R+L=J v.155

[Bael's Bastard]

The World of Ice and Fire - The Targaryen Kings: Daeron II

"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."

 

 

[RumHam]

 

Are you sure Daemon didn't just ask for his marriage to be set aside? I'm pretty sure that's what he inquired about.

 

No, it specifically says he thought he could follow in Aegon and Maegor's footsteps. But of course if polygamy was legal and allowed then it would have gone without saying that he could. Supposedly he extracted a promise from The Unworthy that he could take a second wife, but Daeron would not allow it. All of this supports the idea that it's not legal and you need special dispensation from the king.

 

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.

 

 

[MtnLion]

Even in real world, polygamy still exists, even in US. But having one marriage does make an additional marriage invalid. :)

Again, you are trying to force RL into Planetos, which does not work. Aegon I's marriages were not mutually exclusive, neither one was invalidated. Planetos does not invalidate previous marriages when a new marriage is made.  Tyrion is still married to Tysha. 

[UnmaskedLurker]

 

The death of the rest of his family has everything to do with it though. Once they're burned through, the throne belongs to Viserys.

 

The firstborn son of a second, congruent (and unknown) marriage does not inherently come before the second son of the current monarch. I also don't think the KG are the authority on this, and I don't believe there is enough evidence to suggest they were following orders to posthumously ensure Rhaegar did not have any other heirs. I also maintain that if they were, they failed the Targaryen dynasty as much as Rhaegar did. They should have been with the King, the crowned prince, and his family, doing everything in their power to ensure they survived, not ensuring the 3rd or 4th heirs survival in the deserts of Dorne.  

 

 

I'm not misrepresenting anything.

I believe that there is sufficient authority in the series (and side books) to demonstrate that Jon would come before Viserys in the normal inheritance rules as long as Rhaegar and Lyanna were considered married. Now I acknowledge that if Aerys names Viserys as the heir, that would give V a claim (Jon also might have a claim -- but V certainly would have a claim in that case). And perhaps some people might challenge whether R&L really were married in this case -- and that independently might give V a claim.

 

But in the normal course, the Targ inheritance rules were made pretty clear (I think in the 101 GC). Under the normal rules, male preferred primogeniture is the rule. And that would put all legitimate sons of the crown price above the brother of the crown price -- even if the crown prince dies before his father.

 

As long as the 3 KG have no knowledge of any naming of V as heir and as long as the 3 KG have knowledge of a marriage between R&L, the KG likely would believe that they have no choice but to consider Jon as the rightful Targ heir.

 

 

 

Even in real world, polygamy still exists, even in US. But having one marriage does make an additional marriage invalid.  :)

 

 

I really don't get your point. It is clear that the laws in Westeros are different than the laws in the U.S. In the U.S., a married many cannot legally marry another woman and any additional marriages are treated as null and not legal spouses. In Westeros, we have never heard any mention of any ability to challenge whether someone who has an additional marriage is not really married. And calling Maegor's second wife a whore is not an example of any such thing.

[purple-eyes]

If there was a ceremony it is binding, and any child is legitimate. Having one marriage does not make an additional marriage invalid or oath breaking. You are projecting real world Christian thinking on a world where polygamy exists, and the entire Targ dynasty is descended from the son of a second sister wife.

 

It is not proper to say Rhaenys is the second wife. They married at the same wedding. She is only the younger sister. 

By the way, they married outside Westeros under their own culture. 

But after Aegon, they picked up Faith as their religion. 

 

I am not sure what exactly will happen if a gay couple who married in one gay-marriage-legal country moved into another gay-marriage-not-legal country. But I am sure gay people still can not marry legally in this second country. They had to go and live in the first country to get married. 

that is why Maegor had to be exiled out of Westeros. 

[Bael's Bastard]

 

Even in real world, polygamy still exists, even in US. But having one marriage does make an additional marriage invalid. :)

 

In the US, maybe, but there is zero indication that having one marriage makes an additional marriage invalid in Westeros. Again, you are projecting the Christian West of Earth onto Westeros and the World of Ice and Fire. In that world, the entire previous dynasty is descended from the son of an additional marriage, and the incest the Faith supposedly rebelled against was practiced all the way down to the very last Targ king nearly three hundred years later.

[UnViserion]

I'm pretty sure that you are.  When your opening sentence is that it all makes sense . . .  With none of that sentence or any of the following sentences making sense, I think a lot of people will point out that it doesn't make sense.  No need to get prickly about it, just take it as a learning experience and mature a bit. 

