Jump to content
Alexander Leonard

Why was Lyanna Stark willingly married to Rhaegar when he had not divorced Elia Martell?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

They have acted to avoid a regency in the past. There isn't a comparable history of preventing disagreeable men from succeeding to the throne. It does seem plausible to me that R;hllorism would pose a problem, but in the book Renly just jokes about it and the "king's men" in Stannis' camp (like Davos) still adhere to the Seven. Even clergy of the Faith seem to accept the R'hllorist members of the Brotherhood Without Banners, with Thoros the Red Priest being blessed in the name of The Warrior. GRRM seems to minimize the importance of religion & the church in Westeros relative to medieval Europe, even as he borrows some of its trappings for The Faith.

They have also been content with plenty of regencies in the past when the young king is supported by a powerful lord.  Similar to how Joffrey has the backing of Tywin Lannister.  Thoros isn't having the Brotherhood Without Banners go around burning Septs and Godswoods, Stannis is.  Stannis already had some of his lords break from him in response to his actions against Septs.

Quote

Joffrey was born in the crownlands and neglected by Robert. The court is full of Lannisters and their supporters. None of the Baratheon family supports Joffrey (in contrast with Rhaenyra's "Velaryon" offspring). Stormlanders can gain positions by supporting a legitimate Baratheon for the throne, and those on Robert's side in the rebellion (like Davos) particularly so if it's Stannis.

All of the Baratheons are going alone, if anything only Joffrey has Robert's seal of approval.  They can also gain positions by supporting Joffrey.  Stannis isn't any less nepotistic with his appointments with him appointing his in-laws to almost every important position within his command.

Quote

There's the fact of opposition and then how difficult it will be to negotiate with an opposing party. The Lannisters try to negotiate to exchange prisoners (like Jaime), but this is difficult because they executed Ned and Tyrion's delegation tried to violently free Jaime while under a peace banner. Stannis hasn't done anything comparable to Tywin, much less Mace.

Stannis was annoyed that Robert didn't execute/punish all of the Reach and Stormlords that sided with Aerys II.  Stannis was annoyed that Robert didn't execute the Greyjoys (meaning they won't corporate with him like the Lannisters and Tyrells).  Stannis isn't going to negotiate a peace exchange with Tywin that spares Jaime, Cersei, and the children meaning he won't have peace with him any more than Joffrey would with Robb.

Quote

When trying to win supporters, you argue in favor of your own superiority rather than equality. Renly does however claim Robert was king just because his army won, implying that his larger army will do the same for him rather than Stannis, ignoring that Robert (rather than any of his fellow Lords Paramount) was acclaimed king because he was the most Targaryen nobleman outside the crown family (whose two adult male members south of the wall had acted so as to lose their perceived legitimacy).

So once more the argument that he kept the incest a secret because he wanted to argue him and Stannis were equal rebels is complete bull.  Renly was right, no one besides the Maesters cared about Robert's Targaryen's blood.  Robert was chosen because he was the popular figurehead.  While, Ned was an aloof Northerner, Jon was an old man that has had trouble securing a heir, and Hoster was from a family that had never been kings before.  If they cared about the legitimacy of bloodline than Viserys was the clear choice.

Quote

So your one example of it actually happening (which you haven't specifically named) dates back to the Andal invasion, with an existing marriage that had not been ratified under the Seven, back when the Faith was rather fanatical about wiping out other religions? Additionally, while Merle I & his son Gwayne V did take Andal maidens for wives, I find no evidence of either being married prior to this. Merle's father, Garth IX, who had already married and had a child beforehand, did not set aside his wife as far as I can tell.

The Seven is even weaker in present day Westeros than they were in the Andal invasion.  The fact that they didn't happen isn't relevant to the point that people in Westeros clearly believe that marriages can be set aside.  Moreover, Robert wouldn't have any of the limitations that those individuals had when pursuing their marriages set aside.  Robert is the king, unlike Daemon and Naenys, thus he won't have to ask the king's permission.  Nor is Robert as weak willed as Tytos.

"When the Andals came, the Hightowers were amongst the first lords of Westeros to welcome them. "Wars are bad for trade," said Lord Dorian Hightower, when he set aside his wife of twenty years, the mother of his children, to take an Andal princess as his bride. "

Sorry I was thinking Hightower rather Gardner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, corbon said:

Barristan

Whitebeard bowed his head. "It is not my place to question the words of Prince Viserys."

This is Barristan's mindset when talking about Rhaegar to Daenerys.

13 hours ago, corbon said:

Jorah

Didn't know him and only speak of him as comparision to Viserys.

13 hours ago, corbon said:

Ned

What did he say about that Rhaegar which make the paragon of virtue you're trying to enforce.

