Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

[SFDanny]

2 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

 For the second point, I can't see why they would be there for any other reason than they believe it is the right thing to do.  Have you seen any good ideas as to why they would still be with Lyanna and Jon if they didn't think Jon was heir?

I've suggested my own thoughts on this in the links in my signature. Particularly post #4.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

I think if you're going to claim that maegor's wives were regarded as mistresses then you have to prove this using the text. Cos as far as I am aware there is no such intimation in any of the books. 

Also in regard to marriages in Westeros and outside of it. When Robert is given the information that daenerys has married and is with child, if a marriage outside of the seven is not recognised then Robert need only dismiss this wedding as false and any fruit of her womb as a bastard. 

The whole of Westeros recognises Old Gods weddings because to not do so would bastardise the entire of the north and disinherit thousands of highborn children including those born to Northern or old gods following brides sent south and wed in their own fashion. Say Lorra Royce weds Berron Stark in the way of his people then her parents would have to believe they sent their daughter off to be nothing but a mistress and they would never recognise her children as legitimate. Say Lord Frey sends his daughter to wed a Blackwood but he wishes to wed in the old god's style do you really think Lord Frey will view his daughter as the mother of bastards? Or that anyone would refuse the hand of a child of their union because it is a "bastard". The idea that anyone could accuse northerners of not being really married falls on its arse. 

Ramsey did it both ways to tie it all up in a neat bow. But this is overkill. No one has ever doubted the legitimacy of a weirwood wedding in the text. Nor of any other type of wedding. 

The septon at CB did not refuse to marry them as far as I recall. I think it is clear in the text that Mellisandre officiates because she and Stannis have enforced R'hloorism as the religion there on pain of death. Alys and Sigorn can't really ask for a weirwood wedding because Sigorn has sworn he's a convert and Alys is at the mercy of their kindness. And no one is doubting the legitimacy of their wedding either. 

Besides ygrain pointed out GRRM has said there was and IS precedent. Meaning Polygamy is still possible. And unless there is something in the cannon which states that it is not I'm going to continue to assume it is. 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

Put it this way, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it. Does it make a sound. Of course it fucking does! 

If a couple marry and they have a kid even if no one ever knows they got married that child is still in fact legitimate. Because the marriage took place. 

So as you seem to agree that it is possible and indeed quite likely that they did get married (and I like your maidenpool  idea btw I've never heard that before and would like to know more.) then they were married. And as I pointed out before the thoughts of the HS at the time or anyone else for that matter are irrelevant because it is only the people present now, and their opinion which will count. 

And you seem to grasp this yourself as well, as you say

Quote

Anybody who says now that Lyanna's son is the rightful king basically doesn't know what he or she is talking about. There are no rightful kings in this world. Kings are made

 

Indeed Kings are made not born because ultimitly they only hold power because others support their claim and keep their arse on the throne. Via their loyalty. So if enough people support his claim he is king. 

But even if he nor anyone else ever knows he is the heir; he is still the heir. the elder of the two princes who went to the tower was the heir to the throne of England. His Uncle usurping his claim didn't make him not. It just meant his claim got ignored because those with the power to do so wished it. 

And as we see Bastards can easily become "legitimate" as and when those with the power wish it to happen. I just don't think he is a bastard, because in my opinion if a wedding happened it happened. There is no law against polygamy in this world. That is abundantly clear. It is tabboo but not illegal. There was and IS precedent. Daavos thinking of some of Salladoors (sp) wives as mistresses is the opinion of one- low born- man. He's been raised high by Stannis but his lived experience is that of a lowborn and his opinions will be formed by that.  Lords howether may view things differently depending upon what suits their own agenda. Henry VIII lived in a world where incest was abhorant and illegal but that didn't stop him considering asking for a dispensation for him to marry his son to his daughter. I highly doubt hoether that mr brown of shit avenue in shitby town would think it a possibility should he suffer an inheritance problem similar to the kings. Now imagine Henry needs no such dispensation, and there is precedent for it. Hell he'd have had Henry & Mary up the aisle and thought himself ever so clever for solving that little issue. 

The Targaryens certainly viewed things differently to the small folk and Rhaegar taking a second wife not only has precedent but he has motive. Elia can not give him a third, and he believes he must have one. 

It is undoubteble that should a wedding come to be widely known about and Jon shown to be the fruit of that union some lords will flock to his claim. And they may not be the same lords or have the same reasons as those who would have supported Rhaegar in taking a second wife in the first place as by then the landscape politically in Westeros is vastly different. Some who support Jon's claim may be those who at the time would have vhemenantly opposed the marriage between Rhaegar & Lyanna. it will all depend upon what their needs and desires are when it comes out.  

[SeanF]

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 1:41 PM, Lord Varys said:

@Lady Blizzardborn

Rhaegar would never have gotten such a dispensation without the permission of the king. And Aerys II was in no mood to grant his son such a request. Even Viserys I didn't grant Daemon something like that, and Viserys loved Daemon. Aerys, on the other hand, distrusted Rhaegar and feared the man was plotting depose and/or kill him.

We know from Ran that the High Septon essentially became the puppet of the Targaryen kings after Jaehaerys I made his deal with the Faith. The chance that a High Septon before the High Sparrow could do anything as major as permitting the Prince of Dragonstone a second wife without a permission from the king are very low indeed.

Also keep in mind that Aerys II had a spare in Viserys. House Targaryen did not necessarily need heirs from Rhaegar, even though Rhaegar himself might have wanted sons.

A morganatic second marriage might have been a possibility.  Not only could Elia not bear a third child, she was at risk of death if she conceived.  Presumably, she and Rhaegar would have agreed at that point not to have any further sexual relations.

[Ygrain]

11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

But you're missing the main point, which is time. There can't be enough time between Jon's birth and Ned's arrival for the KG's presence at the ToJ to be meaningful. They've all stayed far away from the king for weeks or months, even after the Trident. At what point exactly is Jon's legitimacy supposed to have played a role? In order to argue that their presence means what you say it means you have to say there was a moment in time when the KG should have left the ToJ but decided to remain instead, because of Jon. This decisive moment would of course have to be after the Sack (or else Aegon comes before Jon) and after Jon's birth (otherwise he could have been a girl), but obviously before Ned's arrival.

Sorry but I really have no idea what you are trying to say here. Why shouldn't be there enough time to make the presence meaningful, and why do you bring up the fact that the KG had been away from the king after the Trident? The Trident is not the moment when the collective KG duty is no longer being fulfilled, the Sack is, and it follows shortly after the Trident. The Sack is also the point when the KG should have left ToJ to go to the King because that's when the King ceased to have any KG protection; obviously, the KG don't find out immediately.

