R+L=J v.155

[UnViserion]

 

My point is that Ned not dwelling on how Rhaegar dishonored Lyanna and his family fifteen years later is not evidence that it never happened. We also don't hear him thinking about the moment all the smiles died, but that doesn't suggest that he didn't care or wasn't shocked when Rhaegar named Lyanna the queen of love and beauty. I'm not sure what points you're talking about beyond the brothel comment. It's a bit of a leap from "they guy didn't frequent brothels" to "He never did anything remotely dishonorable." The logic that they must have been married because Ned doesn't think negatively about Rhaegar does not hold up. 

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not trying to say there aren't clues that Jon is not Ned's son, or that Ned not thinking of him as his nephew suggests that he must be his son. I was just using that as an example to point out MntLion's flawed logic. 

 

:agree:

 

Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence

 

 

[Ygrain]

KRIT,

 

I brought the whole issue up because it seemed that you were disregarding the claim of unborn children in general. That is simply incorrect, posthumously born children have the same claims as the children born during their father's life (they may lack the means to enforce the claim but that doesn't make it void). You may argue that Jon's claim as such would be considered as void for other reasons, with which I disagree, but the factor of him not being born yet really shouldn't enter the equation.

 

ETA for clarity

[purple-eyes]

There is nothing anyone could do after the fact if Rhaegar and Lyanna married. The idea that it would produce a bastard because Rhaegar was already married is completely baseless. If they were married according to whatever rites of whatever gods, that is that, no matter how much damage it may or may not do politically.

 

Are you suggesting if there is a secret wedding ceremony, then no matter what happens, this marriage is legal?

You should say, if there is a son out of Lyanna by Rhaegar, then no matter what happens, this son is Rhaegar's son (legal or not legal). 

But marriage? marriage is a legal and social term, not a biological fact.

In westeros, Rhaegar swore his wedding oath in Great Sept of Baelor with Elia. 

His second secret marriage (if there was) in front of a heart tree is a oath-breaker and would not be a valid one. 

[UnViserion]

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.

[MtnLion]

 

You are not serious, right?

 

Yes, I am dead serious.  See how Brandon handled it.

[RumHam]

There is nothing anyone could do after the fact if Rhaegar and Lyanna married. The idea that it would produce a bastard because Rhaegar was already married is completely baseless. If they were married according to whatever rites of whatever gods, that is that, no matter how much damage it may or may not do politically.

 

I'm not really sure this is true. We already know of some circumstances that can make a wedding vow invalid, like if the vow was said at swordpoint or the marriage was never consummated. If it were that easy then I think for example Daemon could have just married Rhaenyra in secret before his wife died and said "deal with it." 

 

Imagine for a moment that Rhaegar was gay, and instead of Elia or Lyanna he married Connington in a secret ceremony. Maybe they bribed a septon or did it in front of a weirwood, whatever. Do you really think the people of Westeros would collectively take the position of "well I don't like it, but what's done is done." Because I don't. 

[Bael's Bastard]

 
Edit -- I may have misunderstood your post. my initial reading led me to believe you were saying "there is nothing anyone could do Jon is now the heir" but after reading it a second time I'm not so sure that was what you were arguing. I apologize if I misconstrued your post

I was only addressing the idea posted earlier that a marriage would be invalid or a child of such a marriage would be a bastard because Rhaegar was already married. If there was a marriage, it's a done deal, and if there was a child of that marriage, it is a legitimate product of that marriage. I wasn't going any deeper than that.

[Ygrain]

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.

What does the death of the rest of the family have to do with it? Firstborn's son(s) before siblings. As long as a (legitimate) son of Rhaegar lives, he is ahead anyone else in the succession line (again, talking about claims, not the power to enforce). We have another such example with the Freys - Lord Walder (may he rot in the seven hells, = Aerys), his son Steffon (=Rhaegar, sorry for the comparison, my prince) dies, but Steffon's son inherits, not Steffon's brother(s).

[MtnLion]

I did propose a political scenario that puts Rhaegar with Lyanna and away from everything for a long enough period of time for Jon to be conceived. It also wouldn't entirely prohibit Rhaegar and Lyanma from getting secretly wed.

I was told it makes no sense at all.

Edit- Robb Stark married a woman he dishonored after sleeping with her. Same could have happened with Rhaegar and Lyanna

Are you misrepresenting this: 
 

And I never said Aerys ordered Lyanna to be abducted from the Tower of Joy but whatever.
And aren't you just so clever. I'll be licking my wounds for days after that sting.

 

It actually all makes sense why the KG would be there, fighting Lyanna's own brother to the death if you consider that Aerys ordered Lyanna's abduction.

<snip> While on the road Rhaegar and Lyanna grow fond of eachother and share passionate sex. A great bastard is born as a result of their union.

<snip>

You have an issue, or two, here. If Lyanna is to be brought back, why didn't Hightower do it when Rhaegar returns? If Lyanna is to be brought back, on Aerys' orders, when Aerys is dead, and there is a new king to report to, why do they stay?
ETA: You would also need to explain how Ned understood that line, to revere these three Kingsguard as he did, and one above all others. You need to show that Ned knew the order, and knew that they were fulfilling it. You would also need to explain why Ned would not revile the man who dishonored his sister by begetting a bastard upon her.
No, it makes no sense at all.

