was linked in the last thread were it is said that the rebels decided for Robert to be king around the time of the Trident or just after. There was never going to be a GC. The three KG were not making up their own rules - they would be following the normal line of succession under the 'legitimate Jon' scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As everyone in the books tells us Rhaegar is excelling at everything, thoroughly honorable and doing everything by the book. That is one of the reasons many fans think he must have married Lyanna before impregnating her. If that's all well and true, then I cannot imagine him botching the marriage rites. It would have been immaculate, as it needed to be. So that's not
the question that I find interesting. I prefer to stay curious at whether the two did marry or no.


I'm not suggesting he botched the rites, I'm suggesting that a second marriage may not be valid unless he had set aside his first wife.

tem and pe--
 
The issue of polygamy is relevant at two potential points in time. First, at ToJ. Second, if Jon being a legit Targ ever becomes relevant, such as if he becomes a candidate for the IT. Above, I only really discussed the first issue -- ToJ. 
 
tem's description of polygamy in Westeros ignores the text and uses modern law as a basis for analyzing polygamy in Westeros. No one has ever suggested that a second marriage is not a valid marriage. Ever. It is not done because penalties can be imposed (like Maegor being exiled or Cersei's punishment for adultery). But no one has ever said that a second marriage can be considered not a valid marriage. Anyone who claims as much is making it up -- all relevant evidence in the series is to the contrary. A marriage is a marriage -- it just may subject the person engaging in a second marriage to punishment under certain circumstances. So there really is no risk of the marriage not being considered valid of the children legit -- the issue is whether Rhaegar might be sent into exile (or other punishment) .


I'm not ignoring the text at all. It's abundantly clear that inheritance and succession are governed by law in Westeros. It is clear that marriage affords certain legal rights to trueborn children, rights that bastards do not have unless legally legitimised. So it is clear that marriage is a legal consideration in the series. We have evidence, in the case of Sansa for example, where a current marriage is an obstacle to a future marriage, which strongly suggests that a second marriage may not be valid until the first marriage is ended, with the death of Tyrion as the case may be.

But let me ask, because I don't really study the family trees, how many examples of polygamy in Westeros since the days of Maegor and the subsequent conciliation between Crown and Faith under Jaehaerys do we have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UL simply seems to believe that they would (want to) do that. I, personally, see no reason why they would. There is no precedent for this, and one would expect them to actually wait and see what the king has decided. You know, perhaps he actually did change the succession in favor of Viserys (which he actually did). Or wait and see what the Queen Dowager decided to do. Say, if Rhaella had decided to abandon Dragonstone and go into Essosi exile, or if she had thrown herself at Robert's feet, bending the knee to him in the name of House Targaryen, sticking to the 'true king in the tower' would have been a joke.

 

Not to mention that all three knights at the tower would have to close their eyes to the bad relationship between Aerys and Rhaegar, and the former's general paranoia. We know that Aerys was apparently considering disinheriting Rhaegar while he was still alive - if that's the case, then the chances that he would confirm/name Aegon his heir after Rhaegar's death are about zero. And the knights would have known that, too. By sticking to Lyanna's son as king they would have effectively defied the approximated will of their late king, not to mention that crowning an infant is about the worst you can do if you have seven-year-old as alternative.

 

And then there is Jon Snow's unclear status. Even if Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, and even if that marriage was considered valid by everyone in the Realm (very unlikely) it is not clear whether a royal child that has been born in the wild is actually a royal prince. In real time medieval history a king usually had to recognize the child of the queen as his own seed, less she tries to pass a bastard as the king's son. This actually becomes a matter of state during the time of the madness of Henry VI when Margaret of Anjou faces real trouble to install her newborn son as Heir Apparent to the English throne. In Westeros there is no precedent for a 'secret prince' being heralded as king by some faithful retainers. In fact, there is not even a precedent for a prince born far away from court which then eventually makes a claim to throne without ever becoming a member of court.

 

The chances that you had to be presented to the king and recognized by the king to formally become a member of the royal family is backed by both Yandel and Gyldayn. Rhaegar present his newborn daughter Rhaenys to his parents, who then acknowledge her as their grandchild (at least Rhaella does), and, more importantly, by Gyldayn in TRP where Prince Daemon apparently has to ask his brother Viserys I for permission to present his two daughters by Laena to the court and royal family. 

