R+L=J v.162

[MtnLion]

16 minutes ago, Damein Blackfyre true king said:

George has said laws mean nothing when you have dragons.  These Targaryeans think they are dragons which is why they feel they are above the law.  Polygamy and incest is against the 7.  I have never read any thoughts or discord with polygamy nor incest in the eyes of the old gods. If Rhaegar and Lyanna got married it was Infront of the old gods so some rules may not apply.  

Finally we saw the faith hated incestual marriages and even Aegon V hated it and thought it was one of the problems with his family.  However he loved his son and daughter and begrugently accepted their nuptials after their vow was consummated.  So the church didn't like incest but the Dragons didn't care and still practiced it, why don't y'all think they would have ignored polygamy.

We only know that incest is an affront to gods and men.  Polygamy is tolerated, in others than Targaryen.  And I ask, why would the people tolerate the incestuous marriage of Aerys and Rhaella, any more than a Polygamous Rhaegar? 

Then one needs to consider what personality trait indicates that Lyanna would willingly become a paramour?  What personality trait indicates that Rhaegar would forcibly rape Lyanna?  Why would that add up to "Rhaegar loved his Lady Lyanna"?

[lojzelote]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Be my guest. This a discussion board, after all ;-).

I'm with you on the validity of polygamous marriages in the wake of the Maegor disaster. But this doesn't mean Rhaegar didn't go through with the whole thing against his father's wishes. I'm sure that the Lyanna-Rhaegar marriage wouldn't be accepted by the king, the court, the Faith and the majority of the lords but that doesn't mean that Rhaegar didn't marry Lyanna.

I'm also inclined to believe that Rhaegar and Lyanna disappeared as long as they did because Aerys II saw their marriage as treason and called for their heads. If that's the case then it is also very likely that Rickard and Brandon were executed as Rhaegar/Lyanna's accomplices with Aerys accusing them of being involved in that unlawful marriage (which would have been as confirmation of the Rhaegar-Stark conspiracy Aerys saw at Harrenhal with Lyanna's coronation).

That wouldn't have helped if Lyanna's son and his wife had thought that he should be king.

It is perhaps understandable to a degree but nothing that the average person (Lyanna, say) would believe, too, just because Rhaegar did it.

Besides, it is one thing for Jaehaerys II (and Aemon, Aerys, and Rhaella) believing that Rhaegar was the promised prince and feeding him that idea and him later believing that he was supposed to father the promised prince. Nobody told him that. It was just a mad fancy he developed for no good reason. Aerys and Rhaella are given a special role in the creation of the promised prince by the Ghost's prophecy but no prophecy ever mentioned Rhaegar.

That it is irrelevant because the Ghost's prophecy did not mention that the promised prince would be born soon. All it said is that he would be born from the line of Aerys and Rhaella, necessitating their marriage. It could have been their great-great-grandchild for all we know.

Aerys II himself was also mad, by the way, but he was still destined to play a crucial role in the creation of the promised prince. Thus it is quite obvious that mad fathers don't pose a problem on that front. Rhaegar himself also didn't think he shouldn't be king or the promised prince because his father was a madman. Why then would he judge Viserys in such a fashion?

Sure, but Viserys was already alive and if he lived he could have multiple children of his own. As could Rhaegar's own children by Elia.

And, frankly, Aerys began burning people shortly after Duskendale. The war wasn't necessary for Dany's conception, merely Aerys getting aroused by watching people burn.

There was no need for Rhaegar to research the ice symbolism. It is pretty straightforward thing for the Starks. It is clear that Rhaegar decided to do something with Lyanna after Elia could no longer bear children but I doubt the symbolism caused him to take her. It would have been because he was in love with her. Why search for some other woman to have a child with if you are already in love?

Again, I agree there but it is still possible Rhaegar ignored all that. He would have failed spectacularly, for course, but he could still have tried.

The idea that he tried in secret makes little sense, though, because secret marriages are much easier set aside or ignored than public ones. If Rhaegar had just shown up at court one day with Lyanna and a little brat in tow Aerys II and the High Septon could easily enough have declared that child a bastard, annulling this 'second marriage', and executing Rhaegar for treason because he had taken a second wife without royal permission (and in the process disinheriting all the children the traitor fathered - after all, we know from AGoT that traitors breed other traitors).

We know that kings can punish their family members for marrying without their permission. Aenys I and Viserys I were lenient monarchs who liked to get along with their brothers but even they exiled them after they married without their permission. And Viserys I even forced Daemon to set his paramour away, making it pretty clear that a king could easily enough break a (married) couple apart if set his mind to it.

But Aerys II wasn't lenient at all. He mistrusted his heir and already searched for a pretext to get rid of him. Rhaegar taking another wife would have been the ideal reason to burn him alive.

Well, I think trouble lies in our different perception of Rhaegar.

While I take issue with many of his decisions, GRRM has not portrayed him as an idiot, who was unaware of the history and customs of the land he was supposed to rule one day. Quite the opposite, he is described by everybody in the books as a competent promising prince. I am not able reconcile that with the idea that he wouldn't know such a thing like a polygamous marriage won't fly with his future subjects.

OTOH taking a high lord's daughter for a mistress would cause a scandal, but as long as the girl went with him willingly, there's not much anybody would even want to do about that... we've seen what Aegon the Unworthy could get away with without any greater repercussions. (I believe Lyanna probably left her family message in the sense that she would rather be Rhaegar's mistress than Robert's wife, and Brandon didn't take it well.)

Of course they could have had a sort of ceremony where they promised to love and honor each other etc. (in fact I believe that God's Eye is the perfect place for it to happen, since Bran could easily access it), but they would be aware it is not legally binding and meaningful only to them two. Anyway, I see no reason as to why Rhaegar would have tried to pass it as a legally binding marriage in the first place if he was aware it was simply not so. Why would he care to needlessly piss off septons?

I'll reserve final judgement on how much Rhaegar's belief that he is (the father of) the Prince that Was Promised was reasonable until I get full information, but frankly from we know right now I don't think his belief was so out there. After all, the Summerhall thing was only about him, not about Viserys, or any future hypothetical child of doubtful longevity that Rhaella might yet bear. (For that matter, I think that the gap between Viserys and Daenerys, where no stillbirths or miscarriages are mentioned, speaks for itself. Aerys and Rhaella didn't sleep together, IMHO.)

There's also the matter that he might have attempted to contact Ghost of HH or perhaps even the Green Men, who might have shared further information with him... after all, he had allegedly come across Lyanna near Harrenhal... which is near the God's Eye... which is very much the Avalon of Westeros. I doubt GRRM placed it all there for no reason. (Obvious parallels with the Arthurian legend are obvious. If we find out one day that Jon was originally named for Arthur Dayne, I may piss myself laughing. We don't really need such an obvious reference to get it.)

Then there's also the stuff about him being sad all the time. While it sounds romantic that he was scarred by the circumstances of his birth, I don't really buy it. We can also try to diagnose him and claim he clearly suffered from clinical depression, and perhaps was not in full command of his psychological faculties while making all these fateful decisions. But I think there is another option, and that is he inherited a form of Targaryen clairvoyance and had nightmares/felt constant trepidation that something nasty is coming - and soon.

Well, whether we judge his belief reasonable or not, the fact is the Long Night is already coming, not yet twenty years after his escapade, and our young Targaryens are still grasping teenagers! LOL

As for Rhaenys turning against Aegon in our hypothetical scenario, well, I assume that she would feel some loyalty for her full-blooded brother. There's a reason why children of the same two parents aren't considered the risk half-siblings are. There are no competing/feuding families that would each try to gain the main prize. Rhaenys could turn against Aegon, but would the Dornish support her in that? I doubt it. And if something ill befell Aegon, then Dorne would at least get a consolation prize in the form of a half-Dornish (and Dornish-looking) queen.