13 hours ago, corbon said:

Yandel, Tyrion, the commonfolk

I don't remember what they said but I'm sure you can enlighten me, especially as neither Tyron nor the commonfolk  knew the Prince personally.

13 hours ago, corbon said:

Cersei

Certainly not a biased source. On top of that it's true that she has shown to be reliable source at judging character.

By the way as I already mentioned contrary to your belief none of what those characters might have said or might have thought prevent Rhaegar from being flawed individual like basically the rest of us. The closest person you have mentioned here was mere obedient subordonate who wasn't even particularly closed to him.

Edited by Kal-L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, corbon said:

Yeah, thats good in theory, but no one actually works that way.
And you can see why.
"I'm prophecied to be king. Ok, I'll just nap my life away and wait to be king." => it ain't gonna happen. 

Then it wasn't a real prophecy, or it was about someone else. Seems quite simple to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kal-L said:

Whitebeard bowed his head. "It is not my place to question the words of Prince Viserys."

This is Barristan's mindset when talking about Rhaegar to Daenerys.

That was Barristan's response to Viserys's claim that the only knight in the realm who was Rhaegar's peer was Arthur Dayne. Barristan has no trouble offering personal observations, insights, and opinions about Rhaegar to Daenerys, even ones that aren't entirely in line with the picture Viserys painted for Daenerys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kal-L said:

Whitebeard bowed his head. "It is not my place to question the words of Prince Viserys."

This is Barristan's mindset when talking about Rhaegar to Daenerys.

Thats one quote, when he agrees with something Viserys said.

OTOH, this is Barristan to Dany:

Quote

 

"Some truths are hard to hear. Robert was a . . . a good knight . . . chivalrous, brave . . . he spared my life, and the lives of many others . . . Prince Viserys was only a boy, it would have been years before he was fit to rule, and . . . forgive me, my queen, but you asked for truth . . . even as a child, your brother Viserys oft seemed to be his father's son, in ways that Rhaegar never did."
"His father's son?" Dany frowned. "What does that mean?"
The old knight did not blink. "Your father is called 'the Mad King' in Westeros. Has no one ever told you?"

 

and

Quote
Dany pulled the lion pelt tighter about her shoulders. "Viserys said once that it was my fault, for being born too late." She had denied it hotly, she remembered, going so far as to tell Viserys that it was his fault for not being born a girl. He beat her cruelly for that insolence. "If I had been born more timely, he said, Rhaegar would have married me instead of Elia, and it would all have come out different. If Rhaegar had been happy in his wife, he would not have needed the Stark girl."
"Perhaps so, Your Grace." Whitebeard paused a moment. "But I am not certain it was in Rhaegar to be happy."
"You make him sound so sour," Dany protested.
"Not sour, no, but . . . there was a melancholy to Prince Rhaegar, a sense . . ." The old man hesitated again.
"Say it," she urged. "A sense . . . ?"
". . . of doom. He was born in grief, my queen, and that shadow hung over him all his days."

So Barristan is comfortable, sort of, to tell harsh truths to Dany, and does not speak of her father or Viserys in good terms. 

And this is from his personal thoughts, when Dany is missing:

Quote
f he had not gone into Duskendale to rescue Aerys from Lord Darklyn's dungeons, the king might well have died there as Tywin Lannister sacked the town. Then Prince Rhaegar would have ascended the Iron Throne, mayhaps to heal the realm. Duskendale had been his finest hour, yet the memory tasted bitter on his tongue.
It was his failures that haunted him at night, though. Jaehaerys, Aerys, Robert. Three dead kings. Rhaegar, who would have been a finer king than any of them. Princess Elia and the children. Aegon just a babe, Rhaenys with her kitten. Dead, every one, yet he still lived, who had sworn to protect them. And now Daenerys, his bright shining child queen. She is not dead. I will not believe it.

Despite all that happened, despite the 'abduction' and Rhaegar disappearing with Lyanna, despite the war and everything, Barristan, who was not part of Rhaegar's inner circle, who knows much more of events and contexts than we do, thinks very highly of Rhaegar indeed, even as he reflects on his own failures.

 

7 hours ago, Kal-L said:

Didn't know him and only speak of him as comparision to Viserys.

Err, not true. 
Jorah speaks of Rhaegar as a comparison to Dany's saving the women from rape utterly independent of Viserys. Its Dany who brings up Viserys, not Jorah.

Also, Jorah may not have known Rhaegar personally, but he fought at the Trident, was at the Sack of KL. He was an enemy of Rhaegar. You claimed that I was basing my understanding on "The romanticized depiction of a long dead character by people who loved him". I simply gave you a partial list of people who said positive things about him who were NOT "people who loved him"

 

7 hours ago, Kal-L said:

What did he say about that Rhaegar which make the paragon of virtue you're trying to enforce.