 

Oh, and bastards have claims. Just weaker ones than legitimate children. You can make a claim even if you are not legitimized. Benedict Rivers Justman never was legitimized, apparently, and neither was King Ronard Storm who deposed and imprisoned his own half-brother, the rightful king. If a king has no other legitimate kin besides distant fourth cousins through the female line sunk down to the level of merchants or peasants his bastard son may actually have a very strong claim, even if he has not yet been legitimized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their king (Aerys) was dead. Rhaegar was dead. Robert was king at that point and he is referred to as 'usurper'. Aerys did not disinherit Rhaegar, so that point is moot. This was clearly an exceptional circumstance the KG were faced with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LV--

 

I don't have time for a full response (spent too much time answering your PM), but basically, if the KG were there for the marriage and around for the conception, I don't think an issue of legitimacy would be one they would question. They are not making any determination or ignoring Aerys or Rhaella. They are fulfilling what they consider to be their duty under the normal rules of succession under Targ rule. There cannot be a GC, as the council and lords are in rebel hands. Rhaella has no direct authority to declare Viserys king over Jon. So assuming the KG had no knowledge that Aerys named V the new heir, Jon was the heir -- no decision to be made, he simply was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE DANCE OF DRAGONS

 

I cannot wait until the Dance of Dragons comes out . The real dance is going to be how GRRM proves to everybody that L+R=J without sounding silly or proving L+R=J is not true without wrecking his series .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE DANCE OF DRAGONS

 

I cannot wait until the Dance of Dragons comes out . The real dance is going to be how GRRM proves to everybody that L+R=J without sounding silly or proving L+R=J is not true without wrecking his series .

Why would it sound silly? I agree that if it is not true, GRRM most likely would be faced with an insolvable problem -- which is why I think he will keep it as is (and he has already suggested he would have "lied" to his readers if he changes things just because they figured it out). So assuming he will stick with the theory being true, why would it sound silly? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UL,

 

the normal rules of succession are that the chosen heir of the late king is crowned. The Kingsguard doesn't have a say in that, so they shouldn't presume to do anything about it under those circumstances. Perhaps their 'private opinion' was that Lyanna's son should be king - but until he wasn't crowned and anointed he wasn't king, so they would not have possibly been obliged to obey or protect him as the king until that time. We see that the king isn't king in Westeros until he is crowned. Otto Hightower, the Hand, rules in KL until Aegon II is crowned. But I wouldn't even buy that they privately believed the boy was king simply because George has already hinted at that they may not have liked their orders. That may mean that they were very unhappy with the Lyanna situation in general - and subsequently may have thought she was a paramour rather than his wife, and her child thus a bastard rather than a prince.

 

And the Iron Throne/Small Council could, of course, make all kind of decisions in the absence of the Kingsguard which were binding to them. The rebels were lords, too, in case of Robert's victory Pycelle, Varys, and the other lords on the council could have called a Great Council together with the rebels. Nothing prevented them from doing so. And Rhaella was head of House Targaryen at that time simply by default. All male Targaryens were minors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting he botched the rites, I'm suggesting that a second marriage may not be valid unless he had set aside his first wife.


I'm not ignoring the text at all. It's abundantly clear that inheritance and succession are governed by law in Westeros. It is clear that marriage affords certain legal rights to trueborn children, rights that bastards do not have unless legally legitimised. So it is clear that marriage is a legal consideration in the series. We have evidence, in the case of Sansa for example, where a current marriage is an obstacle to a future marriage, which strongly suggests that a second marriage may not be valid until the first marriage is ended, with the death of Tyrion as the case may be.

But let me ask, because I don't really study the family trees, how many examples of polygamy in Westeros since the days of Maegor and the subsequent conciliation between Crown and Faith under Jaehaerys do we have?

 

None. There hasn't been a polygamist Targaryen in Westoros for 234 years by the time Rhaegar abducts Lyanna.