 

[RumHam]

19 minutes ago, Damein Blackfyre true king said:

George has said laws mean nothing when you have dragons.  

Right, that was his response both times he was asked about Targaryen polygamy. Which I think is pretty telling. [hint: Rhaegar didn't have dragons.]

28 minutes ago, Damein Blackfyre true king said:

These Targaryeans think they are dragons which is why they feel they are above the law.  Polygamy and incest is against the 7.  I have never read any thoughts or discord with polygamy nor incest in the eyes of the old gods. If Rhaegar and Lyanna got married it was Infront of the old gods so some rules may not apply.  

Finally we saw the faith hated incestual marriages and even Aegon V hated it and thought it was one of the problems with his family.  However he loved his son and daughter and begrugently accepted their nuptials after their vow was consummated.  So the church didn't like incest but the Dragons didn't care and still practiced it, why don't y'all think they would have ignored polygamy.

I think we all acknowledge that Rhaegar might have practiced polygamy anyway. My main point here is that I think polygamy is illegal. For months in this thread people tried to argue that it wasn't. We know incest is illegal and Targaryens get away with it. So polygamy being illegal really doesn't have to have any bearing on the Rhaegar/Lyanna situation, and yet some people still are against the idea that it's illegal for some reason. 

The other issue that's come up a lot is this idea that the laws don't apply to Targaryens. This is not true, strictly speaking. In actuality only ruling monarchs are above the law. Most of the time the royal family is effectively above the law provided they are on good terms with the king. We know of at least two Targaryens who were charged with crimes, so they are clearly not all above the laws. So the issue then becomes "could Rhaegar practice polygamy without Aery's consent." I lean towards no, but again it's always possible he did it anyway and planned to straighten it out later. Either by making a deal with Aerys or by deposing him.

[Rippounet]

On 31/10/2016 at 11:01 PM, Lord Varys said:

How can you think a woman dying in childbirth in the middle of nowhere abandoned by everyone but three knights would believe in her late husband's mad ramblings about prophecy?

Funnily enough I think being on your deathbed is the perfect moment to believe your newborn son has a great destiny. Hell, I'd love my son to have a great destiny and I'm not even on my deathbed!

On 07/11/2016 at 1:55 PM, Lord Varys said:

If Lyanna succeeded where Rhaegar failed then Lyanna had no agency of her own but just succeeded (or finished) where Rhaegar failed. She didn't do anything because she wanted to but she continued what Rhaegar wanted to do or even what he told her to do. If you see Lyanna that way she just becomes some sort of Rhaegar-appendix insofar as her motivation is concerned, and I very much doubt that George created a character like Lyanna to act in this way.

The problem of this paragraph is that you start by giving us a very personal perspective on Lyanna acting that way, and then say that you don't believe George would make Lyanna like that.
But I don't see why Lyanna passing on Rhaegar's dreams to their son on her deathbed makes her a "Rhaegar-appendix" of sorts... That's really a weird way of looking at something that is rather sweet and tragic.

On 07/11/2016 at 1:55 PM, Lord Varys said:

This thing is also supposed to be a love story of some sort, and love usually has more levels than the 'we have to fulfill some ancient prophecy' angle.

And prophecy is, of course, completely unnecessary for a couple conceiving a child as you well know.

Did you miss the part where both @J. Stargaryen and I specifically stated that Lyanna could only have made such a connection after Rhaegar's death? Jon's true name wouldn't be about Rhaegar and Lyanna's love... Since they are dead or dying by the time he is named! This is about him and what will survive them...

On 07/11/2016 at 1:55 PM, Lord Varys said:

What Rhaegar believed isn't what Lyanna believed (until we know that it was).

That is actually the beauty of it.

On 07/11/2016 at 1:55 PM, Lord Varys said:

I think we have more reason to believe that Lyanna had an agenda and goals of her own considering her personality rather than consider her to be converted to Rhaegar's beliefs in ancient prophecies.

She may have had her reasons for meeting with Rhaegar, certainly. The two ideas are absolutely not mutually exclusive.

On 07/11/2016 at 1:55 PM, Lord Varys said:

But Rhaegar didn't choose the name Aegon because he was supposed to be the promised prince. He chose a king's name for a boy who was supposed to be king one day. That boy also happens to be the promised prince in Rhaegar's mind but the text does not support your idea that Rhaegar named his son Aegon because he thought the promised prince should bear that name. That is essentially your invention.

Actually we just don't know. You're the one assuming that Rhaegar chose the name Aegon because his son was to be king of Westeros, based on Rhaegar's words in Dany's vision. But the wording doesn't actually say much about Rhaegar's thoughts on the matter.
Because you seem to be deliberately missing the best part of the prophecy. It is a prince that was promised, and princes do often become kings... More importantly, the Targaryens conquered Westeros because of a prophecy in the first place... And the prophecy of tPtwP has a specific importance for Targaryens (it is linked to the return of dragons).
In other words, there is absolutely no reason to think Rhaegar would have separated the two. After all, he'd thought of himself first and he was supposed to be king too, wasn't he?

And, as I said, there's the way Dany sees it:

Quote

My brother said the babe was the prince that was promised and told her to name him Aegon.

Dany clearly links the prophesy to the name Aegon. Worse theories have been built on far less textual evidence, methinks.

On 07/11/2016 at 1:55 PM, Lord Varys said:

I mean, even if we would assume Jon Snow was the only savior or main hero of the story - he didn't wake dragons from stone, and he is not likely to do that. Even if he becomes a dragonrider and the leader of the fight against the Others he is going to win such a victory only because Daenerys did what she did - and her birth and rise to prophetic prominence is directly dependent on the Realm sinking into chaos, the downfall of the Targaryen dynasty, the libido of her mad father, the suffering of Queen Rhaella at her brother-husband's hands, the deaths of Viserys III, Rhaego, Khal Drogo, and Mirri Maz Duur. That's the main road to salvation (if the dragons are important) not Rhaegar's beliefs and actions. They might turn out to contribute and expand on it but right now I see no reason that Jon's role could not be played by some other guy with a less prestigious ancestry. If he also ends up developing special powers of his own that can only be explained by his special heritage I'm going to change my mind on that one. But right now he looks still pretty ordinary to me.

In addition, we have no reason to believe Rhaegar actually knew anything about the Others or thought the promised prince had anything to do with them. Had that been the case Rhaegar should have done anything in his power to help the Night's Watch. In fact, all the Targaryen kings since Jaehaerys II should have done something of that sort. After all they all knew about the prophecy and believed in it.

Those are two completely unrelated subjects and I fail to see what point you are making here.
The problem of having two characters (Jon & Dany) for the role of tPtwP/AA has been there for ages. So what? This is a problem for readers. Neither Rhaegar nor Lyanna could have even guessed that the prince might be female, as maester Aemon points out...
As for what prophecy Rhaegar read exactly... We don't know. I agree it apparently didn't make any specific reference to the Others... But the Targaryens were so focused on birthing dragons that even if they knew the Others were coming back they probably wouldn't have seen the NW as a good defense against them.

Anyway, to conclude on this matter... I don't put great value in this theory. What I mean is that this isn't something I believe to be important, and I think Aemon is a possibility as well. But many of the reasons you give against it are essentially a matter of opinion. For instance you think it's far-fetched. I'd say I've seen more thought put by George into far less important stuff...