Besides, time is not such a factor as you are making it to be. First, Jon needn't have been born prior their decision, there would have been interregnum before Lyanna gave birth. Second, they outright refuse to go to Viserys because that would be fleeing from their KG duty - how the hell can fulfilling one's primary duty to protect their King be fleeing? They say that it is perfectly alright for their King to be protected by a man of lower standards than KG because the KG have some other bloody important duty elsewhere.

 

11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

This is why your argument is completely circular. You're arguing that Jon has to be legitimate because the KG were at the ToJ, but in order to use the KG's presence you have to argue that there was necessarily a point in time when Jon's legitimacy forced the KG to stay.

Because it's not implication but equivalence. It's basically the same dilemma that Larys (?) solved by not having any KG with Aegon II while he was being smuggled out of KL under a heap of fish: the King always has a KG with him, hence if there is a KG, there must be a King somewhere around. Therefore, no KG meant that no-one would be looking for the King there.

11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The problem is...  There's no way you can prove there was such a point in time.

It's the point when the Targ King has no KG with him.

11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It supposes that news of the Sack reached the KG before Ned, but also that Jon was born before Ned arrived. And as silly as this question may seem... Is there even anything in the text saying Jon was born before Ned arrived? Did the KG even know that Lyanna's baby would be a boy?

Nope. And as I stated above, when the succession line is unclear, e.g. because of pregnancy, there is interregnum - nobody is king until the succession become clear. And since Lyanna's term was relatively shortly after the Sack, they would be waiting for a couple of weeks at best. However, their insisting that they wouldn't "flee" to Viserys because their KG duty was at ToJ shows that they are certain where their duty lies, i.e. post-birth.

11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

But that is your major problem: your interpretation of the fever dream only works if there was no additional exchange.

For starters if there was any additional exchange, it may mean that the KG are really receiving their information from Ned. The idea that they knew about the Sack before Ned's arrival already rests on very little (mainly, their use of the term: usurper).
Then there's the very significant problem that since we the readers know that Ned just had a terrible fight with Robert over the death of Aegon and Rhaenys, any additional exchange between the KG and Ned would have shown that there was no way Ned could be a threat to his own nephew. In other words, the only way Jon is the reason for this fight is if Ned and the KG do not communicate, as in the dream.

In a nutshell, we're back to what I said originally: any literal reading of the fever dream is probably mistaken.

Complete and utter BS. What the dream shows is that the KG are up-to-date with the latest happenings and know what they are doing, and why. Whether they had known beforehands or learned only from Ned doesn't really matter; what matters is that they made an informed decision that made sense not only to them but to Ned, as well, albeit perhaps in retrospect. The fight did ensue, and if it was right after Ned's arrival, or if days passed between his arrival and the fight, again does not matter. The KG's interests - keep Jon secret for the time being and crown him later would be at odds with Ned's interest to fulfill his duty to his king (and perhaps to Lyanna, who may not have wanted her son to be a pawn in the game of thrones). Jon may not even have been there any longer and the KG might have been doing what Aegon II's KG did, kept off the King not to draw attention to him, and it would have been vital not to let anyone know that Lyanna had given birth. There is a whole number of scenarios of which the dream is merely a summation of the most important facts.

[SeanF]

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 0:39 PM, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

 

6: Jorah absolutely does suggest Polyandry to Daenerys, and neither if them mention it's supposed illegality during that conversation. In fact he seems to think it's totally plausible. Also realistically Dany has already left herself in a position where she will be left with no option but to engage in it. As if she leaves Essos without Hizdhar being known to be dead she has no other choice.  she will very much need to take a husband in Westeros.  We don't ever encounter her considering the bind she places herself in when she marries him. So it stands to reason that she doesn't feel it is the bind it would be if he can be her only husband.

 

 

Dany comments internally that Westeros would never accept Hizdahr as her husband.  Presumably, that means not even as consort, let alone a King.

Assuming that she had no intention of repudiating her marriage to Hizdahr, that would suggest that she would take a second husband if and when she took the Iron Throne.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

Just now, SeanF said:

Dany comments internally that Westeros would never accept Hizdahr as her husband.  Presumably, that means not even as consort, let alone a King.

Assuming that she had no intention of repudiating her marriage to Hizdahr, that would suggest that she would take a second husband if and when she took the Iron Throne.

 

 

Absolutely! 

If she has a husband whom she has left in Mereen ( and I highly doubt she would take him with her) she simply must take a second husband in Westeros. And one of political advantage for preference.  

 

[Ygrain]

One point about marriage: it is an exchange of vows. And what is said about vows? Once you say the words, you are in.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

A morganatic second marriage might have been a possibility.  Not only could Elia not bear a third child, she was at risk of death if she conceived.  Presumably, she and Rhaegar would have agreed at that point not to have any further sexual relations.

 

I was raised as a Mormon. And though I won't claim to be an authority as I was a British Mormon but essentially the church is the church. And I learnt church history. Historically speaking first wives hold supremacy and authority and all her children come first. So to speak. I'm not sure about other forms of Polygamy practice. But certainly that is what I was taught growing up in regard to the polygamy which absolutely doesn't still happen, of course not, it's illegal, no one does that. Nothing to see here. 

So I always imagine polygamy in that model. That the first wife is the authority amongst the wives and her children will be seen as the heirs so to speak. 

In this situation Elia can not carry anymore pregnancies as to do so risks her life. So I highly doubt in a world with no permanent or 100% reliable B/C and sketchy at best and also highly risky abortion with no sanctioning of either by the state or the dominant religion, that Elia would even be expected to ever have sex with Rhaegar again. 

So in my mind, I absolutely think that a Morganatic second marriage with Elia being relieved of her sexual duty is what would have happened. 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

12 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

One point about marriage: it is an exchange of vows. And what is said about vows? Once you say the words, you are in.

Yup. 

 

[Lord Varys]

39 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I think if you're going to claim that maegor's wives were regarded as mistresses then you have to prove this using the text. Cos as far as I am aware there is no such intimation in any of the books.

I was talking whether Maegor and the Realm saw Maegor's wives as his queens. There is a difference there. Royal harems usually have a hierarchy. The king or emperor keeping them has one principal wife, the queen or the empress, and then a lot of secondary wives who are barely more than concubines. The idea that all of Maegor's wives were equal makes little sense.

