R+L=J v.162

[purple-eyes]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

You are certainly free to disagree with me on what we know of Lyanna means regarding a possible marriage to Rhaegar, but what we know of Lyanna, we know. We know she takes a tourney sword in her own hands and scatters three squires for an injustice done to Howland Reed. We know she defies her father and learns to use a sword in battles against her brother. We know she tells her older brother that his friend is a man whose nature she wants nothing of even with this meaning she is against her own father's plans. We know Ned talks of the "iron underneath" her beauty, and tells his daughter of Lyanna's "wolf blood." My take on this is based on what we know of Lyanna's character tells us Lyanna would not settle for her child to be treated as less than worthy because of the lack of a ceremony. Is this certain? By no means, but I think what we do know of Lyanna's character points us in that direction.

Entirely possible. More likely she views all arranged marriages with hostility.

A second wife in the abstract, you may be right, but we are talking about what is possible in the real situation she finds herself. There are reasons to believe she loved Rhaegar. For instance, the fact she dies holding dead roses in her hand suggests she may well have felt very strongly for him. We are told Rhaegar is "fond" of Elia and there is no reason to think he does not care even more for his children. We are told Rhaegar loved Lyanna. So how does one square the circle of these facts? I think, I don't know for a fact, but I think based on what have learned of her, that Lyanna would accept a second marriage in which she doesn't share her husband except in a formal sense. I think Elia would also accept this relationship if her own status and that of her own children are not challenged.

Not sure who is pushing the notion that Rhaegar was trying to repudiate either Elia or her children. but the idea that Lyanna seduces Rhaegar is not out of the question at all. That she is "willing to accept whatever consequences came of it", I find highly dubious. My read is that she is a fighter against all things she finds unjust. I don't think love for Rhaegar stops her from doing so.

You listed a lot of things about Lyanna but I feel like you are taking them to a wrong way. She is wild, unmanagable, untamed and defiant. should not this make her more care about freedom and true love, not the social status and reputation? 

Daena the defiant never tried to marry Aegon IV or wanted him to practice polygamy. she seems ok to have daemon as a bastard. She did what she wanted so she did not care if she can be a lawful wife or something like that. 

I can see Lyanna say to rhaegar: " I love you! I do not care if I can marry you as a princess! freedom is everything! " than " you must make me future queen if you want to sleep with me!" 

 

[SFDanny]

2 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

I can see Lyanna say to rhaegar: " I love you! I do not care if I can marry you as a princess! freedom is everything! " than " you must make me future queen if you want to sleep with me!" 

You miss the point. I agree Lyanna is very likely not concerned about being the queen of anything. I think she would be very much concerned what not being a wife, instead of just Rhaegar's lover, would do to how her child would be treated. Nor do I believe the romance and sex didn't likely predate the marriage. There is a considerable time from when the "kidnapping" took place to when Rhaegar has to leave. Something was going on between the two of them.

[The Twinslayer]

12 hours ago, SFDanny said:

While your list of infidelities is impressive, they did not decide to do so as a collective. Nor does it change Ygrain's point about what the formal preferred custom is. Each case has to be looked at by itself. The question is, would Lyanna give birth to Rhaegar's child willingly accepting a role as his mistress and her child to live as a bastard, or would she demand to be married? If the latter, would Rhaegar say no to Lyanna? I think what we know of Lyanna tells us she would want the marriage, and what we know of Rhaegar tells us he would as well.

btw, did Jaehaerys I have a mistress while he was the Prince of Dragonstone, or did he just not ever have the formal title?

The point is that the entire culture of Westeros is sexually permissive, particularly prior to marriage (and even those who take vows of celibacy, like the Night's Watch and Kingsguard members, frequently take lovers).  In other words, pre-marital sex does not seem to be much of a problem.  Even Robert, who likely suspected that Lyanna went willingly, says he would have taken her back if she had survived.  And Ned only raised one child to adulthood -- Theon -- who was very active.  So that is the culture Lyanna came from.