 

UL simply seems to believe that they would (want to) do that. I, personally, see no reason why they would. There is no precedent for this, and one would expect them to actually wait and see what the king has decided. You know, perhaps he actually did change the succession in favor of Viserys (which he actually did). Or wait and see what the Queen Dowager decided to do. Say, if Rhaella had decided to abandon Dragonstone and go into Essosi exile, or if she had thrown herself at Robert's feet, bending the knee to him in the name of House Targaryen, sticking to the 'true king in the tower' would have been a joke.

 

Not to mention that all three knights at the tower would have to close their eyes to the bad relationship between Aerys and Rhaegar, and the former's general paranoia. We know that Aerys was apparently considering disinheriting Rhaegar while he was still alive - if that's the case, then the chances that he would confirm/name Aegon his heir after Rhaegar's death are about zero. And the knights would have known that, too. By sticking to Lyanna's son as king they would have effectively defied the approximated will of their late king, not to mention that crowning an infant is about the worst you can do if you have seven-year-old as alternative.

 

And then there is Jon Snow's unclear status. Even if Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, and even if that marriage was considered valid by everyone in the Realm (very unlikely) it is not clear whether a royal child that has been born in the wild is actually a royal prince. In real time medieval history a king usually had to recognize the child of the queen as his own seed, less she tries to pass a bastard as the king's son. This actually becomes a matter of state during the time of the madness of Henry VI when Margaret of Anjou faces real trouble to install her newborn son as Heir Apparent to the English throne. In Westeros there is no precedent for a 'secret prince' being heralded as king by some faithful retainers. In fact, there is not even a precedent for a prince born far away from court which then eventually makes a claim to throne without ever becoming a member of court.

 

The chances that you had to be presented to the king and recognized by the king to formally become a member of the royal family is backed by both Yandel and Gyldayn. Rhaegar present his newborn daughter Rhaenys to his parents, who then acknowledge her as their grandchild (at least Rhaella does), and, more importantly, by Gyldayn in TRP where Prince Daemon apparently has to ask his brother Viserys I for permission to present his two daughters by Laena to the court and royal family. 

 

Oh, and bastards have claims. Just weaker ones than legitimate children. You can make a claim even if you are not legitimized. Benedict Rivers Justman never was legitimized, apparently, and neither was King Ronard Storm who deposed and imprisoned his own half-brother, the rightful king. If a king has no other legitimate kin besides distant fourth cousins through the female line sunk down to the level of merchants or peasants his bastard son may actually have a very strong claim, even if he has not yet been legitimized.

 

Much in the same way that Bran considers that he could make Lord Hornwood's bastard heir to the Hornwood lands and titles over the female lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

None. There hasn't been a polygamist Targaryen in Westoros for 234 years by the time Rhaegar abducts Lyanna.

Maegor might have been the last Targaryen who practised polygamy, it was still on the minds of the Targaryens. Nor is it ever textually stated that polygamy is no longer a legal option. Polygamy was discussed during the reign of Aegon IV, for Daemon Blackfyre, as well as by Jorah Mormont in the present series for Daenerys Targaryen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maegor might have been the last Targaryen who practised polygamy, it was still on the minds of the Targaryens. Nor is it ever textually stated that polygamy is no longer a legal option. Polygay was discussed during the reign of Aegon IV, for Daemon Blackfyre, as well as by Jorah Mormont in the present series for Daenerys Targaryen.

 

Sorry, I know this is a typo. But I laughed. :)

 

But to be serious, I think it is very possible that somebody will take two spouses in the current story.

Maybe Jon or Dany. 

If it is Dany, the only question is how they figure out who is the father of the heir?

Or dany had to only bed one husband in a couple of months, to make sure they know who is the father of the baby. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maegor might have been the last Targaryen who practised polygamy, it was still on the minds of the Targaryens. Nor is it ever textually stated that polygamy is no longer a legal option. Polygay was discussed during the reign of Aegon IV, for Daemon Blackfyre, as well as by Jorah Mormont in the present series for Daenerys Targaryen.

 

He was the last. We got the Targaryen family tree with the World Book. GRRM might have once considered that there were more Targaryen polygamists, but he very clearly changed his mind as he never created any more. By the time of Rhaegar taking Lyanna there hadn't been a Targaryen polygamist for 234. Rhaegar could have been the first in so long, but to me it's incredibly hard to think that a 234 year old precedent would ever really stand unless Rhaegar was king himself.