Ceryse was discarded after Alys. Alys and Tyanna were close to each other at one point (Tyanna was allegedly not just Maegor's lover in Pentos but also Alys' lover) but Tyanna was a bastard and a former courtesan. Maegor did marry her but we don't know whether anyone considered her a queen. She was ever farther beneath him than Jenny of Oldstones was beneath Prince Duncan. Still, Maegor gave Tyanna a lot of power. Maegor's queen during his first years would thus have been Alys. After he death Tyanna may have stepped into her place since Maegor had only one wife for three years.

Of the black brides Elinor and Jeyne are clearly little more than concubines, tools Maegor used to finally father an heir. Only Rhaena was well-bred enough to be his queen, not to mention that this match would have helped him to secure a throne that was already beginning to slip away. Had he fathered a son on Rhaena his legacy would have been secured.

Quote

Also in regard to marriages in Westeros and outside of it. When Robert is given the information that daenerys has married and is with child, if a marriage outside of the seven is not recognised then Robert need only dismiss this wedding as false and any fruit of her womb as a bastard.

The whole of Westeros recognises Old Gods weddings because to not do so would bastardise the entire of the north and disinherit thousands of highborn children including those born to Northern or old gods following brides sent south and wed in their own fashion. Say Lorra Royce weds Berron Stark in the way of his people then her parents would have to believe they sent their daughter off to be nothing but a mistress and they would never recognise her children as legitimate. Say Lord Frey sends his daughter to wed a Blackwood but he wishes to wed in the old god's style do you really think Lord Frey will view his daughter as the mother of bastards? Or that anyone would refuse the hand of a child of their union because it is a "bastard". The idea that anyone could accuse northerners of not being really married falls on its arse. 

That isn't the point. The point is that marriage as defined by the Faith of the Andals is a union between one woman and one man. Not one man and multiple women. Insofar as other religions and cultures are monogamous the Faith is accepting them, too, explaining why nobody says anything about monogamous tree marriages or monogamous Seven Cities or Dothraki marriages.

However, if some Northman had a polygamous tree marriage only the first marriage would be seen as valid by the Faith, just as it is today in our western societies with bigamist and polygamists.

Also note that the Faith and the people of Westeros in general don't accept the Ironborn difference between rock and salt marriages. You can only have one wife, any you wives you may take again are nothing but mistresses.

In general, the marriage concepts between the Andals and the First Men are pretty similar, so there is no great confusion there. But if some foreign polygamist would try to settle in Maidenpool or Stoney Sept he most likely would quickly learn that the people there don't suffer that kind of thing in their town.

Quote

The septon at CB did not refuse to marry them as far as I recall. I think it is clear in the text that Mellisandre officiates because she and Stannis have enforced R'hloorism as the religion there on pain of death. Alys and Sigorn can't really ask for a weirwood wedding because Sigorn has sworn he's a convert and Alys is at the mercy of their kindness. And no one is doubting the legitimacy of their wedding either. 

We don't why it happened the way it did. It could even be that Melisandre suggested the whole thing and then Jon asked her to perform the rites. We just jump ahead in time there without ever learning how things moved in that direction.

Quote

Besides ygrain pointed out GRRM has said there was and IS precedent. Meaning Polygamy is still possible. And unless there is something in the cannon which states that it is not I'm going to continue to assume it is. 

That means nothing. There is precedent for a lot of things. That doesn't mean people have to accept it. A precedent like polygamy has to be enforced by somebody with real power. It is not something people can't object to if you find some distant ancestors who (sort of) got away with it, if you interpret things the way you want.

And Rhaegar failed with his polygamy thing if he really did marry Lyanna. He was killed and his child doesn't even know who he his father is.

12 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Put it this way, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it. Does it make a sound. Of course it fucking does! 

If a couple marry and they have a kid even if no one ever knows they got married that child is still in fact legitimate. Because the marriage took place. 

This is were you err. Marriage is a social convention, nothing more. It is the public declaration that two people belong together (or rather that a woman now belongs to a man) and that any child that woman gives birth to is the man's seed. That's it. If there is no public declaration then there is no marriage.

If you marry in secret then you haven't married at all. That is why people who do this usually eventually have to reveal that they have married in secret because if they did not then any children of that union would be, in fact, illegitimate. Because legitimacy and illegitimacy are social constructs, too. Other people decide whether a child is a bastard or not on the basis whether it has been born in wedlock or not. And if they don't know that there was (allegedly) a marriage a child becomes a bastard by default.

Quote

So as you seem to agree that it is possible and indeed quite likely that they did get married (and I like your maidenpool  idea btw I've never heard that before and would like to know more.) then they were married. And as I pointed out before the thoughts of the HS at the time or anyone else for that matter are irrelevant because it is only the people present now, and their opinion which will count. 

No, there might have been marriage ceremony but that doesn't mean that people would have accepted it because it went against the custom and the very concept of Andal marriage. The Andals do not recognize polygamous unions as valid.

Just because something goes through a ceremony doesn't make it so. Ramsay did, too, but since Lady Hornwood most likely was forced to go through the motions that was a farce, too. Just as Sansa's marriage to Tyrion was. Now, people ignore the fact that those matches were invalid but they don't have to. And in Rhaegar's a lot of very important people - from Aerys II and the High Septon down to the Starks, Baratheons, and Martells - had a lot of good reason to not accept such a marriage.

Quote

Indeed Kings are made not born because ultimitly they only hold power because others support their claim and keep their arse on the throne. Via their loyalty. So if enough people support his claim he is king.

Sure, but nothing indicates anybody considered the child of Lyanna the king.

And even if the three knights at the tower did think he was or should be king (which I don't think they did) that means nothing. Jon would then be as much a king as Trystane Truefyre and Gaemon Palehair were.

Quote

But even if he nor anyone else ever knows he is the heir; he is still the heir. the elder of the two princes who went to the tower was the heir to the throne of England. His Uncle usurping his claim didn't make him not. It just meant his claim got ignored because those with the power to do so wished it. 

Edward V was never crowned and there was some legal pretext used to declare him and his younger brother a bastard. Essentially because Edward IV had essentially already been married to another when he married Elizabeth Woodville. 

Aerys II's heir upon his death was Viserys III, not some boy he never knew existed. An heir, too, is declared and chosen. Lyanna's son might have been born after Rhaegar's and Aerys' death, making it even less likely that he could ever be their heir. 

Quote

And as we see Bastards can easily become "legitimate" as and when those with the power wish it to happen. I just don't think he is a bastard, because in my opinion if a wedding happened it happened. There is no law against polygamy in this world. That is abundantly clear. It is tabboo but not illegal. There was and IS precedent. Daavos thinking of some of Salladoors (sp) wives as mistresses is the opinion of one- low born- man. He's been raised high by Stannis but his lived experience is that of a lowborn and his opinions will be formed by that.  Lords howether may view things differently depending upon what suits their own agenda.