Similarly, Rhaegar's family routinely took lovers even after marriage.  First night was practiced with such frequency on Dragonstone in the days of Aegon the Conqueror that Targaryen bastards had a special name -- "dragon seeds."  And there were dragon seeds long after first night was abolished.  I don't know whether Jaehaerys took lovers (or even whether he refrained from practicing first night before his sister-wife convinced him to abolish it) but given what we know about the rest of his family it would be shocking if he didn't.

So that raises the question:  what possible reason could we have for thinking that Rhaegar and Lyanna were different from just about everyone else?   I see none.

[Wrl6199]

1 minute ago, The Twinslayer said:

The point is that the entire culture of Westeros is sexually permissive, particularly prior to marriage (and even those who take vows of celibacy, like the Night's Watch and Kingsguard members, frequently take lovers).  In other words, pre-marital sex does not seem to be much of a problem.  Even Robert, who likely suspected that Lyanna went willingly, says he would have taken her back if she had survived.  And Ned only raised one child to adulthood -- Theon -- who was very active.  So that is the culture Lyanna came from.

Similarly, Rhaegar's family routinely took lovers even after marriage.  First night was practiced with such frequency on Dragonstone in the days of Aegon the Conqueror that Targaryen bastards had a special name -- "dragon seeds."  And there were dragon seeds long after first night was abolished.  I don't know whether Jaehaerys took lovers (or even whether he refrained from practicing first night before his sister-wife convinced him to abolish it) but given what we know about the rest of his family it would be shocking if he didn't.

So that raises the question:  what possible reason could we have for thinking that Rhaegar and Lyanna were different from just about everyone else?   I see none.

I guess people think that Rhaegar would be too honorable to father a child with Lyanna. But most arguments against it seem to be saying that he doe sent look like a Targaryen.

[Ygrain]

36 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

The point is that the entire culture of Westeros is sexually permissive, particularly prior to marriage (and even those who take vows of celibacy, like the Night's Watch and Kingsguard members, frequently take lovers).  In other words, pre-marital sex does not seem to be much of a problem.  Even Robert, who likely suspected that Lyanna went willingly, says he would have taken her back if she had survived.  And Ned only raised one child to adulthood -- Theon -- who was very active.  So that is the culture Lyanna came from.

Complete and utter BS. The Westerosi culture is sexually permissive towards men. Women, especially of noble birth, who get caught in the act are "dishonoured" and cannot hope for a good marriage, unless their family is wealthy enough or possess political leverage to sell them off anyway. Lysa came to Jon Arryn's bed "soiled", remember? Amerei was married off to a hedge knight, and Alayne 

Spoiler

asks Sweetrobin if he would "dishonour" her by impregnating her with his bastard

Robert might suspect that Lyanna went willingly but he is exonerating her by painting her as a victim in his mind (not to mention his unhealthy obsession with her). 

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

You are certainly free to disagree with me on what we know of Lyanna means regarding a possible marriage to Rhaegar, but what we know of Lyanna, we know.

Yes, but your interpretation of what we know is personal.

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

My take on this is based on what we know of Lyanna's character tells us Lyanna would not settle for her child to be treated as less than worthy because of the lack of a ceremony. Is this certain? By no means, but I think what we do know of Lyanna's character points us in that direction.

You miss the point. I agree Lyanna is very likely not concerned about being the queen of anything. I think she would be very much concerned what not being a wife, instead of just Rhaegar's lover, would do to how her child would be treated. Nor do I believe the romance and sex didn't likely predate the marriage. There is a considerable time from when the "kidnapping" took place to when Rhaegar has to leave. Something was going on between the two of them.

Being the bastard of a king (and Rhaegar could still expected to become king) would have been a decent position for the child. He could hope to be a knight, or even become the lord of a minor castle.
And if not, it's much easier to legitimize a bastard than to go into polygamy... Either Rhaegar could ask his father to do so (in exchange for something else) or do it himself, upon taking the throne*.
The idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna had to be married for the child's benefit doesn't hold water.