 

On 07/11/2016 at 1:55 PM, Lord Varys said:

Even the Starks no longer believe in the existence of the Others.

Oh, I wouldn't know about that. Ned gently mocks Cat for it in one of her early chapters, but also doesn't argue with her when she points out that "direwolves too were the stuff of legends." Also, and I'm sure this irony was written on purpose, Ned swears "the Others take you both" a couple of pages later.
And Ned isn't the only Stark of course. Benjen would probably not laugh at the threat. Talking of which, I was wondering earlier whether Mormont talked about his fears to Ned, but Benjen might have worked as a messenger as well.
Basically, given how seriously the Starks always took the Night's Watch, I'm absolutely not convinced that they stopped believing in the existence of the Others. Theys simply hoped not to have to deal with them imho.

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

The question then is, why include the precedent at all.

To torment the readers?
I wonder myself why the World Book specifically states that Aerys made Viserys his heir after Rhaegar's death. This effectively means Daenerys is the legitimate Targaryen heir whatever Jon's status is. Was that done on purpose? It seems so to me.
 

[lojzelote]

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

First, TWOIAF is inaccurate in many respects and may not present an accurate view of polygamy. Second, the guy who is to father PTWP and create three dragon heads is not exactly an example of conform thinking. So, even if the marriage was considered unacceptable, it still doesn't mean Rhaegar wouldn't go for it.

And that would be logical or reasonable behaviour how? What would be Rhaegar's reasoning behind it? A huge sexual scandal is not enough, let's offend populace's religious sensibilities to boot? What would it have gained him?

Seriously, what's this obsession with Rhaegar and Lyanna's (pretend) marriage? A marriage which nobody would recognize would not be a true marriage in the first place!

[Ygrain]

37 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

And that would be logical or reasonable behaviour how? What would be Rhaegar's reasoning behind it? A huge sexual scandal is not enough, let's offend populace's religious sensibilities to boot? What would it have gained him?

Have you somehow forgotten about the whole mysterious ice and fire song, an impending  ice zombie apocalypse and a warrior prince that was promised? If you're trying to conceive a saviour, other people's religious sensitivites don't matter much, not to mention that the Northerners don't seem to posses such sensibilities. And what would it gain Rhaegar? A legitimate offspring, because a bastard is neither a prince nor a dragon.

37 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Seriously, what's this obsession with Rhaegar and Lyanna's (pretend) marriage? A marriage which nobody would recognize would not be a true marriage in the first place!

First, claiming that no-one would recognize the marriage is a huge stretch. The series proper doesn't have a SINGLE line condemning polygamy (unlike incest, where we are hit over the head with its abominability every couple of pages). Then there are also people who don't care about religious implications and would support Rhaegar for political reasons, personal gain etc., as well as die-hard Targaren loyalists acknowledging the marriage of Aegon the Conqueror as a valid example.

Also, not sure why you call it "obsession". The author introduced a concept, never built a case against it, and conveniently made the guy who was trying to emulate Aegon the spitting image of Aegon's brooding, secretive personality, and put him in a situation that might result in taking one wife for duty and the other for love, just like Aegon did. Sorry if I don't believe in such coincidences in writing.

 

[Rippounet]

49 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Seriously, what's this obsession with Rhaegar and Lyanna's (pretend) marriage? A marriage which nobody would recognize would not be a true marriage in the first place!

I've always thought that people who want to believe in that marriage are confusing ASoIaF with Tolkien's Return of the King.

[lojzelote]

44 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Have you somehow forgotten about the whole mysterious ice and fire song, an impending  ice zombie apocalypse and a warrior prince that was promised? If you're trying to conceive a saviour, other people's religious sensitivites don't matter much, not to mention that the Northerners don't seem to posses such sensibilities. And what would it gain Rhaegar? A legitimate offspring, because a bastard is neither a prince nor a dragon.

First, claiming that no-one would recognize the marriage is a huge stretch. The series proper doesn't have a SINGLE line condemning polygamy (unlike incest, where we are hit over the head with its abominability every couple of pages). Then there are also people who don't care about religious implications and would support Rhaegar for political reasons, personal gain etc., as well as die-hard Targaren loyalists acknowledging the marriage of Aegon the Conqueror as a valid example.

Also, not sure why you call it "obsession". The author introduced a concept, never built a case against it, and conveniently made the guy who was trying to emulate Aegon the spitting image of Aegon's brooding, secretive personality, and put him in a situation that might result in taking one wife for duty and the other for love, just like Aegon did. Sorry if I don't believe in such coincidences in writing.

 

Would you care to enlighten me how standing in front of a septon and saying some words enables the creation of some supposed Elessar? Marriage is a thing of SOCIAL CONVENTION. Nothing more, nothing less. It has no bearing whatsoever upon the child's character or abilities. If Rhaegar was so open-minded, certainly he would have realized it? Certainly he must have met many bastards during the course of his life.

The North doesn't recognize polygamy either. Name me one lord or peasant from the North that is known to be a party to a polygamous marriage. Robb Stark certainly didn't seem to think that he can be married to Jeyne Westerling and a Frey girl both.

Why should they condemn it? It's never really brought because no one ever considers it as a possibility. Well, aside of Jorah who is completely desperate to get into Dany's pants. He also seemed to think that running of together to Asshai is a good idea. But hey, as long as they stayed in Essos, it might have actually flown.

 

But instead of this quarreling, explain to me please why no Targaryen after Maegor ever did the deed?

Not Prince Aemon whose lack of a male heir led to a succession crisis.

Not King Viserys I when his wife was giving him a stillborn son after a stillborn son.

Not Prince Daemon the biggest rogue prince among them all.

Lord Peake didn't believe it was possible for young Aegon III to marry his daughter as long as Queen Jaehaera still lived.

Not even Aegon the Unworthy's sexcapades led to scores of polygamous marriages; and I believe he would have done that if only to humiliate Naerys further.

Prince Duncan obviously didn't believe he could live honorably with Jenny of Oldstones and a Baratheon of Storm's End at once. No one else brought it up as an option either.

No one ever did it.

I'll take all this evidence that polygamy wasn't considered possible over Aegon the Conqueror and Rhaegar being both introverted.

 

[Damein Blackfyre true king]

2 hours ago, RumHam said:

Right, that was his response both times he was asked about Targaryen polygamy. Which I think is pretty telling. [hint: Rhaegar didn't have dragons.]

I think we all acknowledge that Rhaegar might have practiced polygamy anyway. My main point here is that I think polygamy is illegal. For months in this thread people tried to argue that it wasn't. We know incest is illegal and Targaryens get away with it. So polygamy being illegal really doesn't have to have any bearing on the Rhaegar/Lyanna situation, and yet some people still are against the idea that it's illegal for some reason. 

The other issue that's come up a lot is this idea that the laws don't apply to Targaryens. This is not true, strictly speaking. In actuality only ruling monarchs are above the law. Most of the time the royal family is effectively above the law provided they are on good terms with the king. We know of at least two Targaryens who were charged with crimes, so they are clearly not all above the laws. So the issue then becomes "could Rhaegar practice polygamy without Aery's consent." I lean towards no, but again it's always possible he did it anyway and planned to straighten it out later. Either by making a deal with Aerys or by deposing him.

My biggest point is that the blood royals are above the law that what Martin was stating when you have dragons you do what u want.  In our own history how many kings before magne Carta did as they pleased law or no law

[Ygrain]

2 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Would you care to enlighten me how standing in front of a septon and saying some words enables the creation of some supposed Elessar?