Lords seem to have basically the same views on marriages as the common people. Polygamy may be still practiced in Lys but it is not practiced in Westeros.

Quote

The Targaryens certainly viewed things differently to the small folk and Rhaegar taking a second wife not only has precedent but he has motive. Elia can not give him a third, and he believes he must have one.

So what? This doesn't mean that the world and the Faith must share and approve of Rhaegar's egoistic desires. They clearly did not.

Quote

It is undoubteble that should a wedding come to be widely known about and Jon shown to be the fruit of that union some lords will flock to his claim. And they may not be the same lords or have the same reasons as those who would have supported Rhaegar in taking a second wife in the first place as by then the landscape politically in Westeros is vastly different. Some who support Jon's claim may be those who at the time would have vhemenantly opposed the marriage between Rhaegar & Lyanna. it will all depend upon what their needs and desires are when it comes out.  

That is a very unlikely scenario for the following simple reason:

Jon cannot prove that he is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen, just as Stannis could not prove that Cersei's children weren't Robert's. Did anybody flock to Stannis' banner after he told his little slanderous tale about his sister-in-law? No.

Jon Snow does not look like Rhaegar's son, and as it happens Rhaegar's true son, Prince Aegon, has just returned to Westeros, intending to claim his grandfather's throne. Do you think anybody in Westeros would be as gullible as to believe the ridiculous stories that Rhaegar had two sons who were hidden so that Robert Baratheon would not kill them?

People opposing Aegon will have Daenerys as an alternative. They don't need Jon Snow. And Jon Snow has no interest in the Iron Throne nor any chance to use the men who might follow him as a Stark, not a Targaryen (the Northmen) to lay claim to the Iron Throne. They just fought a war against the Iron Throne and are not likely to now make common cause with Targaryen loyalists in the South.

9 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I was raised as a Mormon. And though I won't claim to be an authority as I was a British Mormon but essentially the church is the church. And I learnt church history. Historically speaking first wives hold supremacy and authority and all her children come first. So to speak. I'm not sure about other forms of Polygamy practice. But certainly that is what I was taught growing up in regard to the polygamy which absolutely doesn't still happen, of course not, it's illegal, no one does that. Nothing to see here. 

As far as I know there are still many Mormon sects in the US who still practice polygamy. Of course behind closed doors and all, but they still do it.

9 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

So I always imagine polygamy in that model. That the first wife is the authority amongst the wives and her children will be seen as the heirs so to speak. 

That is not what happened with Aegon and his sister-wives, though. Visenya thought that her son, the younger son, should inherit, and eventually ensured it. Lyanna would also have had the interests of her children at heart, and not those of her stepchildren. Those would have been nothing but obstacles to her ambitions, just as Rhaenyra and her sons were obstacles to Alicent and Otto's plans.

9 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

In this situation Elia can not carry anymore pregnancies as to do so risks her life. So I highly doubt in a world with no permanent or 100% reliable B/C and sketchy at best and also highly risky abortion with no sanctioning of either by the state or the dominant religion, that Elia would even be expected to ever have sex with Rhaegar again. 

So in my mind, I absolutely think that a Morganatic second marriage with Elia being relieved of her sexual duty is what would have happened. 

We know from the example of Queen Naerys that a wife is expected to have sex with her lord husband whenever he pleases (as is still the case in most religious interpretations of marriage). Aegon IV did so, and eventually killed his wife in the process of it. And most likely enjoyed doing that.

Rhaegar may not have been as fucked up but it may have been better if he had to. If Elia had died in childbirth he could have taken another wife without causing a major scandal.

31 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Dany comments internally that Westeros would never accept Hizdahr as her husband.  Presumably, that means not even as consort, let alone a King.

Assuming that she had no intention of repudiating her marriage to Hizdahr, that would suggest that she would take a second husband if and when she took the Iron Throne.

Well, this actually indicates that Dany does not think all types of marriages are considered binding. And the Green Grace agrees with her there. She made it clear that the barbaric marriage rites of the Faith would not be accepted by the gods of Ghis. Just as, presumably, rites done by the dosh khaleen or the graces of Slaver's Bay would not be accepted by the Seven of Westeros.

Which would mean that from the point of view of Westeros Dany was essentially not married. Neither to Drogo nor to this Hizdahr chap. And can thus take a consort in Westeros. She may take more than one, though. She has dragons. She can try.

[Rippounet]

12 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Sorry but I really have no idea what you are trying to say here. Why shouldn't be there enough time to make the presence meaningful, and why do you bring up the fact that the KG had been away from the king after the Trident? The Trident is not the moment when the collective KG duty is no longer being fulfilled, the Sack is, and it follows shortly after the Trident. The Sack is also the point when the KG should have left ToJ to go to the King because that's when the King ceased to have any KG protection; obviously, the KG don't find out immediately.

The point is that the KG's presence by itself means nothing. Since there's no way to be certain of what they knew before Ned arrived, it's impossible to argue that they necessarily decided to stay "to protect the king." QED.

12 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Besides, time is not such a factor as you are making it to be. First, Jon needn't have been born prior their decision, there would have been interregnum before Lyanna gave birth. Second, they outright refuse to go to Viserys because that would be fleeing from their KG duty - how the hell can fulfilling one's primary duty to protect their King be fleeing? They say that it is perfectly alright for their King to be protected by a man of lower standards than KG because the KG have some other bloody important duty elsewhere.

Nope. And as I stated above, when the succession line is unclear, e.g. because of pregnancy, there is interregnum - nobody is king until the succession become clear. And since Lyanna's term was relatively shortly after the Sack, they would be waiting for a couple of weeks at best. However, their insisting that they wouldn't "flee" to Viserys because their KG duty was at ToJ shows that they are certain where their duty lies, i.e. post-birth.

So now in order to argue that the KG may have stayed before Jon was even born, you speak of an interregnum, which basically means that in this case at least one of the KG should have left to protect Viserys...
You also admit that no one is king until the line of succession is clear... Basically invalidating your entire line of reasoning up to now.

12 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

However, their insisting that they wouldn't "flee" to Viserys because their KG duty was at ToJ shows that they are certain where their duty lies, i.e. post-birth.

Sooo... If Jon has to be born for them to stay... How can them staying be an argument to support the idea that Jon was already born and they saw him as king?