*in fact, if the fact that Rhaegar was about to have a bastard and wanted him legitimized became known to his father, it might explain why Aerys named Viserys his heir, thus getting rid of any potential problem between Rhaegar's children.

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

A second wife in the abstract, you may be right, but we are talking about what is possible in the real situation she finds herself. There are reasons to believe she loved Rhaegar. For instance, the fact she dies holding dead roses in her hand suggests she may well have felt very strongly for him. We are told Rhaegar is "fond" of Elia and there is no reason to think he does not care even more for his children. We are told Rhaegar loved Lyanna. So how does one square the circle of these facts? I think, I don't know for a fact, but I think based on what have learned of her, that Lyanna would accept a second marriage in which she doesn't share her husband except in a formal sense. I think Elia would also accept this relationship if her own status and that of her own children are not challenged.

I agree with you that we have a conundrum here, but I don't view polygamy as a satisfactory answer to it.

 

[purple-eyes]

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

You miss the point. I agree Lyanna is very likely not concerned about being the queen of anything. I think she would be very much concerned what not being a wife, instead of just Rhaegar's lover, would do to how her child would be treated. Nor do I believe the romance and sex didn't likely predate the marriage. There is a considerable time from when the "kidnapping" took place to when Rhaegar has to leave. Something was going on between the two of them.

if Lyanna thought about her future and her child's future and how her status would affect her child's situation as you suggested, she would not run off with him like that in the beginning. Not many people would think this is a good idea, right? 

Brandon and Lyanna had wolf blood which sent them to early graves. It sounds like Lyanna did not think that much at all when she eloped. All she had in mind were just probably Rhaegar's song and his beautiful indigo eyes. She probably did not even think about the future. She just wanted to go with Rhaegar. 

[SFDanny]

38 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yes, but your interpretation of what we know is personal.

The things we know about Lyanna, which I laid out in the last post, are there for all fans to share. We build interpretations on what we know. Add more things we know about Lyanna and my interpretation may change. As I hope yours would as well.

 

38 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Being the bastard of a king (and Rhaegar could still expected to become king) would have been a decent position for the child. He could hope to be a knight, or even become the lord of a minor castle.
And if not, it's much easier to legitimize a bastard than to go into polygamy... Either Rhaegar could ask his father to do so (in exchange for something else) or do it himself, upon taking the throne*.

Here's where your argument falls apart. Rhaegar and Lyanna are hiding from Aerys. Not knowing what his reaction will be, but hoping time, distance and need, will make him see reason and accept them back into society. A society the king has pushed into war by his murder of Lyanna's father and brother, and the call for the heads of another of Lyanna's brother and her former betrothed, and you think it much easier to get the king to agree to declare an unborn child legitimate, than for the two of them to find a drunken septon or sneak off into the a godswood and have a ceremony? The options of legitimatizing a coming child by Aerys good will is nil. The odds of the ceremony quite good. So, what was this?

38 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna had to be married for the child's benefit doesn't hold water.

Quite the opposite.

38 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

*in fact, if the fact that Rhaegar was about to have a bastard and wanted him legitimized became known to his father, it might explain why Aerys named Viserys his heir, thus getting rid of any potential problem between Rhaegar's children.

Yet we know when Viserys was named heir to Aerys - after Rhaegar's death at the Trident. Rhaegar and his line is maintained up to that point as the heirs to the throne. Only after Aerys's paranoid delusions about Dornish betrayals did he act to remove Aegon as the next in line to the throne. If Aerys knew of Rhaegar's child by Lyanna he could have disinherited the child or refused to recognized the second marriage, but we know nothing about any such actions.

38 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I agree with you that we have a conundrum here, but I don't view polygamy as a satisfactory answer to it.

While I think that polygamy is one of the few options the couple actually have in their own hands to deal with a problem of bastard status for their child. My read of what we know of these two individuals tells me they would see this as a problem and they would likely seize upon a solution they could handle themselves. That seems a much more satisfactory solution to the two characters than yours. But here we are getting into conclusions based on facts, and not just the facts themselves. 