I'm not enforcing Rhaegar as a paragon of virtue. I wish you'd stop making these outlandish claims. 
I'm pointing out the data we have. Claims are frequently made in the opposite direction. That he was crazy, stupid, irrational, irresponsible. The fact is that if you analyse the data we have about him, and consider carefully the sources and their biases, we get a very different picture. Not an unflawed one, though it can seem that way at times, but then, we don't expect anyone to be unflawed, and we don't expect to hear much about smaller flaws in greater contexts.

So we analyse the what we can tell of Rhaegar's character, and compare that to what we know of his actions, and the responses and reactions of others towards him.

We get one act that we can't explain very well, but has an almost complete lack of information around, clearly deliberately. It doesn't fit what we are given of his character from a wide array of sources, and the attitudes of people to him mostly don't fit with this act.

Some of us jump to conclusions that don't fit with character and attitudes of others and condemn roundly, others caution that we don;t know much and that condemnation doesn't fit well with what we know, at this stage.

Anyway, Ned compares Rhaegar favourably to Robert in a sexual morality context, which seems completely backwards if Rhaegar, his enemy, stole his sister from Robert, his friend, and was responsible for all the death and destruction in and before Robert's rebellion.
Ned is not a lover of Rhaegar.

7 hours ago, Kal-L said:

I don't remember what they said but I'm sure you can enlighten me, especially as neither Tyron nor the commonfolk  knew the Prince personally.

Actually the Tyrion quote came from Pycelle, talking to Tyrion, I didn't check it closely enough.

Quote
That took Tyrion by surprise. He had been no more than an ugly boy at Casterly Rock when the city fell. "So the Sack of King's Landing was your work as well?"
"For the realm! Once Rhaegar died, the war was done. Aerys was mad, Viserys too young, Prince Aegon a babe at the breast, but the realm needed a king . . . I prayed it should be your good father, but Robert was too strong, and Lord Stark moved too swiftly . . ."

Pycelle clearly thought that Rhaegar as King would be good for the realm. Once Rhaegar died, there were no other Targaryens that would be good for the realm and so he betrayed Aerys to Tywin.

The commonfolk reference is to Aerys being jealous because the commons cheered for Tywin louder than Aerys - and Rhaegar louder still.
Sure, they don't know him well - better than us though! But its another case of people not in his close circle clearly thinking well of him. Very well.

7 hours ago, Kal-L said:

Certainly not a biased source. On top of that it's true that she has shown to be reliable source at judging character.

I wasn't arguing that she was a reliable source. You were agruing that only people close to him said nice things about him. Cersei, for all her flaws, thought he was perhaps the best man she ever met. Some of that is her desire for power, to be queen. But its clear in her own thoughts that some of that was raw admiration for the man.

7 hours ago, Kal-L said:

By the way as I already mentioned contrary to your belief none of what those characters might have said or might have thought prevent Rhaegar from being flawed individual like basically the rest of us. The closest person you have mentioned here was mere obedient subordonate who wasn't even particularly closed to him.

I'm not saying he was flawless.
I don't think 'like the rest of us' is quite fair either, other than being flawed. He was a Dragon Prince of a unique, magical, family, born to rule a continent, extraordinarily gifted, directly connected to potentially world-relevant prophecy. Not very much 'like us' at all. But for all that., still a flawed man. 
I just doubt the flawed areas extend to being almost exactly the opposite of what is shown to us based on one almost data-free event.

For example, of errors, it seems he made multiple mistakes trying to understand the tPtwP prophecy. First the "it seems I must be a warrior" thing looks like he thought He was tPtwP. Then he thinks its Aegon, due to the comet. Aegon's either dead or seems somewhat of a minor-ish character in the SoIaF, so that can't have been right either.

 

 

 

 

 

Just throwing this in here unrelated, because I can never find this quote when I'm looking for it. Must remember, its slick spot in grass to search for, not stone or rock (to slip on).

Quote

"He did, ser, but . . . I have seen a hundred tournaments and more wars than I would wish, and however strong or fast or skilled a knight may be, there are others who can match him. A man will win one tourney, and fall quickly in the next. A slick spot in the grass may mean defeat, or what you ate for supper the night before. A change in the wind may bring the gift of victory." He glanced at Ser Jorah. "Or a lady's favor knotted round an arm."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, corbon said:

Thats one quote, when he agrees with something Viserys said.

Sure that's why he never ever mentioned Rhaegar among his the references as a warrior after that (meaning when he doesn't talk to Daenerys), I mean he compared Tumco Lho to Jaime a person he particularly despised when talking about the best natural swordsman he has ever seen.