12 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

What the dream shows is that the KG are up-to-date with the latest happenings and know what they are doing, and why. Whether they had known beforehands or learned only from Ned doesn't really matter;

It matters a great deal because their presence at the ToJ means nothing if Ned is the one to give them the information allowing them to see Jon as the heir.

12 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

The fight did ensue, and if it was right after Ned's arrival, or if days passed between his arrival and the fight, again does not matter. The KG's interests - keep Jon secret for the time being and crown him later would be at odds with Ned's interest to fulfill his duty to his king (and perhaps to Lyanna, who may not have wanted her son to be a pawn in the game of thrones).

But since we've established their mere presence is meaningless, why would anyone assume they are fighting over Jon since neither he nor Lyanna are mentioned in the exchange? Why couldn't it be over what we actually have right there in the text, i.e. that they refuse to bend the knee to Robert and decide to fight people they believe to be rebels... to king Viserys?

 

[The Great and Mighty Poo]

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The point is that the KG's presence by itself means nothing. Since there's no way to be certain of what they knew before Ned arrived, it's impossible to argue that they necessarily decided to stay "to protect the king." QED.

So now in order to argue that the KG may have stayed before Jon was even born, you speak of an interregnum, which basically means that in this case at least one of the KG should have left to protect Viserys...
You also admit that no one is king until the line of succession is clear... Basically invalidating your entire line of reasoning up to now.

Sooo... If Jon has to be born for them to stay... How can them staying be an argument to support the idea that Jon was already born and they saw him as king?

It matters a great deal because their presence at the ToJ means nothing if Ned is the one to give them the information allowing them to see Jon as the heir.

But since we've established their mere presence is meaningless, why would anyone assume they are fighting over Jon since neither he nor Lyanna are mentioned in the exchange? Why couldn't it be over what we actually have right there in the text, i.e. that they refuse to bend the knee to Robert and decide to fight people they believe to be rebels... to king Viserys?

 

First rule in writing if it is meaningless cut it out, besides we haven't established anything. Honestly, I have no dog in this fight it doesn't matter to me bastard or not but this part is frankly not true. 

[Rippounet]

3 minutes ago, The Great and Mighty Poo said:

First rule in writing if it is meaningless cut it out, besides we haven't established anything. Honestly, I have no dog in this fight it doesn't matter to me bastard or not but this part is frankly not true. 

You are correct, failing to establish a specific meaning is not the same as establishing meaninglessness. I should have written "since you can't establish the meaning you claim, your argument is void for the purpose of this discussion."

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I was talking whether Maegor and the Realm saw Maegor's wives as his queens. There is a difference there. Royal harems usually have a hierarchy. The king or emperor keeping them has one principal wife, the queen or the empress, and then a lot of secondary wives who are barely more than concubines. The idea that all of Maegor's wives were equal makes little sense.

arded after Alys. Alys and Tyanna were close to each other at one point (Tyanna was allegedly not just Maegor's lover in Pentos but also Alys' lover) but Tyanna was a bastard and a former courtesan. Maegor did marry her but we don't know whether anyone considered her a queen. She was ever farther beneath him than Jenny of Oldstones was beneath Prince Duncan. Still, Maegor gave Tyanna a lot of power. Maegor's queen during his first years would thus have been Alys. After he death Tyanna may have stepped into her place since Maegor had only one wife for three years.

Of the black brides Elinor and Jeyne are clearly little more than concubines, tools Maegor used to finally father an heir. Only Rhaena was well-bred enough to be his queen, not to mention that this match would have helped him to secure a throne that was already beginning to slip away. Had he fathered a son on Rhaena his legacy would have been secured.

 

That isn't the point. The point is that marriage as defined by the Faith of the Andals is a union between one woman and one man. Not one man and multiple women. Insofar as other religions and cultures are monogamous the Faith is accepting them, too, explaining why nobody says anything about monogamous tree marriages or monogamous Seven Cities or Dothraki marriages.

However, if some Northman had a polygamous tree marriage only the first marriage would be seen as valid by the Faith, just as it is today in our western societies with bigamist and polygamists.

Also note that the Faith and the people of Westeros in general don't accept the Ironborn difference between rock and salt marriages. You can only have one wife, any you wives you may take again are nothing but mistresses.

In general, the marriage concepts between the Andals and the First Men are pretty similar, so there is no great confusion there. But if some foreign polygamist would try to settle in Maidenpool or Stoney Sept he most likely would quickly learn that the people there don't suffer that kind of thing in their town.

We don't why it happened the way it did. It could even be that Melisandre suggested the whole thing and then Jon asked her to perform the rites. We just jump ahead in time there without ever learning how things moved in that direction.

That means nothing. There is precedent for a lot of things. That doesn't mean people have to accept it. A precedent like polygamy has to be enforced by somebody with real power. It is not something people can't object to if you find some distant ancestors who (sort of) got away with it, if you interpret things the way you want.

And Rhaegar failed with his polygamy thing if he really did marry Lyanna. He was killed and his child doesn't even know who he his father is.

This is were you err. Marriage is a social convention, nothing more. It is the public declaration that two people belong together (or rather that a woman now belongs to a man) and that any child that woman gives birth to is the man's seed. That's it. If there is no public declaration then there is no marriage.

If you marry in secret then you haven't married at all. That is why people who do this usually eventually have to reveal that they have married in secret because if they did not then any children of that union would be, in fact, illegitimate. Because legitimacy and illegitimacy are social constructs, too. Other people decide whether a child is a bastard or not on the basis whether it has been born in wedlock or not. And if they don't know that there was (allegedly) a marriage a child becomes a bastard by default.

No, there might have been marriage ceremony but that doesn't mean that people would have accepted it because it went against the custom and the very concept of Andal marriage. The Andals do not recognize polygamous unions as valid.

Just because something goes through a ceremony doesn't make it so. Ramsay did, too, but since Lady Hornwood most likely was forced to go through the motions that was a farce, too. Just as Sansa's marriage to Tyrion was. Now, people ignore the fact that those matches were invalid but they don't have to. And in Rhaegar's a lot of very important people - from Aerys II and the High Septon down to the Starks, Baratheons, and Martells - had a lot of good reason to not accept such a marriage.

Sure, but nothing indicates anybody considered the child of Lyanna the king.

And even if the three knights at the tower did think he was or should be king (which I don't think they did) that means nothing. Jon would then be as much a king as Trystane Truefyre and Gaemon Palehair were.

Edward V was never crowned and there was some legal pretext used to declare him and his younger brother a bastard. Essentially because Edward IV had essentially already been married to another when he married Elizabeth Woodville. 