I have no idea what the Seven might think or if the even exist. Old gods, though, do hear, and it might matter to them.

2 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Marriage is a thing of SOCIAL CONVENTION. Nothing more, nothing less. It has no bearing whatsoever upon the child's character or abilities. If Rhaegar was so open-minded, certainly he would have realized it? Certainly he must have met many bastards during the course of his life.

And the social conventions affect the way people think. GoHH prophesized that PTWP would be born from the line of Aerys and Rhaella, so the two had to marry, no-one ever considered that people don't have to be married to produce a child.

Plus, that tiny detail of not wanting to dishonour his lady might have played a role.

2 hours ago, lojzelote said:

The North doesn't recognize polygamy either. Name me one lord or peasant from the North that is known to be a party to a polygamous marriage. Robb Stark certainly didn't seem to think that he can be married to Jeyne Westerling and a Frey girl both.

No, it is indeed not a social convention in the North to have more wives. But we yet have to see old gods say anything about the number of wives. 

2 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Why should they condemn it? It's never really brought because no one ever considers it as a possibility. Well, aside of Jorah who is completely desperate to get into Dany's pants. He also seemed to think that running of together to Asshai is a good idea. But hey, as long as they stayed in Essos, it might have actually flown.

No-one except Jaime and Cersei consider incest as a possibility, yet lots of people have a rather strong opinion about it. Yet, when the founding brother and sisters are mentioned, or Craster, or the Wildlings polygamy, no-one bats a lash.

2 hours ago, lojzelote said:

But instead of this quarreling, explain to me please why no Targaryen after Maegor ever did the deed?

Only after you explain, please, why the custom was rare even before Aegon.

2 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Not Prince Aemon whose lack of a male heir led to a succession crisis.

Not King Viserys I when his wife was giving him a stillborn son after a stillborn son.

Not Prince Daemon the biggest rogue prince among them all.

Lord Peake didn't believe it was possible for young Aegon III to marry his daughter as long as Queen Jaehaera still lived.

Not even Aegon the Unworthy's sexcapades led to scores of polygamous marriages; and I believe he would have done that if only to humiliate Naerys further.

Prince Duncan obviously didn't believe he could live honorably with Jenny of Oldstones and a Baratheon of Storm's End at once. No one else brought it up as an option either.

No one ever did it.

Yet among all those who didn't consider it a good idea or not worth the trouble, the rogue prince actually did want to go for it, as you conveniently failed to mention. He didn't because he made the mistake of asking the king's permission beforehand, and after the king forbade it, there was nothing Daemon could do short of treason.

2 hours ago, lojzelote said:

I'll take all this evidence that polygamy wasn't considered possible over Aegon the Conqueror and Rhaegar being both introverted.

The evidence has it that no-one considered it possible for the Starks to be Kings in the North again, until, you know, they actually did.

- So back to the original question: why the heck did GRRM introduce the polygamy thing at all? Even if you claim that he changed his mind (which he explicitely said he doesn't do so as not to disrupt the flow of the narrative, once the clues have already been laid), it would mean that he did intend to use the polygamy card at some point. What you list as "evidence" confirms only one thing: that it was a rare thing, and problematic, but now and then, someone might want to go for it.

BTW, have you noticed how absconding with Lyanna without Aerys' permission effectively avoids Daemon's problem? Had Daemon decided to pull a Maegor, marry Rhaenyra and endure whatever hissy fit Viserys might put up, what would have happened?

[Rippounet]

 

22 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Plus, that tiny detail of not wanting to dishonour his lady might have played a role.

So... you're basically assuming that being a second wife would not be a dishonour, right?

I think the SSM on the subject is very clear:

Quote

Maegor the Cruel had 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.

I'd say Martin made it clear that a dragonless Targaryen would have been crazy to play the polygamy card. Not to mention a dragonless prince who had serious issues with his father already.
Yes, he did leave the door open... Because we actually have a potential Targaryen ruler with dragons in the story... And the possibility of her having more than one husband has already come up...

What I truly don't get is that if you (Ygrain, or others) are so desperate to have Jon be the legitimate son of Rhaegar... Why not argue that he planned to repudiate Elia? Or even that there are ways, in the books, for a marriage to exist without a ceremony (Jon "stealing" Ygritte)?
Of all the ways for Jon to be legitimate, polygamy isn't the best one.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Well, I think trouble lies in our different perception of Rhaegar.

While I take issue with many of his decisions, GRRM has not portrayed him as an idiot, who was unaware of the history and customs of the land he was supposed to rule one day. Quite the opposite, he is described by everybody in the books as a competent promising prince. I am not able reconcile that with the idea that he wouldn't know such a thing like a polygamous marriage won't fly with his future subjects.

Rhaegar is, in fact, not portrayed as a good leader or competent politician. The impression we get is that he was quite capable of representing House Targaryen in the public - much better than Aerys as a youth and later as king because he was a very capable knight - yet there is no hint he had any experience in anything or was properly trained for his role as king. Aerys II certainly didn't keep close to his side in his later years.

He certainly was a gifted and intelligent young man from what we know but he was also melancholic his entire life as far as we know. The fact that many young men and women admired him and thought the best of him doesn't make it so, actually. Prince Daemon and Prince Aerion had friends, too, and especially Prince Daemon was very popular with a lot of people. But this doesn't mean they were good and sympathetic men.

The faults of the less martial Targaryens are simply much more visible than those of the charismatic warriors.

And then, only very few people seem to have known or cared about the prophecy business. Rhaegar believing in stuff like that would most likely make him appear like a dangerous mad fool rather than a promising young prince. 

If you think about it - what is the difference between Aerion and Aerys II believing they could transform into living dragons and Dany believing she could hatch petrified dragon eggs?

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

OTOH taking a high lord's daughter for a mistress would cause a scandal, but as long as the girl went with him willingly, there's not much anybody would even want to do about that... we've seen what Aegon the Unworthy could get away with without any greater repercussions. (I believe Lyanna probably left her family message in the sense that she would rather be Rhaegar's mistress than Robert's wife, and Brandon didn't take it well.)

Nope, this one would have imploded regardless whether there was a marriage or not. Robert loved Lyanna and the Starks would never suffer their precious girl becoming a glorified whore.

But I agree with you that Rhaegar must have known his family's history, especially the affair involving Jenny, his granduncle, and House Baratheon. Yet he took Lyanna anyway.

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Of course they could have had a sort of ceremony where they promised to love and honor each other etc. (in fact I believe that God's Eye is the perfect place for it to happen, since Bran could easily access it), but they would be aware it is not legally binding and meaningful only to them two. Anyway, I see no reason as to why Rhaegar would have tried to pass it as a legally binding marriage in the first place if he was aware it was simply not so. Why would he care to needlessly piss off septons?

The idea is that if Rhaegar acted on the prophecy - which he seems to have done insofar as he believed because of the prophecy that he needed to father a third child - he may have believed said child should not be born a bastard. Not to mention that even a royal legitimization decree does not necessarily make you a prince. Daemon, Aegor, Brynden, and Shiera are all never referred to as prince(ss).

The other thing might have been Lyanna's own view on the matter. I doubt she intended to throw her life and honor away to become a glorified whore. Why should she? Do you think love blinded a woman who spoke rather dismissively about love when talking to Ned about Robert's love for her? Lyanna is described as a strong-willed and willful character. The idea that Rhaegar could just make her his mistress is not very likely.