[SFDanny]

36 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

if Lyanna thought about her future and her child's future and how her status would affect her child's situation as you suggested, she would not run off with him like that in the beginning. Not many people would think this is a good idea, right? 

Brandon and Lyanna had wolf blood which sent them to early graves. It sounds like Lyanna did not think that much at all when she eloped. All she had in mind were just probably Rhaegar's song and his beautiful indigo eyes. She probably did not even think about the future. She just wanted to go with Rhaegar. 

Love always plays a role in the things real people do, so I don't doubt it has its effect in Martin's story as well, but, no, I think this starts out as a rescue from an unwanted marriage and turns into something else later.

[purple-eyes]

6 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

The things we know about Lyanna, which I laid out in the last post, are there for all fans to share. We build interpretations on what we know. Add more things we know about Lyanna and my interpretation may change. As I hope yours would as well.

 

Here's where your argument falls apart. Rhaegar and Lyanna are hiding from Aerys. Not knowing what his reaction will be, but hoping time, distance and need, will make him see reason and accept them back into society. A society the king has pushed into war by his murder of Lyanna's father and brother, and the call for the heads of another of Lyanna's brother and her former betrothed, and you think it much easier to get the king to agree to declare an unborn child legitimate, than for the two of them to find a drunken septon or sneak off into the a godswood and have a ceremony? The options of legitimatizing a coming child by Aerys good will is nil. The odds of the ceremony quite good. So, what was this?

Quite the opposite.

Yet we know when Viserys was named heir to Aerys - after Rhaegar's death at the Trident. Rhaegar and his line is maintained up to that point as the heirs to the throne. Only after Aerys's paranoid delusions about Dornish betrayals did he act to remove Aegon as the next in line to the throne. If Aerys knew of Rhaegar's child by Lyanna he could have disinherited the child or refused to recognized the second marriage, but we know nothing about any such actions.

While I think that polygamy is one of the few options the couple actually have in their own hands to deal with a problem of bastard status for their child. My read of what we know of these two individuals tells me they would see this as a problem and they would likely seize upon a solution they could handle themselves. That seems a much more satisfactory solution to the two characters than yours. But here we are getting into conclusions based on facts, and not just the facts themselves. 

A ceremony does not equal to a valid marriage. I thought this is easy to understand. 

If just ceremony can make things happen so easily, Rhaegar should firstly hold a crowning ceremony at TOJ for himself. All he needed is a crown to become a king. 

[SFDanny]

2 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

A ceremony does not equal to a valid marriage. I thought this is easy to understand. 

Actually, I think the ceremony is valid until some action is taken to set it aside. Which of course means for others to learn of it. Whether or not a ceremony is recognized is another question.

6 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

If just ceremony can make things happen so easily, Rhaegar should firstly hold a crowning ceremony at TOJ for himself. All he needed is a crown to become a king. 

A different problem for which Rhaegar had a different solution - a Great Council - to remove his father from the throne. Your solution would enable lords great and small to declare for the king and lead to civil war. Rhaegar's has the advantage of getting the lords to agree up front to the change. I like his better.

[Rippounet]

10 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Here's where your argument falls apart. Rhaegar and Lyanna are hiding from Aerys. Not knowing what his reaction will be, but hoping time, distance and need, will make him see reason and accept them back into society. A society the king has pushed into war by his murder of Lyanna's father and brother, and the call for the heads of another of Lyanna's brother and her former betrothed, and you think it much easier to get the king to agree to declare an unborn child legitimate, than for the two of them to find a drunken septon or sneak off into the a godswood and have a ceremony? The options of legitimatizing a coming child by Aerys good will is nil. The odds of the ceremony quite good. So, what was this?

You're dodging the real issue. A ceremony is nothing if its validity is not widely recognized. Polygamy does not remove the problem of Aerys, and even in the long-run it's a risky bet with the Faith.