Aerys II's heir upon his death was Viserys III, not some boy he never knew existed. An heir, too, is declared and chosen. Lyanna's son might have been born after Rhaegar's and Aerys' death, making it even less likely that he could ever be their heir. 

Lords seem to have basically the same views on marriages as the common people. Polygamy may be still practiced in Lys but it is not practiced in Westeros.

So what? This doesn't mean that the world and the Faith must share and approve of Rhaegar's egoistic desires. They clearly did not.

That is a very unlikely scenario for the following simple reason:

Jon cannot prove that he is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen, just as Stannis could not prove that Cersei's children weren't Robert's. Did anybody flock to Stannis' banner after he told his little slanderous tale about his sister-in-law? No.

Jon Snow does not look like Rhaegar's son, and as it happens Rhaegar's true son, Prince Aegon, has just returned to Westeros, intending to claim his grandfather's throne. Do you think anybody in Westeros would be as gullible as to believe the ridiculous stories that Rhaegar had two sons who were hidden so that Robert Baratheon would not kill them?

People opposing Aegon will have Daenerys as an alternative. They don't need Jon Snow. And Jon Snow has no interest in the Iron Throne nor any chance to use the men who might follow him as a Stark, not a Targaryen (the Northmen) to lay claim to the Iron Throne. They just fought a war against the Iron Throne and are not likely to now make common cause with Targaryen loyalists in the South.

As far as I know there are still many Mormon sects in the US who still practice polygamy. Of course behind closed doors and all, but they still do it.

That is not what happened with Aegon and his sister-wives, though. Visenya thought that her son, the younger son, should inherit, and eventually ensured it. Lyanna would also have had the interests of her children at heart, and not those of her stepchildren. Those would have been nothing but obstacles to her ambitions, just as Rhaenyra and her sons were obstacles to Alicent and Otto's plans.

We know from the example of Queen Naerys that a wife is expected to have sex with her lord husband whenever he pleases (as is still the case in most religious interpretations of marriage). Aegon IV did so, and eventually killed his wife in the process of it. And most likely enjoyed doing that.

Rhaegar may not have been as fucked up but it may have been better if he had to. If Elia had died in childbirth he could have taken another wife without causing a major scandal.

Well, this actually indicates that Dany does not think all types of marriages are considered binding. And the Green Grace agrees with her there. She made it clear that the barbaric marriage rites of the Faith would not be accepted by the gods of Ghis. Just as, presumably, rites done by the dosh khaleen or the graces of Slaver's Bay would not be accepted by the Seven of Westeros.

Which would mean that from the point of view of Westeros Dany was essentially not married. Neither to Drogo nor to this Hizdahr chap. And can thus take a consort in Westeros. She may take more than one, though. She has dragons. She can try.

 

10

I have never argued that all of Maegor's wives were equal only that they were viewed as and still are viewed as his wives. Unless you find some text to show that it was widely felt that these women were not married to him actually and not his wives. I'm afraid my opinion on that. And the facts as they are known in Westeros so to speak won't alter.  

You are asserting what you believe about the faith of the seven and their views on marriage as fact. But you simply can not assume this. Yes both Andal &Firstmen modern day marriage practice is confined to one man one woman. But the Targaryen's openly practised Polygamy and historically it was practised by first men, and is still practised beyond the wall, and no one has ever declared these polygamous marriages null and void. And until you find me some text quotes stating that the nobility don't believe Rhaenys to be Aegon's true wife nor any of Maegor's wives but Ceryse then I'm afraid you haven't proven anything of the sort. 

I'm sorry but I entirely disagree, marriage may well be a social convention, but if I get married and no other fucker is there to witness it but me and my spouse that person is still my spouse. You are trying to argue that unless a thing is witnessed it didn't happen. Well, that is bollocks. If I fall on my arse and bruise it but no one else saw it my arse will still hurt in the morning. 

Now you can argue that other people won't know I fell on my arse, and won't accord me the sympathy my bruised arse warrents, No one will bring me a donut cushion to sit on. but my arse will never the less be bruised. I might die and my child may never know I fell on my arse but it still happened. IE: did the tree make a sound when it fell even though no one heard it. Yes of course it did. Might no one ever know the tree fell. Sure. But it still fell. 

Marriage as a social construct does exist and if two people go through the socially accepted form of marriage ceremony but don't tell anyone then they still got married. Besides which I fully expect several witnesses to come forth, and as I keep saying the chances of people accepting it 18 years ago is irrelevant it is what they wish to accept upon it's revelation which matters. And if the author wills it, it will be accepted.  And given the book so far I strongly suspect it will be accepted by enough people to give it real credence and support. And if it is not then in my view they were still married.  

You keep saying Andal culture does not accept polygamy. But you haven't provided any proof of this. Bring me some quotes regarding Rhaenys and Maegor's subsequent wives being declared illegitimate and I'll agree with you. But until then. Nope.  

They certainly don't like it, but we are yet to see any evidence that it was seen as non valid. 

ramsey is seen as legitimately wed to Lady Hornwood, and sansa is seen as legitimately wed to tyrion. Even though everyone knows these two weddings were forced. No one has said even once that they are invallid. 

Yes, I know they do. That was me being highly sarcastic. 

You say that is not what happened with Aegon and his sister wives, and then go on to say what happened and it is exactly that! Visenya the first wife- whom I just said to my knowledge has superiority and whose children are seen as the "heirs" wanted her son to be heir over Rhaenys's son even though he was the younger. YES! exactly, because he was born to the first- ie: highest ranking wife!

We don't have a clue what Lyanna had in her heart, for all we know she hadn't thought passed that funny feeling in her knickers when she looks at Rhaegar. Or she might have been happy to accept Elia's son will inherit because she wasn't fussed about being mother to a King, and felt Ok with just being mother to Princes and Princesses. Of maybe she felt the chance Aegon might die in his cradle was worth it cos Elia can not have another son.

Erm, well thank goodness Rhaegar isn't Aegon IV hey. I'm sure i'd take a second wife whose children come after mine, and getting to live even if it is without PIV sex in my future over being shagged into my grave.

It does not indicate Dany's thoughts on what Westeros would accept in terms of a marriage, only that unlike Westeros Ghis is less accepting and tollerant of other cultures marriage rights.

Again if Westeros didn't accept any and all marriages Robert needed not fear Dany's pregnancy. As according toyou all in westeros would see the child as a bastard. Also Viserys II would have had to re-marry Larra Rogere as the realm would not have accepted his marriage having been performed in Lys presumably by Lyseni rights. And I'm yet to hear anyone ever suggest in universe

Aegon IV , Naerys & Aemon were all bastards. 