 

No, we have no indication that Aerys wanted to abduct Lyanna.  In fact Brandon's ride to King's Landing and demand for Rhaegar to come out and face him smells a lot like it is all on Rhaegar.  There is no hint that Ned felt dishonored via Rhaegar's relationship with his sister, thus it must be a legitmate child. 

 

 

You continue to be condescending and elitist, while offering very little yourself in the way of evidence beyond conjecture. That you have the gall to tell me to "take it as a learning experience and mature a bit" is just a complete joke and insulting. It's a poor reflection of this bunch.

 

Look at that last line :lol:

 

"There is no hint that Ned felt dishonored via Rhaegar's relationship with his sister, thus it must be a legitimate child." :lmao:

 

Apart from the fact that it absolutely does not prove that it was a legitimate child, how do you think he feels about the fact that this secret, "legitimate" union directly resulted in the deaths of his father and brother? How honorable is that?

 

Maybe Ned's just a simpleton. "He secretly married her so it was ok. Brandon was acting foolishly. Goddamn that Rhaegar was a swell guy"

 

 

[UnmaskedLurker]

 

It is not proper to say Rhaenys is the second wife. They married at the same wedding. She is only the younger sister. 

By the way, they married outside Westeros under their own culture. 

But after Aegon, they picked up Faith as their religion. 

 

I am not sure what exactly will happen if a gay couple who married in one gay-marriage-legal country moved into another gay-marriage-not-legal country. But I am sure gay people still can not marry legally in this second country. They had to go and live in the first country to get married. 

that is why Maegor had to be exiled out of Westeros. 

Where are you getting the information that the ceremony was the same for Aegon and his two sisters? I thought I read somewhere that Rhaenys was a second ceremony and Visenya refused to attend she was so angry.

 

And again, the problem with your gay marriage example is that Westeros does not have the same laws as those countries. In Westeros, if someone marries -- they are married. There appear to be no exceptions.

[purple-eyes]

Again, you are trying to force RL into Planetos, which does not work. Aegon I's marriages were not mutually exclusive, neither one was invalidated. Planetos does not invalidate previous marriages when a new marriage is made.  Tyrion is still married to Tysha. 

 

Both of them were single, of course they were married. What is your point?

[UnViserion]

 

 

No, it specifically says he thought he could follow in Aegon and Maegor's footsteps. But of course if polygamy was legal and allowed then it would have gone without saying that he could. Supposedly he extracted a promise from The Unworthy that he could take a second wife, but Daeron would not allow it. All of this supports the idea that it's not legal and you need special dispensation from the king.

 

 

 

 

I was mixed up-- Thinking about Daemon Targaryen not Daemon Blackfyre

[purple-eyes]

Where are you getting the information that the ceremony was the same for Aegon and his two sisters? I thought I read somewhere that Rhaenys was a second ceremony and Visenya refused to attend she was so angry.

 

And again, the problem with your gay marriage example is that Westeros does not have the same laws as those countries. In Westeros, if someone marries -- they are married. There appear to be no exceptions.

 

GRRM said so. You are making up this whole "second ceremony and Visenya's refusion and angry" by yourself or by somebody who told you so.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Also, in Westeros, the Targaryen family seems to be no subject to the general law.

[purple-eyes]

Where are you getting the information that the ceremony was the same for Aegon and his two sisters? I thought I read somewhere that Rhaenys was a second ceremony and Visenya refused to attend she was so angry.

 

And again, the problem with your gay marriage example is that Westeros does not have the same laws as those countries. In Westeros, if someone marries -- they are married. There appear to be no exceptions.

 

If someone single (who is qualified for marriage) marries, they are mostly married. But still something (a few scenarios) can lead to annulment of the marriage. 

[Lord Varys]

Ygrain,

 

if we are talking historical stuff, especially English royal history from which George usually draws his inspiration, then any child of Lyanna's wouldn't be royal until it was presented to the king - which it never was. The main historical example for that is the birth of Prince Edward, only child of Henry VI, who couldn't be installed as Prince of Wales without his father recognizing him as his heir. Which he couldn't do for quite some time because he was in some mad catatonic state.

 

Aerys never knew about Lyanna's son, apparently, and thus the boy does not have a place on the line of succession. He is a non-entity, and not even a royal child.

 

Rhaegar presents his daughter Rhaenys to his parents, and Prince Daemon also begs his royal brother to allow him to present his newborn twin daughters to him and his court, which then finally confirms that Daemon and Laena's marriage is valid in the king's eyes, and her children are legitimate rather than bastards (which is underlined by the fact that they are given dragon eggs, which bastards are not).