But the most important hint that Jon Snow might have been more than just some bastard has to do with the fact that both Lyanna and Ned apparently feared for his life. A bastard of Rhaegar by Lyanna shouldn't have been in mortal danger because he had no good claim to the throne and would never become a danger if raised by Eddard Stark. Ned could have told Robert about Jon had the boy just been a bastard.

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

I'll reserve final judgement on how much Rhaegar's belief that he is (the father of) the Prince that Was Promised was reasonable until I get full information, but frankly from we know right now I don't think his belief was so out there. After all, the Summerhall thing was only about him, not about Viserys, or any future hypothetical child of doubtful longevity that Rhaella might yet bear. (For that matter, I think that the gap between Viserys and Daenerys, where no stillbirths or miscarriages are mentioned, speaks for itself. Aerys and Rhaella didn't sleep together, IMHO.)

Could be. But then, why could Viserys not be the promised prince? Because there were no sign heralding his birth? Perhaps Rhaegar just didn't see them? Summerhall was just a chance the Targaryens jumped on. Hey, there was smoke from the fire and salt from the tears. And we know the promised prince is supposed to be born from Aerys and Rhaella's line.

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

There's also the matter that he might have attempted to contact Ghost of HH or perhaps even the Green Men, who might have shared further information with him... after all, he had allegedly come across Lyanna near Harrenhal... which is near the God's Eye... which is very much the Avalon of Westeros. I doubt GRRM placed it all there for no reason. (Obvious parallels with the Arthurian legend are obvious. If we find out one day that Jon was originally named for Arthur Dayne, I may piss myself laughing. We don't really need such an obvious reference to get it.)

That is certainly a possibility. But then, some people advising Rhaegar on prophecy or making prophecies themselves doesn't necessarily clear up things. It could just muddy the water further. Rhaegar wanting to believe in prophecy and other people believing in prophecy advising them is not necessarily going to sound reasonable to Lyanna (or anybody else, really).

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

As for Rhaenys turning against Aegon in our hypothetical scenario, well, I assume that she would feel some loyalty for her full-blooded brother. There's a reason why children of the same two parents aren't considered the risk half-siblings are. There are no competing/feuding families that would each try to gain the main prize. Rhaenys could turn against Aegon, but would the Dornish support her in that? I doubt it. And if something ill befell Aegon, then Dorne would at least get a consolation prize in the form of a half-Dornish (and Dornish-looking) queen.

Why should Rhaenys feel something of that sort? A woman is supposed to be obedient and loyal to her husband, not the brother she did not marry.

The children of Alicent and Rhaenyra also didn't get along.

5 hours ago, RumHam said:

My main point here is that I think polygamy is illegal. For months in this thread people tried to argue that it wasn't. We know incest is illegal and Targaryens get away with it.

The best explanation is indeed that the monarch grants himself (and his relatives or other people) special permission to take a second wife or marry a sister or aunt. Incest marriages are arranged by the king, they are not conducted by the average Targaryen on a whim. Jaehaerys II and Shaera are the only exception and their marriage was later accepted by Aegon V. He most certainly could have annulled that match on a number of grounds - the bride and groom being still minors, they being brother and sister (and he himself considering incest an abomination as the commoners did), the king not have been permission, and so on).

5 hours ago, RumHam said:

The other issue that's come up a lot is this idea that the laws don't apply to Targaryens. This is not true, strictly speaking. In actuality only ruling monarchs are above the law. Most of the time the royal family is effectively above the law provided they are on good terms with the king. We know of at least two Targaryens who were charged with crimes, so they are clearly not all above the laws. So the issue then becomes "could Rhaegar practice polygamy without Aery's consent." I lean towards no, but again it's always possible he did it anyway and planned to straighten it out later. Either by making a deal with Aerys or by deposing him.

George is clearly speaking of the Targaryen kings there - the uncrowned Targaryens had little to no power at all, dragons or not. Daemon was a dragonrider while Viserys I was no longer yet the king still ruled Westeros and the marriages of his family.

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Funnily enough I think being on your deathbed is the perfect moment to believe your newborn son has a great destiny. Hell, I'd love my son to have a great destiny and I'm not even on my deathbed!

Well, I hope you never find yourself in some tower on the run, with only three guardsmen at your side. The idea that Lyanna thought her boy had a great destiny ahead of makes little sense. She feared for his life. That is the point of the promised she begged Ned to make.

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The problem of this paragraph is that you start by giving us a very personal perspective on Lyanna acting that way, and then say that you don't believe George would make Lyanna like that.
But I don't see why Lyanna passing on Rhaegar's dreams to their son on her deathbed makes her a "Rhaegar-appendix" of sorts... That's really a weird way of looking at something that is rather sweet and tragic.

I don't see any sweetness and tragic in Rhaegar and Lyanna trying to create some sort of super child. Nor do I find it a healthy or positive thing to declare your children prophesied saviors in the cradle. That just doesn't sit well with me.

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Did you miss the part where both @J. Stargaryen and I specifically stated that Lyanna could only have made such a connection after Rhaegar's death? Jon's true name wouldn't be about Rhaegar and Lyanna's love... Since they are dead or dying by the time he is named! This is about him and what will survive them...

That doesn't convince me. First, because I find the assumption unrealistic that Lyanna could have had a good confirmation that Prince Aegon was actually dead. While I can accept that she might have heard of the Trident and possibly even about the fall of King's Landing it is very unlikely that she rock-solid confirmation that Rhaegar's children were both dead. Who could have confirmed that for her? And would she have named her child Aegon if he could still have a living brother of the same name - after all, Aegon might actually still be alive, you know.

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Actually we just don't know. You're the one assuming that Rhaegar chose the name Aegon because his son was to be king of Westeros, based on Rhaegar's words in Dany's vision. But the wording doesn't actually say much about Rhaegar's thoughts on the matter.

I don't speculate about Rhaegar's unknown thoughts while they are unknown. He gives Elia a reason why he names their son Aegon and that's about the name being a king's name. If George wanted to give us a hint that the promised prince should also bear a special name like Aegon (which isn't all that special after all, considering that a lot of jerks bore that name) he certainly had the chance there in the vision. Why not have him say that Aegon is the proper name for the promised prince and a future king?

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Because you seem to be deliberately missing the best part of the prophecy. It is a prince that was promised, and princes do often become kings...

Sure, but usually there are much more princes than kings, right? And nobody ever said anything about the promised prince being the eldest son of some monarch. He could very well be the youngest son of the youngest son of king. That would still make him a prince.

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

More importantly, the Targaryens conquered Westeros because of a prophecy in the first place...

That's not a fact yet. Not unlikely, but still speculation up to this point. The Targaryens moved to Dragonstone because of a prophecy but we don't actually know why they conquered Westeros.

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

And the prophecy of tPtwP has a specific importance for Targaryens (it is linked to the return of dragons).
In other words, there is absolutely no reason to think Rhaegar would have separated the two. After all, he'd thought of himself first and he was supposed to be king too, wasn't he?

People thought he was the promised prince because the prophecy they believed in foretold that the promised prince would be born from the line of his mother and father. And because of the events surrounding his birth. Not because he was the eldest son of Aerys and Rhaella.

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

And, as I said, there's the way Dany sees it:

Dany clearly links the prophesy to the name Aegon. Worse theories have been built on far less textual evidence, methinks.

Well, that's just Dany's summary of the vision she saw. That's not what Rhaegar said, though.

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

As for what prophecy Rhaegar read exactly... We don't know. I agree it apparently didn't make any specific reference to the Others... But the Targaryens were so focused on birthing dragons that even if they knew the Others were coming back they probably wouldn't have seen the NW as a good defense against them.