 

Daemon was unwed by the time of Aegon's death so polygamy wasn't really an option seeing as he had no wives yet (and it's only a rumor anyways that after Aegon's death Blackfyre supporters started saying that he wished for Daemon to have multiple wives). Daeron II is the one who actually discussed polygamy with Daemon seeing as Daemon wed Rohanne during his reign and he said that he wouldn't allow Daemon to take a second wife. Polygamy was firmly shut down by Daeron.

 

Jorah telling Dany that she could take multiple husbands is also completely different than any situation Rhaegar was in seeing as Dany is a monarch and not bound by any Westoros laws seeing as she's not a Westoros citizen. Dany is the law herself by being a Queen and can make up whatever she feels like for the laws. If she wants to be a polygamist she could as she's the decider of what's legal or not in her state. Rhaegar was the prince, not the king. He had to follow whatever laws his father decided, and whatever laws had been decided before Aerys' time. While it's technically correct in that it's never outright stated anywhere that polygamy is illegal, but Rhaegar is not the one who gets to decide what's legal and what's not in Westoros like Dany could. And as I pointed out, in 234 years no one has taken a second wife and it's far more logical that that's because they couldn't than that they simply didn't but could have. And Daeron II telling Daemon that he could not take a second wife is a pretty firm indication that during the reign of Daeron II at least that polygamy was illegal as he did not allow it to happen with Daemon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about this, as far as I remembered, in the real histories there were numerous kings who had a lot of wives at that same time, under different systems, in different cultures, and in different areas in the world. 

But I could not figure out even one famous case a ruling queen had multiple lawful husbands. 

Queens could certainly have a lot of lovers and paramours. But I did not hear a famous one who had several official husbands. 

Is there a good explanation for this? Or woman simply did not like to have multiple husbands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He was the last. We got the Targaryen family tree with the World Book. GRRM might have once considered that there were more Targaryen polygamists, but he very clearly changed his mind as he never created any more. By the time of Rhaegar taking Lyanna there hadn't been a Targaryen polygamist for 234. Rhaegar could have been the first in so long, but to me it's incredibly hard to think that a 234 year old precedent would ever really stand unless Rhaegar was king himself.

 

Daemon was unwed by the time of Aegon's death so polygamy wasn't really an option seeing as he had no wives yet (and it's only a rumor anyways that after Aegon's death Blackfyre supporters started saying that he wished for Daemon to have multiple wives). Daeron II is the one who actually discussed polygamy with Daemon seeing as Daemon wed Rohanne during his reign and he said that he wouldn't allow Daemon to take a second wife. Polygamy was firmly shut down by Daeron.

 

Jorah telling Dany that she could take multiple husbands is also completely different than any situation Rhaegar was in seeing as Dany is a monarch and not bound by any Westoros laws seeing as she's not a Westoros citizen. Dany is the law herself by being a Queen and can make up whatever she feels like for the laws. If she wants to be a polygamist she could as she's the decider of what's legal or not in her state. Rhaegar was the prince, not the king. He had to follow whatever laws his father decided, and whatever laws had been decided before Aerys' time. While it's technically correct in that it's never outright stated anywhere that polygamy is illegal, but Rhaegar is not the one who gets to decide what's legal and what's not in Westoros like Dany could. And as I pointed out, in 234 years no one has taken a second wife and it's far more logical that that's because they couldn't than that they simply didn't but could have. And Daeron II telling Daemon that he could not take a second wife is a pretty firm indication that during the reign of Daeron II at least that polygamy was illegal as he did not allow it to happen with Daemon.

I agreed that he was the last..

 

Daeron II refusing Daenerys' hand to Daemon, does not make polygamy during his reign illegal. Daeron, as the head of House Targaryen, was allowed to decide whom Daenerys would marry. And he did not want her to marry Daemon, simple as that.

 

For Dany, "making the rules" is not necessarily the smart thing to do. She's an outsider who wishes to rule Westeros, and doing so with all kinds of customs illegal in Westeros atm would not do well for her claim. In fact, it might actually turn people against her who would otherwise have supported her, I think. So that Jorah suggests polygamy as an actual option, imo, means something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LV--

 

I know we just keep having the same debate. Different people may spark the discussion that gets us onto the topic, but inevitably, we just go round and round between us with the same arguments. For their benefit, I will go into it again.