 

[Ygrain]

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The point is that the KG's presence by itself means nothing. Since there's no way to be certain of what they knew before Ned arrived, it's impossible to argue that they necessarily decided to stay "to protect the king." QED.

Sigh. The KG presence AND their refusal to go to Viserys AND insisting that their job is at ToJ.

And whatever they knew before Ned arrived or not, they did know before the fight ensued.

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

So now in order to argue that the KG may have stayed before Jon was even born, you speak of an interregnum, which basically means that in this case at least one of the KG should have left to protect Viserys...

For the starters, let me remind you that it was you who claimed that Jon had to be born first so that the KG would know whether to stay or not, remember? What I'm saying is that this particular point is not as clear-cut as you're making it sound. First and foremost, if Lyanna's baby was not legitimate, they wouldn't be obliged to stay at all because its sex wouldn't change the succession line, Viserys would still be the first. Second, if the baby was not born by the time they received the news of the Sack (if they did), Viserys was NOT King, only a claimant, hence the KG were not required to go to him. Third, the interregnum in this case would be a couple of weeks at most. What would the KG do if they sent one of them away, text him to get back ASAP? Heck, we even could have Tristan-esque going into labour under the impact of bad news, i.e. waiting for hours to days.

 

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You also admit that no one is king until the line of succession is clear... Basically invalidating your entire line of reasoning up to now.

See above. Illegitimate child = zero reason for all three to them to stay and to tell Ned what they did.

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Sooo... If Jon has to be born for them to stay... How can them staying be an argument to support the idea that Jon was already born and they saw him as king?

Jon has to be born and seen as king at least prior the moment when they proclaim that they are not going to Viserys and are going to find Ned instead.

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It matters a great deal because their presence at the ToJ means nothing if Ned is the one to give them the information allowing them to see Jon as the heir.

Sigh. They need to know beforehands only if the dream reflects the reality to a high degree, i.e. the fight ensues immediately as Ned approaches the tower. If Ned brings all the news, they spend hours discussing their options and come to the conclusion that an agreement cannot be reached, the fight ensues much later but the premise is still the same - staying and fighting at ToJ has priority over going to Viserys.

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

But since we've established their mere presence is meaningless, why would anyone assume they are fighting over Jon since neither he nor Lyanna are mentioned in the exchange?

"Our dreams are not always literal", remember? The dream conversation is so condensed and ritualized that it is definitely not word-for-word description of what was said. In reality, they and Ned could have talked for hours, and it's just that the dream took the very gist of their attitudes and reasoning.

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Why couldn't it be over what we actually have right there in the text, i.e. that they refuse to bend the knee to Robert and decide to fight people they believe to be rebels... to king Viserys?

Because they don't behave as if Viserys is their king. They never proclaim their allegiance to Viserys the way they do to Aerys, they are not bothered by the fact that Viserys has no KG with him, even though protecting the King is supposed to be the very reason for KG's existence, and they do not show any inclination to go to him. Instead, they proclaim that the duty they have at ToJ requires them to stay because they are Kingsguard, and that going to Viserys would be fleeing from KG duty, just like Darry and Vis fled from Aerys. 

[The Twinslayer]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

<snip>

Yes, good analysis.  

3 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

The problem here is that any such law would be absurd. As it would delegitimise the entire Targaryen line. And has not nor can it be passed.

The example you give is false equivalence. in marriage, we establish the idea of legitimate children. And to declare a marriage illegitimate is to declare those offspring illegitimate too.  So Polygamy has to stand or else all targs become born of the bastard line

religion is an entirely separate issue. 

The Act of Settlement dealt with marriage, too.  If you were a protestant and you married a catholic, you lost your claim to the throne.  That is why, when Peter Phillips (Queen Elizabeth's oldest grandson) proposed to Autumn Kelly, she converted away from the catholic church before the wedding.  Otherwise, Peter and all of his descendants would have been excluded from the succession.  

But that did not stop Queen Elizabeth from taking the throne, even though she is descended from Henry VII and Henry's catholic wife, Elizabeth of York.  So the point is that it is easy to pass a law that addresses succession to the throne that will prohibit in the future something that was permitted in the past.  The fact that Queen Elizabeth's ancestors married catholics but her descendants could not in no way calls into question her right to sit the throne.  Just like the fact that Aegon I was allowed to take two wives but Jaehaerys I and everyone after him was not in no way calls into question the right of Jaehaerys or any of his descendants to sit the Iron Throne.     

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

The polygamy stands because GRRM says that there was and IS precedent. If a law was passed that banned the practice once and for all, the use of present tense wouldn't be possible because the precedent would no longer be valid.

There is precedent in the USA for slavery but that does not make it legal there. 

[Ygrain]

18 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

There is precedent in the USA for slavery but that does not make it legal there. 

Thanks for reminding me to put you back on the Ignore list.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I have never argued that all of Maegor's wives were equal only that they were viewed as and still are viewed as his wives. Unless you find some text to show that it was widely felt that these women were not married to him actually and not his wives. I'm afraid my opinion on that. And the facts as they are known in Westeros so to speak won't alter.

Another attempt. Read the Bible chapters on Jacob's, David's, and Solomon's many wives. Now think about our own marriage concepts which (usually) are strictly monogamous.

A history book written in our day and age would also the wives of those legendary figures also 'wives'. Because that's what they were seen as and presented at the time.

But this does not mean that everybody saw them this way.

The High Septon is on record denouncing Alys Harroway as 'this whore of Harroway'. From the point of view of the Faith Maegor was never married to that woman, and we also know that Maegor's many marriages continued to provide the people with reasons to rebel against him. And he was eventually overthrown. We have to wait and see how popular his other wives were, and who addressed them as such. But we should have a much clearer picture on that in October.

Quote

You are asserting what you believe about the faith of the seven and their views on marriage as fact. But you simply can not assume this. Yes both Andal &Firstmen modern day marriage practice is confined to one man one woman. But the Targaryen's openly practised Polygamy and historically it was practised by first men, and is still practised beyond the wall, and no one has ever declared these polygamous marriages null and void. And until you find me some text quotes stating that the nobility don't believe Rhaenys to be Aegon's true wife nor any of Maegor's wives but Ceryse then I'm afraid you haven't proven anything of the sort. 

@The Twinslayer has cited the marriage vow of the Faith of the Andals as it is given in those books. They make it crystal clear that a marriage is between one man and one woman and demands faithfulness between the spouses. There are no clauses that allow you to replace your wife if she displeases you or add another to make your sex life more interesting.