That doesn't make much sense because dragons are not going to save things magically. They cannot stop a vast army of undead simply by themselves. The Wall would be an ideal place to await and stop the Others before they can invade the Seven Kingdoms. But the Targaryens did nothing to help the NW - which in itself is a confirmation that no prophecy they read refers in a clear way to the Others (say, by talking about ice demons or armies of the undead).

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Anyway, to conclude on this matter... I don't put great value in this theory. What I mean is that this isn't something I believe to be important, and I think Aemon is a possibility as well. But many of the reasons you give against it are essentially a matter of opinion. For instance you think it's far-fetched. I'd say I've seen more thought put by George into far less important stuff...

Thinking a little bit about it one could also make a good case that Rhaegar might have named him Aerys. The fact that he never openly rebelled against his father could be a hint that he really loved the old man - or at least the man he had once been. Or he wanted to carry favor with his father in the wake of the Lyanna affair. After all, in the end Rhaegar seems to have chosen his father and what he stood for over Lyanna. He lead an army to the Trident in Aerys II's name while Lyanna spend her last days/weeks in some tower in the middle of nowhere.

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Oh, I wouldn't know about that. Ned gently mocks Cat for it in one of her early chapters, but also doesn't argue with her when she points out that "direwolves too were the stuff of legends." Also, and I'm sure this irony was written on purpose, Ned swears "the Others take you both" a couple of pages later.
And Ned isn't the only Stark of course. Benjen would probably not laugh at the threat. Talking of which, I was wondering earlier whether Mormont talked about his fears to Ned, but Benjen might have worked as a messenger as well.
Basically, given how seriously the Starks always took the Night's Watch, I'm absolutely not convinced that they stopped believing in the existence of the Others. Theys simply hoped not to have to deal with them imho.

If that were true Ned would be even a greater moron in AGoT than he already is. He spoke to both Gared and Benjen before he went south but he just didn't give a damn about the Others. There is this vague feeling of foreboding and danger in his chapters - that he shouldn't be in KL, that his place is in Winterfell, etc. (possibly Bloodraven trying to reach him) - but he never can but a finger on that. That makes it exceedingly unlikely he actually believed in the Others.

25 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

What I truly don't get is that if you (Ygrain, or others) are so desperate to have Jon be the legitimate son of Rhaegar... Why not argue that he planned to repudiate Elia? Or even that there are ways, in the books, for a marriage to exist without a ceremony (Jon "stealing" Ygritte)?
Of all the ways for Jon to be legitimate, polygamy isn't the best one.

The agenda there is that Jon should already be the rightful king at the time of his birth. That's why these people also oppose the fact that Aerys II named Viserys his new heir, and not Aegon.

It is apparently not enough that Jon might end up on the throne in a different manner - say, as Dany's consort or her heir should she die in the end.

We are not going to get some universal recognition of Jon Snow as king at the end of the series, possibly even with divine signs and portents and some incarnated angel crowning him (as it happened in TLotR with Aragorn). Jon Snow most definitely will have to be acknowledged as Rhaegar's son and adopted into the Targaryen family by a member of that family (that is either Daenerys or Aegon) before he could have even a remote chance to ever lay claim to the Iron Throne. This is not a series where ragged dudes out of nowhere are going to acknowledged as kings. Not by a long shot. And no, riding a dragon won't be enough on its own. Nettles, Ulf, and Hugh didn't became kings either just because they could claim a dragon.

[Kingmonkey]

4 hours ago, Ygrain said:

 And what would it gain Rhaegar? A legitimate offspring, because a bastard is neither a prince nor a dragon.

Why can't a bastard be a dragon? I doubt Balerion's parents were married. 

Aemon made an important observation:

"No one ever looked for a girl," he said. "It was a prince that was promised, not a princess... What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise! The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame. The language misled us all for a thousand years. Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke. The dragons prove it."

Aemon came to believe that Dany was the princess who was promised -- unlooked for, because of an error in translation giving rise to a belief that "prince" indicated a male saviour. "Prince" indicates a person of royal blood who is both male and legitimate. If by the parallel with dragons we can ignore the "male" part as a false assumption based on the translation, why shouldn't the "legitimate" part also be a false assumption based on the translation? Dragons are neither male of female. Dragons are also not prone to getting married. 

In other words, neither being female NOR being a bastard should be taken to disqualify someone from being TPTWP. 

[RumHam]

3 hours ago, Damein Blackfyre true king said:

My biggest point is that the blood royals are above the law that what Martin was stating when you have dragons you do what u want. 

Again, just being a royal does not put you above the law. Being a king does. Being a dragonrider means people are a lot less likely to challenge you on anything, but even dragonriders were sometimes exiled by the king. 

3 hours ago, Damein Blackfyre true king said:

In our own history how many kings before magne Carta did as they pleased law or no law

Right, kings. Because prior to that it was an absolute monarchy like Westeros where there is nobody to tell the king "no, you can't do that." The same could not be said of a prince or princess or other members of the royal family. I'm not a history expert but I'd bet at least a few British royals were charged with crimes over the years. 

1 minute ago, Kingmonkey said:

Why can't a bastard be a dragon? I doubt Balerion's parents were married. 

<snip>

Totally agree. Why should we assume the subject of an ancient Valyrian prophecy should have to be legitimate in the eyes of the Seven.

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, Kingmonkey said:

Why can't a bastard be a dragon? I doubt Balerion's parents were married. 

Aemon made an important observation:

"No one ever looked for a girl," he said. "It was a prince that was promised, not a princess... What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise! The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame. The language misled us all for a thousand years. Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke. The dragons prove it."

Thinking about that for a moment we can actually be quite sure that the High Valyrian word that has been translated as 'prince' would have meant 'dragon' in the original, presumably already a stand-in for dragonlord back in Valyria. After all, the dragonlords were the blood of the dragon, and the dragons and they were one.

Now, we don't know the Valyrian customs concerning illegitimate children but I'm pretty sure the primitive Westerosi views of illegitimate children weren't ruling Valyrian day-to-day life. Had some by-blow of a dragonlord with a Lysene whore or some slave a chance to become a dragonlord himself? Probably not, unless the circumstances favored such a rise (say, if the family in question had a lot of dragons but too few dragonriders).

But the idea that the children of a dragonlord brother and a dragonlord sister who had fun with each other without being married would suffer such a ridiculous status as the bastards of Westeros is completely unlikely. Dragons and sorcery were the powers that governed Valyria, not medieval feudalism and monarchy.

In that sense I'd say that the promised prince could actually very well be some bastard. He could even be a bastard's bastard or common-born. All he (or she) needs to be is a descendant of Aerys II and Rhaella (if we assume the Ghost's prophecy is true).

[Rippounet]

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I hope you never find yourself in some tower on the run, with only three guardsmen at your side. The idea that Lyanna thought her boy had a great destiny ahead of makes little sense. She feared for his life. That is the point of the promised she begged Ned to make.

I don't think fearing for your child's life and seeing a great destiny for him are mutually exclusive at all. On the contrary, one may reinforce the other.

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't see any sweetness and tragic in Rhaegar and Lyanna trying to create some sort of super child.

Oh I don't think that's what they did. The beauty of Lyanna possibly naming her son Aegon is her understanding Rhaegar's ramblings only after his death and Jon's birth. In other words, it's the idea that the prophecy was only understood at the last possible moment, when it was already far too late to fix anything.

I like the irony in that possibility, and it fits my ideas on other related subjects, like the fact Lyanna was initially abducted for political reasons.