 

I think Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, but that marriage didn't even exist on paper. If the king and the High Septon didn't give their permission (after the fact) this was just Rhaegar's way to hang himself. The Faith never condoned polygamy, the Targaryens never practiced it after Maegor, and the Kings on the Iron Throne could actually set aside wives (Daemon asking Viserys for permission to do that with Rhea Royce).

 

That means Aerys II could actually have annulled or unmade the marriage without Rhaegar's or Lyanna's permission. Or rather, proclaimed it ever existed at all, because, you know, Rhaegar already was married. That's how it's done in all monogamous cultures of the real world. If you are already married any other marriage you make is null and void. The marriages of the children of Aegon V only continued because he gave them his blessing after the fact. He could acted differently, but he loved his children and wanted that they are happy.

 

The idea that anyone in Westeros, including Rhaegar's best friend, liked the idea of being best friends with a polygamist is rather unlikely. This sort of thing isn't done in Westeros, and when it was, it wasn't popular nor accepted among broad circles. Marrying Lyanna had the potential of putting him at odds with the Martells, the Starks, the Baratheons, his own father, and the Faith. We know that this dangerous potential was at least partially unleashed, and how big a role Aerys, the Martells, or the High Septon played is as of yet unclear. Maegor and Aegon controlled the biggest dragon in living memory. They could do whatever the hell they wanted to - but even they faced quite a lot of opposition back in the day. Compared to Maegor's power both Rhaegar and Aerys were children - but even Maegor failed in the end.

[UnViserion]

In Westeros, if someone marries -- they are married. There appear to be no exceptions.

 

That's because in Westeros no one has taken a second active wife in about 300 years.

 

Edit-- see the above post from LV

[purple-eyes]

Also, in Westeros, the Targaryen family seems to be no subject to the general law.

 

When they had dragons, probably. But even when they had dragons, still they failed on something like polygamy in Westeros. 

[RumHam]

Also, in Westeros, the Targaryen family seems to be no subject to the general law.

 

What's the source for this statement? The king is above the law, and of course nobody is likely to prosecute one of his children provided they are on good terms with the king. But unequal application of the laws aside (which happens for non-royal nobles too.) I don't think it's been established that sovereign immunity applies to the royal family as well.

 

Edit: Naerys, Cersei and Margery all being tried for alleged crimes would seem to confirm that it does not. 

[purple-eyes]

 

 

What's the source for this statement? The king is above the law, and of course nobody is likely to prosecute one of his children provided they are on good terms with the king. But unequal application of the laws aside (which happens for non-royal nobles too.) I don't think it's been established that sovereign immunity applies to the royal family as well.

 

Edit: Naerys, Cersei and Margery all being tried for alleged crimes would seem to confirm that it does not. 

 

 

And Bloodraven was punished to either die or join the Black too. 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

 

It does if you assume the real reason for Rhaegar being in the tower with Lyanna was never Lyanna but politics.

 

I wish I have the time to start a thread with this, but if you take that as an assumption, and part from that and only that, the scenario is more fitting than all of it being for love or prophecy. Sadly, that idea is not very popular among many RLJ'ers. :dunno:

 

(IICR, that was a method of solving equations and/or proving the value of propositions. Something like "assume an absurd" to prove the veracity or not of an idea).

Hey, let me know when you do! Sounds interesting :)

 

Ygrain,

 

And you're certain that their claim survives even after the death of the firstborn son and heir (Rhaegar) and his firstborn son and heir (Aegon) and the rest of his living family (Rhaenys, Elia), even though the current Monarch has other children?

 

I don't think the idea that Rhaegar basically has a chokehold on the entire line of succession is correct.

 

I understand there is the Umber comparison in the North, but remember-- the Greatjon in this instance would = Aerys, his children (Smalljon and others) would = Rhaegar & Viserys.

 

When Jon says "the Greatjon has sons and daughters both," he's talking about the Smalljon and his siblings, not necessarily the Smalljon and whatever children he might have, then his other siblings.

Leading to the conclusion that the Smalljon has no children of his own (no children nor wife is ever mentioned, so it's not a stretch). And as Jon would know that, he would know that there were no potential children to include in his listing of heirs to the Greatjon

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Hey, let me know when you do! Sounds interesting :)

 

I've planned a Rhaegar Re-Read since the start of the year but health decided to sabotage me (Maybe I was onto something!!!!). I'll try to see if by next month, I'll finally start (and finish the other posts I never got to).