10 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Yet we know when Viserys was named heir to Aerys - after Rhaegar's death at the Trident. Rhaegar and his line is maintained up to that point as the heirs to the throne. Only after Aerys's paranoid delusions about Dornish betrayals did he act to remove Aegon as the next in line to the throne. If Aerys knew of Rhaegar's child by Lyanna he could have disinherited the child or refused to recognized the second marriage, but we know nothing about any such actions.

I honestly don't get what your argument is here, but it occurs to me that, quite ironically, Aerys naming Viserys heir could also be seen as proof that Rhaegar had in fact taken Lyanna as wife, and Aerys saw removing his entire line as a simple means of preventing later strife.
So this particular point is worthless, forget it.

10 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

While I think that polygamy is one of the few options the couple actually have in their own hands to deal with a problem of bastard status for their child. My read of what we know of these two individuals tells me they would see this as a problem and they would likely seize upon a solution they could handle themselves. That seems a much more satisfactory solution to the two characters than yours. But here we are getting into conclusions based on facts, and not just the facts themselves. 

I think for starters you see bastardy as too big of an infamy. That is the feeling you get through Jon's chapters, but let's bear in mind that Catelyn didn't make his life easy, that ht found himself in tough places, and that Targaryen bastards were something else.

Then, there's the fact that polygamy seems like the best "solution" to the problem. To some extent, I don't disagree with you on this one. Except this is such a bad solution that it even assuming everything went right (the rebels defeated, Aerys deposed, Rhaegar taking the throne... ) it would still create further issues.

Which means, imho, that there was no solution to Rhaegar and Lyanna's conundrum. Their relationship was doomed from the start.
And that is what makes it beautiful, in a way.
They could still hope for the best for their child in many different ways (legitimizing him/her, hiding his/her parentage... etc), but there was no realistic solution to the fact that Rhaegar already had a wife and family.

I believe you (and others) may be trying too hard to figure out a solution to a problem that doesn't necessarily exist in the first place.

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

You're dodging the real issue. A ceremony is nothing if its validity is not widely recognized. Polygamy does not remove the problem of Aerys, and even in the long-run it's a risky bet with the Faith.

No, not dodging at all, as I made clear the likelihood of a ceremony says little to whether or not it would be recognized. I said I did not think likely Aerys would give his approval, even going so far as to call the chances "nil." But the one does not mean the other did not take place. How recognizing that fact equates to "dodging the real issue" is beyond me, and it seems to conflate the two questions.

As to the Faith, I've already given my estimation of the Faith's ability to stand up and challenge a victorious Rhaegar once he, in a hypothetical future, ousts his father from the throne. You can look at my discussion with LV, if you're interested, but suffice it to say I don't think the Faith, during this time, has much power to do so.

Let me also say again, that I think Rhaegar's and Lyanna's choices or options during all of this are very limited with a very small chance of success, but I think they are playing out their hand with as much adroitness as possible given their goals and chances of achieving them. I think a second, polygamous marriage is part of the few options they have.

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I honestly don't get what your argument is here, but it occurs to me that, quite ironically, Aerys naming Viserys heir could also be seen as proof that Rhaegar had in fact taken Lyanna as wife, and Aerys saw removing his entire line as a simple means of preventing later strife.
So this particular point is worthless, forget it.

Well, we agree the point is worthless, but you raised it, not me. So, I'm not sure why you don't get the argument. Your idea is that the decree designating Viserys to be Aerys's new heir might be his way of dealing with a marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna. I was showing that both the timing of and what we know of the reasoning behind Aerys's decree has nothing to do, as far as we know, with such a marriage. So, yes, I think we can forget the point.

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I think for starters you see bastardy as too big of an infamy. That is the feeling you get through Jon's chapters, but let's bear in mind that Catelyn didn't make his life easy, that ht found himself in tough places, and that Targaryen bastards were something else.

Then, there's the fact that polygamy seems like the best "solution" to the problem. To some extent, I don't disagree with you on this one. Except this is such a bad solution that it even assuming everything went right (the rebels defeated, Aerys deposed, Rhaegar taking the throne... ) it would still create further issues.