I only see it as a possibility mind you.

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't convince me. First, because I find the assumption unrealistic that Lyanna could have had a good confirmation that Prince Aegon was actually dead. While I can accept that she might have heard of the Trident and possibly even about the fall of King's Landing it is very unlikely that she rock-solid confirmation that Rhaegar's children were both dead. Who could have confirmed that for her?

Ned.
Since in my scenario Lyanna has to know that Aegon (Elia's son) is dead, I entertain the possibility that she only named her son (in a very literal sense then) after Ned arrived.

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't speculate about Rhaegar's unknown thoughts while they are unknown. He gives Elia a reason why he names their son Aegon and that's about the name being a king's name. If George wanted to give us a hint that the promised prince should also bear a special name like Aegon (which isn't all that special after all, considering that a lot of jerks bore that name) he certainly had the chance there in the vision. Why not have him say that Aegon is the proper name for the promised prince and a future king?

I think that's literally what Rhaegar does in Dany's vision.

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but usually there are much more princes than kings, right? And nobody ever said anything about the promised prince being the eldest son of some monarch. He could very well be the youngest son of the youngest son of king. That would still make him a prince.

Of course. I'm just saying a future king and a prince can be the same thing.

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That's not a fact yet. Not unlikely, but still speculation up to this point. The Targaryens moved to Dragonstone because of a prophecy but we don't actually know why they conquered Westeros.

Poor phrasing of mine. I only meant to say that it all started with a prophecy (that of the doom).

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't make much sense because dragons are not going to save things magically. They cannot stop a vast army of undead simply by themselves. The Wall would be an ideal place to await and stop the Others before they can invade the Seven Kingdoms. But the Targaryens did nothing to help the NW - which in itself is a confirmation that no prophecy they read refers in a clear way to the Others (say, by talking about ice demons or armies of the undead).

I honestly can't speculate as to what Rhaegar thought tPtwP was supposed to do. But him (or his predecessorsnot helping the NW seems rather inconclusive.
Though Aerys did want to build a second Wall in his youth... So you can't say the Targaryens never showed the NW any attention. In fact, funnily enough, this little detail might mean they did far more than we know.

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If that were true Ned would be even a greater moron in AGoT than he already is. He spoke to both Gared and Benjen before he went south but he just didn't give a damn about the Others. There is this vague feeling of foreboding and danger in his chapters - that he shouldn't be in KL, that his place is in Winterfell, etc. (possibly Bloodraven trying to reach him) - but he never can but a finger on that. That makes it exceedingly unlikely he actually believed in the Others.

I would tend to agree. Ned comes across as a deeply rational man, not the type that would seriously consider the possibility of the Otheres returning.

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The agenda there is that Jon should already be the rightful king at the time of his birth. That's why these people also oppose the fact that Aerys II named Viserys his new heir, and not Aegon.

It is apparently not enough that Jon might end up on the throne in a different manner - say, as Dany's consort or her heir should she die in the end.

We are not going to get some universal recognition of Jon Snow as king at the end of the series, possibly even with divine signs and portents and some incarnated angel crowning him (as it happened in TLotR with Aragorn). Jon Snow most definitely will have to be acknowledged as Rhaegar's son and adopted into the Targaryen family by a member of that family (that is either Daenerys or Aegon) before he could have even a remote chance to ever lay claim to the Iron Throne. This is not a series where ragged dudes out of nowhere are going to acknowledged as kings. Not by a long shot. And no, riding a dragon won't be enough on its own. Nettles, Ulf, and Hugh didn't became kings either just because they could claim a dragon.

Yeah, basically Jon has to be legitimate for him to be king, uh?
I dunno, I think I'm part of the crowd that sees riding a dragon might suffice.
I honestly hope we never even get an answer to this whole "legitimacy" thing. I'm really not sure the heroes in aSoIaF are supposed to be heroic because they are trueborn nobles or princes or whatever...

 

[lojzelote]

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I have no idea what the Seven might think or if the even exist. Old gods, though, do hear, and it might matter to them.

And the social conventions affect the way people think. GoHH prophesized that PTWP would be born from the line of Aerys and Rhaella, so the two had to marry, no-one ever considered that people don't have to be married to produce a child.

Plus, that tiny detail of not wanting to dishonour his lady might have played a role.

No, it is indeed not a social convention in the North to have more wives. But we yet have to see old gods say anything about the number of wives. 

No-one except Jaime and Cersei consider incest as a possibility, yet lots of people have a rather strong opinion about it. Yet, when the founding brother and sisters are mentioned, or Craster, or the Wildlings polygamy, no-one bats a lash.

Only after you explain, please, why the custom was rare even before Aegon.

Yet among all those who didn't consider it a good idea or not worth the trouble, the rogue prince actually did want to go for it, as you conveniently failed to mention. He didn't because he made the mistake of asking the king's permission beforehand, and after the king forbade it, there was nothing Daemon could do short of treason.

The evidence has it that no-one considered it possible for the Starks to be Kings in the North again, until, you know, they actually did.

- So back to the original question: why the heck did GRRM introduce the polygamy thing at all? Even if you claim that he changed his mind (which he explicitely said he doesn't do so as not to disrupt the flow of the narrative, once the clues have already been laid), it would mean that he did intend to use the polygamy card at some point. What you list as "evidence" confirms only one thing: that it was a rare thing, and problematic, but now and then, someone might want to go for it.

BTW, have you noticed how absconding with Lyanna without Aerys' permission effectively avoids Daemon's problem? Had Daemon decided to pull a Maegor, marry Rhaenyra and endure whatever hissy fit Viserys might put up, what would have happened?

The only homage that interests the "old gods" is some poor sucker's lifeblood flowing. I doubt CotF or their tree-changed greenseers particularly care about the totally man-made concept of bastardy. Neither do they have opinion on the allowed number of wives, because they don't give a fig about these human things. Again, marriage is a man-made social convention. It's the opinions of other humans that matter. The validity of a marriage is dependant upon it being recognized by other members of human society, not fairies in the trees.

You are really streching it here. Aerys and Rhaella were a royal prince and princess and - what's most important for the purposes of our discussion - they were both unmarried. Of course that Jaehaerys made Aerys and Rhaella marry to bring children into the world! Theirs was a completely different set of circumstances.

Yeah, people tend to be disgusted by incest. I don't see your point. You think they should express their disgust over polygamy more? Why? Cersei/Jaime gave the people of the Seven Kingdoms some triggering suspicions. OTOH polygamy is pretty much a dead practice. Had Joffrey decided to marry Sansa and Margaery both, we would have likely seen an uproar.

Anyway, you've gotten the impression that people aren't shocked and disgusted by the situation at Craster's keep? True, they are more disgusted by the idea of father raping his own daughters. I can't blame them that they aren't more horrified by the idea of Craster raping more than of his daughters at a time.

I really can't explain that since we don't have a deeper knowlwdge of Valyrian customs. We know that polygamy was a practice reserved for "sorceror princes" whatever the description encompasses. It appears Aenar Targaryen was one of them, but I don't think that Aegon the Conqueror was one (the sorceror of the trio was Visenya) and I'm decidedly sure Rhaegar wasn't one either.

But it doesn't really matter what rules there had been back in Valyria, no? Rhaegar lived in Westeros of the 3rd century. The Seven Kingdoms have their own taboos, customs and conventions. We also know that people reacted very very badly when Maegor tried his luck, in fact they reacted worse than when Aenys wed his son Aegon to his sister Rhaena (which is something that I've always found a bit strange since iRL most people might not think well of bigamists, but they would be far more disturbed by a brother/sister couple fucking... but there you go; the way GRRM had written it, High Septon lived down the incestous marriage of Aenys' children, but not the polygamous marriage of his brother).