 

No, I still think that your supposedly sensible scenario still makes no sense at all.

[MtnLion]

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.

All you have to think about is what was done with Jeyne Westerling to avoid a possible claim to King in the North.  ;)

 

ETA:  Yeah, she might not be the actual Jeyne Westerling, but Jaime was convinced.  And, yes I posted the relevant quote earlier, when you talked about Maegor the Cruel.  The Grand Maester that objected because the laws all stated that the son inherited before the uncle lost his head. 

[Ygrain]

All you have to think about is what was done with Jeyne Westerling to avoid a possible claim to King in the North.  ;)

 

ETA:  Yeah, she might not be the actual Jeyne Westerling, but Jaime was convinced.

Jeyne, her name is Jeyne, it rhymes with "for two years single remain".

[Bael's Bastard]

Aegon and his sisters had dragons. After their passing, the natives of Westeros began bitching about incest and polygamy.. and the Targs tossed them a bone and scrapped the polygamy.
 
That's how I see it. And again, an unacknowledged (to this day even) polygamous marriage does not make Jon's claim better than Viserys'

Aenys had dragons too, didn't stop the Faith from rebelling. The Faith ultimately rebelled over incest (at least superficially) yet the very next king and queen after Maegor were full siblings, the most beloved Targ king and queen ever, and Targ incest continued for nearly a century and a half after the last dragons died. You can say there was never a polygamous marriage after Maegor, but the idea was brought up as recently as Daemon Blackfyre. The Targs after may have had their own reasons for not taking it up again. The Dance showed that children from multiple wives are dangerous, regardless of whether the wives were at the same time or one after the other. There is no indication polygamy was banned or the Targs made any agreement not to do it again. And I feel that Aenys' allowing the Iron Islands to drive out the Faith does not get as much credit as it should for the hostility toward him. I don't think Westeros was especially outraged at incest or polygamy, especially by the Targs. I think they were still not sold on the permanence of the Targ regime and put it to the test, and failed.

[purple-eyes]

Yes, I am dead serious.  See how Brandon handled it.

 

I already said Brandon was mad because he thought his sister was abducted and raped by force. 

If he knew Lyanna and Rhaegar run off willingly and sleep happily, then he would not behave like that. 

There is a big difference between these two scenarios. 

Especially himself slept with Lady Dustin and also possibly Ashara and did not marry either of them. 

 

You are just trying to neglect the fact because you wish R and L had a secret and valid and blessed and recognized polygamous marriage. 

The truth is, Rhaegar swore his wedding oath in Great Sept of Baelor with Elia in front of gods and men. 

His second secret marriage (if there was) in front of a heart tree (or anything else) is a oath-breaker and would not be a valid one. 

Religion is a serious thing in that world. 

[UnViserion]

What does the death of the rest of the family have to do with it? Firstborn's son(s) before siblings. As long as a (legitimate) son of Rhaegar lives, he is ahead anyone else in the succession line (again, talking about claims, not the power to enforce). We have another such example with the Freys - Lord Walder (may he rot in the seven hells, = Aerys), his son Steffon (=Rhaegar, sorry for the comparison, my prince) dies, but Steffon's son inherits, not Steffon's brother(s).

 

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.  

 

Are you misrepresenting this: 
 

No, I still think that your supposedly sensible scenario still makes no sense at all.

 

I'm not misrepresenting anything.

[UnViserion]

, but the idea was brought up as recently as Daemon Blackfyre.

 

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.

[UnmaskedLurker]

You are seeing things you want to see.
Nothing in Ned's mind hinted us there was a marriage in TOJ.
Ned thought Lyanna's "wolf blood" caused her early death.
Do you think this is a proper comment for a wife and a husband and their tree blessed happy wedding? Why do you need "wolf blood" to do a totally legal marriage (in your opinion)? Isn it suppose to be natural and blissful?

There are hints that they were married IF one believes (as I do) that Ned would think poorly of Rhaegar if he "dishonored" his sister but not if he married her. The way that Ned thinks about Rhaegar (on the few occasions when he does) is more consistent with someone who does not believe Rhaegar treated Ned's sister dishonorably.

 

The "wolf blood" comment is about running off and breaking her engagement to Robert. But it makes more sense if she got married because then having the child -- which led to her death -- would have been on purpose. But running off with Rhaegar works as a basic meaning behind the wolf blood comment whether there is a marriage or not. She was engaged to another man, and here she goes off against her family's wishes and stays away for a long time. That is the wolf blood.

 

What it does NOT make sense for is the theory that Rhaegar took Lyanna against her will (not that you are arguing that -- but some have from time to time). That would not be consistent with the wolf blood comment as then Lyanna would have no blame at all if it was all done against her will.

[Bael's Bastard]

 
Are you suggesting if there is a secret wedding ceremony, then no matter what happens, this marriage is legal?
You should say, if there is a son out of Lyanna by Rhaegar, then no matter what happens, this son is Rhaegar's son (legal or not legal). 
But marriage? marriage is a legal and social term, not a biological fact.
In westeros, Rhaegar swore his wedding oath in Great Sept of Baelor with Elia. 
His second secret marriage (if there was) in front of a heart tree is a oath-breaker and would not be a valid one. 

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.

[Bael's Bastard]

 
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.

I'll look it up.

[MtnLion]

I'm not misrepresenting anything.

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 legitimate child.

[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.

 

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