Which means, imho, that there was no solution to Rhaegar and Lyanna's conundrum. Their relationship was doomed from the start.
And that is what makes it beautiful, in a way.
They could still hope for the best for their child in many different ways (legitimizing him/her, hiding his/her parentage... etc), but there was no realistic solution to the fact that Rhaegar already had a wife and family.

I believe you (and others) may be trying too hard to figure out a solution to a problem that doesn't necessarily exist in the first place.

I must say, Rippounet, I find this response amazing. Martin puts the difference of how bastard children are treated from their "trueborn" siblings front and center from his first chapter.  He does it with Jon. He does it with Gendry and all of Robert's bastards. He does it with Ser Duncan. He does it with dozens upon dozens of characters throughout the books. I didn't write this conflict into the story - he did. 

But it is not just that this theme is almost everywhere in Martin's world, it is that it is a central part of Jon's story. You know the character who has a very good chance of being the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. So, no, I'm not making this "too big," I'm reading what is there.

And, along the same lines, I didn't introduce polygamy into the story - Martin did. Not only did he introduce it as part of the long ago events of the conquest of Westeros, but he also brings it into his history at varies points along the way. Critically he introduces the question relative to both Jon, through the backstory of Rhaegar and Lyanna and Rhaegar's belief the Dragon must have three heads, and to Daenerys with the same prophecy and the claim by Ser Jorah that she, as a Targaryen royal can have more than one husband if she wants. So, no, those of us who think this might be relevant to whether or not Rhaegar and Lyanna might have married are not putting this question out of scale. We are reading the possibilities Martin is putting before us - not throwing them out out of hand because of some bias against a polygamous marriage. 

I will tell you a secret. I'd prefer a story in which Jon is really a bastard and not the trueborn prince. I just think Martin has laid out the clues for us that point to it being likely Rhaegar and Lyanna married.

[SFDanny]

9 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

The point is that the entire culture of Westeros is sexually permissive, particularly prior to marriage (and even those who take vows of celibacy, like the Night's Watch and Kingsguard members, frequently take lovers).  In other words, pre-marital sex does not seem to be much of a problem.  Even Robert, who likely suspected that Lyanna went willingly, says he would have taken her back if she had survived.  And Ned only raised one child to adulthood -- Theon -- who was very active.  So that is the culture Lyanna came from.

Similarly, Rhaegar's family routinely took lovers even after marriage.  First night was practiced with such frequency on Dragonstone in the days of Aegon the Conqueror that Targaryen bastards had a special name -- "dragon seeds."  And there were dragon seeds long after first night was abolished.  I don't know whether Jaehaerys took lovers (or even whether he refrained from practicing first night before his sister-wife convinced him to abolish it) but given what we know about the rest of his family it would be shocking if he didn't.

So that raises the question:  what possible reason could we have for thinking that Rhaegar and Lyanna were different from just about everyone else?   I see none.

My apologies, my friend, I should have replied sooner. Again, I must say I think Ygrain has a critical point about the double standard set for men and women in Westerosi societies. With the exception of the Free Folk of the far north, and to a much lesser extent in the culture of Dorne the difference from what happens to men who do not live up to the standard of virginity before marriage and fidelity within a marriage is profound when compared to what happens to women. I just don't think there is any argument this difference exists. The most glaring example, being Robert and Cersei. Robert can screw anyone or anything he wants, but Cersei's crime is punishable by death and the deaths of her children. I know, he's the king and there are special rules for kings. That doesn't change the fact these difference are real throughout Westerosi societies from top to bottom. A sexually permissive woman loses everything. A sexually permissive man is thought to just be doing what a man does, even if it is not nice to flaunt it in front of the women and children.