He did? I don't actually remember that bit. I was pretty sure that Daemon wanted an annulment. Anyhow, the idea that not asking for the king's permission somehow makes the marriage okay is not true. Daemon did not ask for Viserys' permission when married Laena Velaryon, and we know that Viserys exiled them for it. The king has the full command of the line of succession; he can't just have his relatives making and disolving alliances without his leave. Avoiding the confrontation with the king doesn't make an unauthorized marriage of a prince accepted by the king.

In Rhaegar's case, there had been a much greater problem than Aerys: the existence of his lawful wife, Princess Elia of Dorne. Daemon's marriage to Laena was valid and the children trueborn, although they weren't part of the royal family until Viserys decided to reconcile with their father. But in Rhaegar and Lyanna's case the marriage would be considered invalid to begin with; even if Aerys had thrown his full support behind it, the proceedings wouldn't be smooth. Because Rhaegar already had a wife.

Anyway, since you're so fond of the idea of Rhaegar having one wife for duty and the other for love like Aegon the Conqueror, how do you feel about Prince Duncan's dilemma? If it was both sooo honorable and acceptable to pull this stunt, why didn't he make things easier for his royal father? Why didn't anyone bring it up as a possibility? After all, the marriage to Jenny would have been a morganatic one, so her children wouldn't have been a danger to the heirs born by the Baratheon queen.

The KitN business is mixing up together oranges and lettuce, sorry.

Now, a question.

Let's say that had indeed been a ceremony that Rhaegar had been dumb enough to present as a true marriage.

What do you believe it would accomplish?

Would it somehow make go away the fact that the country went KABOOM in the wake of their disappearance?

Is it supposed to prove to everybody that treat Jon as a bastard was wrong not because treating bastards differently than trueborn children is wrong, but because this particular bastard wasn't arguably a bastard?

Or will it be needed because Jon will be pathetic enough that only the confirmation that his parents had been married will give him a sense of self-worth?

What's the narrative purpose of it all?

To me it only kind of spoils the whole concept of cripples, bastards and broken things, the disadvantaged ones that have to stick together and work harder to receive recognition.

Sorry, to me it sounds cheap, just like that 1993 Arya-Jon romance where the conflict was resolved by their discovering they aren't siblings. Fortunately GRRM gave up on that idea and instead

Possible spoilers for Season 7 of the show

 

we will get Jon and Dany fucking before they discover they are related

Frankly, I really do think that Elia/Rhaegar/Lyanna marriage went the same way of non-existence. GRRM planned for it, but in the end decided to something else. Such things happen. Disrupting the narrative flow? No, not really. It's not a central storyline or anything.

Though I guess it could be also originally solved that way that Jon will be disgusted by his origins story, denounce his biological parents, and officially remain Ned Stark's (and Ashara Dayne's?) son for the rest of his life. Which I would like, because he deserves better parents than Mr Hubris and Miss Hypocritical (when-you-cheat-its-bad-when-Iam-the-other-woman-its-okay). They may have been a prince and a high lord's daughter, but if one looks at their legacy, that's also everything they had to be proud of. James and Lily Potter they ain't.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I don't think fearing for your child's life and seeing a great destiny for him are mutually exclusive at all. On the contrary, one may reinforce the other.

Sure, but ask yourself: Would your thoughts dwell on prophecies you never had a genuine interest in as far as we know while your are bleeding out or dying from some other reason after giving birth killed her?

I don't think so.

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Oh I don't think that's what they did. The beauty of Lyanna possibly naming her son Aegon is her understanding Rhaegar's ramblings only after his death and Jon's birth. In other words, it's the idea that the prophecy was only understood at the last possible moment, when it was already far too late to fix anything.

I don't find that all that beautiful and rather hard to actually depict in the books (see below).

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Ned.
Since in my scenario Lyanna has to know that Aegon (Elia's son) is dead, I entertain the possibility that she only named her son (in a very literal sense then) after Ned arrived.

From what AGoT gives us that's rather unlikely. Ned's memories don't give the impression he had the opportunity to talk much with Lyanna. What we get is that he she clutched his hand and begged him for his promise and then died. She would have to convey some information, mind you, but I very much doubt they had the time or the leisure (or the interest) to talk about KL, Aerys, and Rhaegar's children.

And even if they did - how do you think that could be revealed in the books? We are not likely to get a Lyanna POV in the near future and I don't think Lyanna and Ned talked prophecy of all things before she died.

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I honestly can't speculate as to what Rhaegar thought tPtwP was supposed to do. But him (or his predecessorsnot helping the NW seems rather inconclusive.
Though Aerys did want to build a second Wall in his youth... So you can't say the Targaryens never showed the NW any attention. In fact, funnily enough, this little detail might mean they did far more than we know.

To me that just likes to be some sort of grand scheme. Aerys was visited by Rickard and thus got interested in the Wall. There is no hint that his thoughts were on the NW under normal circumstances.

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yeah, basically Jon has to be legitimate for him to be king, uh?

He definitely has to be recognized as a Targaryen at one point. The series is not likely to have a king who isn't closely related to the royal dynasty. It is a feudal monarchy, after all. But he could very well be just an acknowledged or legitimized Targaryen bastard. Or some weirdo child born from a marriage of dubious validity which is posthumously confirmed by a Targaryen monarch. That could work, too.

But I find it actually very unlikely that Jon will become king in his own right. He is likely going to become a co-ruler of sorts, being the Alysanne to Dany's Jaehaerys I.

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I dunno, I think I'm part of the crowd that sees riding a dragon might suffice.

It might if there was only one dragon in town. But there are three. And I don't think the other dragonriders would just suffer as their new boss. Especially not Daenerys. You have to keep in mind that Jon is not likely to have a big army to support his claim. The North is pretty much done already and should be even more devastated should the Others become a real threat.

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I honestly hope we never even get an answer to this whole "legitimacy" thing. I'm really not sure the heroes in aSoIaF are supposed to be heroic because they are trueborn nobles or princes or whatever...

Not very likely. Howland Reed might know the truth and Bran can look into the past.

[RumHam]

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but ask yourself: Would your thoughts dwell on prophecies you never had a genuine interest in as far as we know while your are bleeding out or dying from some other reason after giving birth killed her?

Actually I could see that. If she was aware of the prophecy and of all the trouble their relationship had caused and that Rhaegar was dead and she was dying. I could then see her clinging to the idea that Jon was the chosen one and thus it was all worth it. 

But also I tend to think Rhaegar sold her on the prophecy pretty early on, and that she actually believed it.

[Lord Varys]

Just now, RumHam said:

Actually I could see that. If she was aware of the prophecy and of all the trouble their relationship had caused and that Rhaegar was dead and she was dying. I could then see her clinging to the idea that Jon was the chosen one and thus it was all worth it. 

But also I tend to think Rhaegar sold her on the prophecy pretty early on, and that she actually believed it.

I don't know. I don't see Lyanna buying crap like that. I think she was much more interested in Rhaegar as a person and how he treated and acknowledged her as such in the wake of the KotLT episode. I don't think they talked prophecy and then Lyanna just suddenly agreed to sleep with him or marry him. At least I hope that's not the case. Rhaegar better should have kept the whole 'I desperately need another child' card up his sleeve and play the 'I'm desperately in love with you since we first met' card.