 

I disagree with your reading of the significance of the naming of an heir. In the history of Westeros, I am aware of no King that came to power based on being named by his predecessor without also being the next in line under normal succession. The point of GC 101 was to clarify the rules of succession -- which would not really be necessary if the King merely can name an heir in any event and that is naturally respected. The main situation in which the successor went "out of order" is Aegon V, and clearly that was the result of a GC. If the King merely gives a formal title to the next in line, I don't really consider that naming the heir. That process is just recognizing who is the next in line.

 

The main example we have in which the King named an heir outside the normal Targ rules of succession, it led to civil war and the named heir (Rhaenyra) was never regarded as having been Queen, despite having controlled KL for a time and having significant support. But nevertheless, only Aegon II is regarding as having been on the IT the entire time. And I have heard your "excuse" that you have made in the past that he managed to get crowned first. I call  :bs: on that one. Such a formality does not explain why no one -- not even her son, Aegon III, seems to consider her to have been Queen. And in any event, that "excuse" still acknowledges that the King's naming of an heir is not really binding. If it can be overcome by a technicality, what good is it?

 

So maybe DoD 1.0 stands for the proposition that a King cannot name someone outside the "normal order" but only a GC can do that. Or maybe a King can name someone, but absent a naming or a GC, the normal order is respected. In that case, if the KG have no knowledge of the naming of an heir after the death of Rhaegar, and there is no ability to call a GC given the state of affairs in KL -- and the small council and all the lords had gone over to Robert -- (so I don't know what point you are making about rebel lords or Varys and Pycelle -- this period is after Robert has been crowned) -- then Jon is the only candidate to be the next Targ King in the eyes of the KG. 

 

So once again, we keep going in the same circles of discussion, but for others who are new to this argument they can see both sides. So to sum it up, I don't see the evidence that a King naming an "out-of-order" heir is necessarily respected as the only real case we have where is mattered, the King's choice was disregarded. I don't think the KG at ToJ had any ability to consider that a GC could be called given that the lords and council were with Robert at that point. Rhaella may be the nominal head of House Targ, but she has no authority to decide who is the next king. Based on the facts that I believe the KG had available to them, Jon was the only candidate for King. They were not making a decision or naming a King by using some discretion -- rather they were following what they believed to be the rules of the Targ dynasty regarding succession.

 

The main reason, however, that I have come to this conclusion is that no other theory makes sense to me. I don't believe it is plausible that Hightower regarded Rhaegar and not Aerys to be King. I don't believe it is plausible that Hightower would consider obeying the orders of the dead crown prince to supersede the need to send at least one KG to DS to be with Viserys if Viserys is the rightful heir (or even a possible contender to be the rightful heir after death of the other royals) -- and the KG definitely would not consider going to DS to be fleeing (or, if you prefer, Ned would not put those words in their mouths even if the dream is not literal). I don't consider it plausible that the KG would have a "death wish" and consider the Targ dynasty lost for all time and thus their duty to die an honorable death. So once I have looked at each of these alternatives that, if plausible, could explain the KG actions without Jon being the rightful Targ heir under normal succession rules in their eyes, and I find each of them implausible. So by process of elimination, the only option left is that they thought Jon was King due to the normal rules of succession and were guarding him for that reason rather than sending at least one KG to DS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick one, looking for something else - and probably quoted before :

 

aSoS - JON V

 

Good queen Alysanne, they called her later. One of the castles on the wall was named for her as well. Queensgate. Before her visit they called it Snowgate.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LV--

 

The main reason, however, that I have come to this conclusion is that no other theory makes sense to me. I don't believe it is plausible that Hightower regarded Rhaegar and not Aerys to be King. I don't believe it is plausible that Hightower would consider obeying the orders of the dead crown prince to supersede the need to send at least one KG to DS to be with Viserys if Viserys is the rightful heir (or even a possible contender to be the rightful heir after death of the other royals) -- and the KG definitely would not consider going to DS to be fleeing (or, if you prefer, Ned would not put those words in their mouths even if the dream is not literal). I don't consider it plausible that the KG would have a "death wish" and consider the Targ dynasty lost for all time and thus their duty to die an honorable death. So once I have looked at each of these alternatives that, if plausible, could explain the KG actions without Jon being the rightful Targ heir under normal succession rules in their eyes, and I find each of them implausible. So by process of elimination, the only option left is that they thought Jon was King due to the normal rules of succession and were guarding him for that reason rather than sending at least one KG to DS.