But once again, let me point out these realities are not carried out collectively, at least not for the whole of society. So setting aside the occasional orgy, we have these decision taken within the context of couples and how they respond to societies norms. We have to ask not what a list of many people who engage in sexual infidelities tells us about societies hypocrisies, but what are the likely response by the couple in question - Lyanna and Rhaegar? The obvious conclusion is that Rhaegar is already being unfaithful to Elia, but that doesn't tell us if he is likely being unfaithful to Lyanna. I've already said why I think the characters as we are given them in the text leads me to believe these two are likely faithful to one another. That doesn't make them unique. It just make them somewhat different than many of the people on your list

[Shmedricko]

Quote

Ned Rhaegar had lingered scarcely a fortnight with his new bride before he too had ridden off to war with promises on his lips. At least he had left her with more than words; he had given her a son. Nine moons had waxed and waned, and Robb Jon had been born in Riverrun the Tower of Joy while his father still warred in the south north. She had brought him forth in blood and pain, not knowing whether Ned Rhaegar would ever see him. Her son. He had been so small … (Catelyn Lyanna X, AGOT)

?

[Rippounet]

18 hours ago, SFDanny said:

No, not dodging at all, as I made clear the likelihood of a ceremony says little to whether or not it would be recognized. I said I did not think likely Aerys would give his approval, even going so far as to call the chances "nil." But the one does not mean the other did not take place.

Apologies then, I probably went too fast. So we both agree that Aerys wouldn't have recognized Rhaegar's marriage to Lyanna. I gather from the rest of your post that you think Rhaegar would have been confident of having the marriage recognized once he became king...

Well, I honestly don't know whether I agree or disagree. Perhaps Rhaegar could have been that confident....

18 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I must say, Rippounet, I find this response amazing. Martin puts the difference of how bastard children are treated from their "trueborn" siblings front and center from his first chapter.  He does it with Jon. He does it with Gendry and all of Robert's bastards. He does it with Ser Duncan. He does it with dozens upon dozens of characters throughout the books. I didn't write this conflict into the story - he did. 

But it is not just that this theme is almost everywhere in Martin's world, it is that it is a central part of Jon's story. You know the character who has a very good chance of being the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. So, no, I'm not making this "too big," I'm reading what is there.

I think you're not looking at the greater picture though.

Let's start with Jon. Certainly, his first few chapters make it seem as if being a bastard is a terrible curse. Things change when he gets to the Wall though, and you realize that all in all he is pretty much the equivalent of a noble... Which he becomes in a way, when he starts being called "Lord Snow." At some point, as a reader, one gets to understand that Jon's bastardy was essentially impressed on him by Cat, and that his pride and ambitions are what wound him... But being Ned Stark's bastard was never that bad. In fact, given Jon's relationship with Robb and Arya, one might daresay that Jon nearly had the life of a trueborn Stark anyway.
More importantly, what's interesting is that as soon as Jon stops focusing on what he can't have, he accomplishes a lot, and eventually becomes Lord Commander. What I see in Jon's story is that it doesn't actually matter whether he is a bastard or not, his values and abilities are what do.

And this is just Jon. Not far from him (geographically) you find an interesting parallel with Ramsay, who also grew up in a castle, and eventually gets legitimized. Later we have "Alayne," Littlefinger's "natural daughter," who is supposed to marry a noble...

Now, if you start looking at Robert's bastards, you have to remember that Gendry was never acknowledged ; in fact, we don't know whether Robert even knew he existed. Mya he knows, and even wanted to bring to King's Landing ; Cersei prevented that, but Mya still got to live in a castle, though as a servant. And then you have Edric Storm, who was acknowledged, grew up in a castle, and may have his own ambitions for his future (he may have his own coat of arms, among other things)..

Still looking at kings' bastards, we have the Great Bastards who had considerable influence in Westeros.

You get where this is going.... I think you forget that Jon is supposed to be Ned's bastard with a commoner, and had to live under the same roof as Ned's wife and trueborn children. A prince's bastard with a noblewoman would have a far better life than Jon's... And better prospects as well.

You may say there would still be the "stigma" of being bastard-born. But we don't know whether Rhaegar and Lyanna would have seen this "stigma" as so important as to risk polygamy. More importantly, we have no way of knowing whether being the child of a second wife would be much better than being the bastard of a noble mistress... For a prince, or a king, I would say this is pretty much the same.
And anyway, Rhaegar could always legitimize his son after becoming king. Again, Jon's wellbeing does not require his parents marrying at all... A marriage only really benefits Lyanna.