Aegon married on Dragonstone, probably the Valyrian way. Maegor's second wedding was done this way, too, and we have no clue how he married Tyanna and the black brides but my gut feeling is that forcing a septon to say some words (and forcing three women who may hate you to marry you) is not exactly considered to be a proper and valid marriage.

Quote

I'm sorry but I entirely disagree, marriage may well be a social convention, but if I get married and no other fucker is there to witness it but me and my spouse that person is still my spouse. You are trying to argue that unless a thing is witnessed it didn't happen. Well, that is bollocks. If I fall on my arse and bruise it but no one else saw it my arse will still hurt in the morning. 

I'm sorry, but then your definition of a marriage is completely at odds with the common definitions of that term. It is a social construct that is defined as a public event. That is why there usually are always many witnesses present at a wedding and the whole thing is ideally a huge feast. If you check historical marriage customs you will find that this is usually the case.

Quote

You keep saying Andal culture does not accept polygamy. But you haven't provided any proof of this. Bring me some quotes regarding Rhaenys and Maegor's subsequent wives being declared illegitimate and I'll agree with you. But until then. Nope.

The Targaryens aren't Andals. At least not Aegon and his sons and grandchildren. The later generations were more andalized but they still continued the incest thing and were proud of their Valyrian ancestry and traditions.

We know that the Andals (aside from mythical characters like Hugor of the Hill back in Andalos before the Faith was established) were strictly monogamous because there are no examples for Andal kings in Westeros who took more than one wife. Ancient First Men kings did (we have Garland II Gardener and the bastard Durrandon king Ronard Storm as examples). I'd not be surprised if there were also some Stark and Lannister kings with more than one wife, especially in the earlier days.

If the Andals had had no issue with polygamy then Westeros would never have become a strictly monogamous society.

Quote

ramsey is seen as legitimately wed to Lady Hornwood, and sansa is seen as legitimately wed to tyrion. Even though everyone knows these two weddings were forced. No one has said even once that they are invallid.

But we learn that marriages that are enforced against a person's will are considered to be invalid.

Quote

You say that is not what happened with Aegon and his sister wives, and then go on to say what happened and it is exactly that! Visenya the first wife- whom I just said to my knowledge has superiority and whose children are seen as the "heirs" wanted her son to be heir over Rhaenys's son even though he was the younger. YES! exactly, because he was born to the first- ie: highest ranking wife!

We have no reason not to believe that Aegon took both his sisters to wife in the same ceremony. Even if he had married Visenya first, it is quite clear that Rhaenys was his favorite wife and sister. In a harem the man usually decides who the highest ranking wife is, not some hierarchy among the women. The man grants or withholds favors. The women just take what they can get. And Rhaenys got pretty much everything while Visenya was getting nothing.

Quote

We don't have a clue what Lyanna had in her heart, for all we know she hadn't thought passed that funny feeling in her knickers when she looks at Rhaegar. Or she might have been happy to accept Elia's son will inherit because she wasn't fussed about being mother to a King, and felt Ok with just being mother to Princes and Princesses. Of maybe she felt the chance Aegon might die in his cradle was worth it cos Elia can not have another son.

Perhaps Elia and Lyanna would also have been best friends and would have gladly had a threesome with Rhaegar? That is all possible but not very likely. It is much more likely that Lyanna would have been jealous of Elia's children once she had her own and that Elia would have hated both Lyanna (for stealing Rhaegar away from her) as well as Rhaegar himself (for humiliating her publicly by essentially discarding her as a wife).

We are talking about a medieval aristocratic world here where public perception is everything. Rhaegar essentially destroyed Elia's public image and standing as well as the honor of House Martell by taking another wife. Even running away with Lyanna would have been a huge stain on Elia's honor.

You are aware that all smiles died when he gave that crown to Lyanna instead of Elia, right?

Quote

It does not indicate Dany's thoughts on what Westeros would accept in terms of a marriage, only that unlike Westeros Ghis is less accepting and tollerant of other cultures marriage rights.

Oh, come on now, that is really grasping at straws. Westeros is not a very tolerant culture.

Quote

Again if Westeros didn't accept any and all marriages Robert needed not fear Dany's pregnancy. As according toyou all in westeros would see the child as a bastard. Also Viserys II would have had to re-marry Larra Rogere as the realm would not have accepted his marriage having been performed in Lys presumably by Lyseni rights. And I'm yet to hear anyone ever suggest in universe.

I already said it, insofar as the marriages rites and customs were loosely equivalent to those in Westeros such unions would be accepted. The Targaryen loyalists most likely would accept a son of Daenerys by Khal Drogo, especially if they came with 100,000 Dothraki. But they could get problems if Drogo was one of those khals who had multiple wives (some do) or if Drogo shared Dany with his bloodriders. That would not be the proper way to treat a queen.

As long as Larra and Viserys entered into a monogamous marriage things should have been fine there, too. They could even have been married by some septon, we don't know. Nobody had any reason to question the validity of their marriage. In the Dany-Hizdahr case many people in Westeros might simply do because they would not want to be ruled by a foreign Ghiscari slaver. But Larra Rogare was apparently one of the most beautiful women of her generation.

[The Twinslayer]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

But you're missing the main point, which is time. There can't be enough time between Jon's birth and Ned's arrival for the KG's presence at the ToJ to be meaningful. They've all stayed far away from the king for weeks or months, even after the Trident. At what point exactly is Jon's legitimacy supposed to have played a role? In order to argue that their presence means what you say it means you have to say there was a moment in time when the KG should have left the ToJ but decided to remain instead, because of Jon. This decisive moment would of course have to be after the Sack (or else Aegon comes before Jon) and after Jon's birth (otherwise he could have been a girl), but obviously before Ned's arrival.

I agree and would add that if there was a "decisive moment" it would have to be not only after the Sack but after the KG learned from a reliable source that Aegon was dead.  We have zero reason to think the KG believed Aegon to be dead because his name is not mentioned in Ned's dream.  Ned's dream accounts for Rhaegar, Aerys, Rhaella and Visersys.  But no mention of Aegon, so we should assume that they believed he was alive and held prisoner in King's Landing. 

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

One point about marriage: it is an exchange of vows. And what is said about vows? Once you say the words, you are in.

It is also said that vows given at sword point are invalid.  Which means that vows are only valid if you are competent to make them.  Once Rhaegar made his vow, in a sept, to be in a monogamous marriage with Elia, he lost his ability to enter into a new marriage for so long as Elia was alive.   

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Thanks for reminding me to put you back on the Ignore list.

I will take that as confirmation that you concede the point.