 

Come on, you are still stuck in this. 

So if Rhaegar and Aerys died, then KG can just simply discard his order and left Lyanna unguarded?

If A commander died in the middle of the battle, so his soldiers can just simply discarded his command?

If A PhD's mentor died before his graduation, so he can just dropped his dissertation (he can, but then he loses his degree)?

They had to guard Lyanna until she die or to be able to travel and then do something else.

KG did not flee from their duty even Rhaegar and Aerys died. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agreed that he was the last..

 

Daeron II refusing Daenerys' hand to Daemon, does not make polygamy during his reign illegal. Daeron, as the head of House Targaryen, was allowed to decide whom Daenerys would marry. And he did not want her to marry Daemon, simple as that.

 

 

This seems plausible enough, but a different tale claims that Daemon was not so much opposed to wedding Rohanne of Tyrosh as he was convinced that he could follow in the footsteps of Aegon the Conqueror and Maegor the Cruel and have more than one bride. Aegon might even have promised to indulge him in this (some of Blackfyre's partisans later claimed this was the case) but Daeron was of a different mind entirely. Not only did Daeron refuse to permit his brother more than one wife, but he also gave Daenerys's hand to Maron Martell, as part of the bargain to finally unite the Seven Kingdoms with Dorne.

 

He refused Daemon having a second wife, not just having Daenerys in particular as his second wife. That means polygamy was illegal in Daeron's reign if he was stopping people from taking multiple wives.

 

 

For Dany, "making the rules" is not necessarily the smart thing to do. She's an outsider who wishes to rule Westeros, and doing so with all kinds of customs illegal in Westeros atm would not do well for her claim. In fact, it might actually turn people against her who would otherwise have supported her, I think. So that Jorah suggests polygamy as an actual option, imo, means something.

 

Jorah does not suggest polygamy as a currently legal option though. He suggests it as a fulfillment of a prophecy to be what Aegon the Conqueror was over 300 years ago.

 

 

“Your Grace,” he conceded, “the dragon has three heads, remember? You have wondered at that, ever since you heard it from the warlocks in the House of Dust. Well, here’s your meaning: Balerion, Meraxes, and Vhagar, ridden by Aegon, Rhaenys, and Visenya. The three-headed dragon of House Targaryen - three dragons, and three riders.”
“Yes,” said Dany, “but my brothers are dead.”
“Rhaenys and Visenya were Aegon’s wives as well as his sisters. You have no brothers, but you can take husbands. And I tell you truly, Daenerys, there is no man in all the world who will ever be half so true to you as me.”

 

Aegon was not a polygamist in Westoros. He married his sisters outside of Westorosi law as Dragonstone was not a part of Westoros before the Conquest. Aegon forced Westoros to accept his marriage by conquering them and making himself the rule of law in Westoros. Which is exactly what Jorah thinks that Dany needs to do. He thinks Dany will conquer Westoros, not that they will all just bow down and make her their queen. He's not saying polygamy is accepted in Westoros, he's saying hers will be once she conquers them as they won't be able to do anything about it like they couldn't with Aegon.

 

And it's a moot point regardless as Dany is unmarried at that moment. Jorah is not suggesting polygamy at that time, he's only telling her to marry him. And if polygamy was always legal for her, why didn't he suggest she marry him while she was married to Drogo if she could have as many husbands as she wanted? Or marry anybody else? And Dany doesn't just suddenly marry Quentyn after she's already married Hizdahr when Quentyn comes forward offering her all of Dorne's support in her conquest of Westoros. It's only when Dany is not married that Jorah suggests taking someone on as a husband.

 

And Connington, someone actually in Westoros, doesn't think that Aegon can take multiple wives. He thinks that Aegon needs to be unmarried in case Dany ever comes to Westoros so that he can then marry her. So hardly clear cut that Jorah possibly thinking that Dany could have multiple husbands means that Targaryens actually legally can have multiple spouses. We've got one guy definitely saying that they can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×