In a nutshell, I believe Jon's chapters have misled you about how bad being a bastard is when the rest of the story brings many nuances to that. You may also be reading the books as if they belong to a specific genre... (see below).

18 hours ago, SFDanny said:

And, along the same lines, I didn't introduce polygamy into the story - Martin did. Not only did he introduce it as part of the long ago events of the conquest of Westeros, but he also brings it into his history at varies points along the way. Critically he introduces the question relative to both Jon, through the backstory of Rhaegar and Lyanna and Rhaegar's belief the Dragon must have three heads, and to Daenerys with the same prophecy and the claim by Ser Jorah that she, as a Targaryen royal can have more than one husband if she wants. So, no, those of us who think this might be relevant to whether or not Rhaegar and Lyanna might have married are not putting this question out of scale. We are reading the possibilities Martin is putting before us - not throwing them out out of hand because of some bias against a polygamous marriage. 

I will tell you a secret. I'd prefer a story in which Jon is really a bastard and not the trueborn prince. I just think Martin has laid out the clues for us that point to it being likely Rhaegar and Lyanna married.

Well I can't fault the logic in saying that a polygamous marriage is possible. However, because I don't see what it changes for the story I don't see any clue pointing to the marriage. In fact, it had honestly not occurred to me that they could have married until I read it on this forum!

Why? Well I don't think this is a story in which parentage matters much. I think we (the readers) were always meant to see Jon as being a hero whatever his origins. Sure, his parentage matters, because his Targaryen side may bring him some special abilities -and a special destiny. But the only way him being legitimate from birth would really matter is if he becomes king.

And even if he were to become king, would Martin really want the moral of the story to be that in the end it actually matters whether you are trueborn or not? I doubt it. A "classic" fantasy story would probably see the main character have his wishes fulfilled, i.e. the lowly bastard-born would turn out to be a trueborn prince. I don't believe aSoIaF is that kind of story though. In fact, if you think twice about it, the very fact that you have to use an element like polygamy to get to the "classic" scenario shows that this is a rather unlikely one.

I could be wrong. ASOAIF could still turn out to be more "classic" than I think, and Martin could still go for a "return of the king" scenario. But ath this point in the story, with the elements we have... It doesn't seem likely to me.

 

[purple-eyes]

True.

If GRRM wrote a tree marriage for R and L in the book, then it is obvious that he wants to give Jon a flawless trueborn origin.

It another word, this means that being a bastard is a flaw, this stain has to be removed for Jon to become a ultimate hero.

It does sound lame and a little bit..........incorrect.

 

 

 

[Alia of the knife]

All is well here I see.

[Kingmonkey]

On 16/11/2016 at 10:06 PM, purple-eyes said:

It another word, this means that being a bastard is a flaw, this stain has to be removed for Jon to become a ultimate hero.

It does sound lame and a little bit..........incorrect.

Nicely put. You'd almost think that GRRM didn't have much time for "bastards and broken things". 

Here's another way around to look at this, just for fun:

Maybe Rhaegar could have got away with polygamy the way some Targaryens had got away with in the past, but at the very least this would be controversial. 

Rhaegar would have assumed that one day, possibly quite soon, he was going to be king.

Kings can legitimise bastards.

If Rhaegar felt it was for some reason important that his third child be legitimate, marriage was not the most secure and reliable way to ensure the child's legitimacy, decreeing it would have been. Why risk dispute and controversy to achieve something you can achieve far more simply and uncontroversially anyway?

Thus I suggest that if the theorised polygamous marriage occurred, it was for Lyanna's sake not Jon's, and it's Lyanna's attitudes we have to speculate on. 

 

 

 

[Ygrain]

3 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

it's Lyanna's attitudes we have to speculate on. 

And Rhaegar's, as well, for the sake of Lyanna.