The same goes for Jaime who never mentioned Rhaegar among the best warrior he's seen, he mentioned Barristan, Arthur Dayne, Robert and several others men but he never referred to Rhaegar's prodigious skills.

The same goes for Ned who talked about Robert and Arthur Dayne with finest words but never anything about Rhaegar.

By the way Barristan certainly agreed with it he would have said it without any problem.

Rhaegar the peerless warrior who almost win.

18 hours ago, corbon said:

I don't think 'like the rest of us' is quite fair either, other than being flawed. He was a Dragon Prince of a unique, magical, family, born to rule a continent, extraordinarily gifted, directly connected to potentially world-relevant prophecy. Not very much 'like us' at all. But for all that., still a flawed man. 

I see. At the end it's matter of point of view, some see Rhaegar as the magnificent who almost succeed others see Rhaegar as the prince who failed all. He gambled and he failed badly losing everything in the process.

18 hours ago, corbon said:

Pycelle clearly thought that Rhaegar as King would be good for the realm. Once Rhaegar died, there were no other Targaryens that would be good for the realm and so he betrayed Aerys to Tywin. 

Rhaegar was the only choice. Aerys was mad and Vyseris and Aegon were too young. The reason are literally written in your quote, no matter how great Rhaegar might have been he was the only Targaryen choice.

18 hours ago, corbon said:

The commonfolk reference is to Aerys being jealous because the commons cheered for Tywin louder than Aerys - and Rhaegar louder still.

Sure, he was a young handsome knight. Why wouldn't he be, Loras is very popular among the folk so was Robert who was literally helped when he rebelled (which could have been seen as treason) against Rhaegar's family.

18 hours ago, corbon said:

I wasn't arguing that she was a reliable source. You were agruing that only people close to him said nice things about him. Cersei, for all her flaws, thought he was perhaps the best man she ever met. Some of that is her desire for power, to be queen. But its clear in her own thoughts that some of that was raw admiration for the man.

A good, particularly handsome knight of royal born (highest than her). What is there of surprising here ? I thought Sansa would have been a good example of how such teenage girl would react to that kind of man.

18 hours ago, corbon said:

Err, not true. 
Jorah speaks of Rhaegar as a comparison to Dany's saving the women from rape utterly independent of Viserys. Its Dany who brings up Viserys, not Jorah. 

Also, Jorah may not have known Rhaegar personally, but he fought at the Trident, was at the Sack of KL. He was an enemy of Rhaegar. You claimed that I was basing my understanding on "The romanticized depiction of a long dead character by people who loved him". I simply gave you a partial list of people who said positive things about him who were NOT "people who loved him" 

You brought every person who didn't badmouth about him, not the same. Jorah mentioned Rhaegar's skills as a warrior and compared Viserys to Rhaegar stating Viserys a disrespected king without crown who begged at every corner wasn't a true dragon (out of memory). Where are the praises here ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barristan tells Daenerys that there are good things to be said of Aerys II, Jaehaerys II and his brother Duncan, Aegon V, and Rhaegar most of all.

Perhaps more importantly, Barristan thinks to himself that Rhaegar would have been a finer king than any in at least the last 40 years (Robert I, Aerys II, Jaehaerys II).

Whether or not Barristan thinks Rhaegar was the greatest thing since sliced bread, he clearly holds him in high regard, and is not simply blindly parroting Viserys's stories, or telling Daenerys what she wants to hear.

As someone who was knighted by Aegon V forty-seven years ago, and named to the Kingsguard by Jaehaerys II around forty years ago, Barristan knows a thing or two about the last half a century of kings.

Edited by Bael's Bastard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Kal-L said:

You brought every person who didn't badmouth about him, not the same. Jorah mentioned Rhaegar's skills as a warrior and compared Viserys to Rhaegar stating Viserys a disrespected king without crown who begged at every corner wasn't a true dragon (out of memory). Where are the praises here ?

Is this the quote you're referring to?

"I hit him," she said, wonder in her voice. Now that it was over, it seemed like some strange dream that she had dreamed. "Ser Jorah, do you think . . . he'll be so angry when he gets back . . . "She shivered. "I woke the dragon, didn't I?"
Ser Jorah snorted. "Can you wake the dead, girl? Your brother Rhaegar was the last dragon, and he died on the Trident. Viserys is less than the shadow of a snake." (Dany III, AGOT 23)

If it is, Jorah isn't badmouthing Rhaegar. And he is another person who doesn't have anything negative to say about Rhaegar even though he fought against him on the Trident.

The only person so far in the story who thinks negatively of him is Robert. I had expectations when the Martells entered the story in ASoS, but nothing's been said about him on that side so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

Is this the quote you're referring to?

"I hit him," she said, wonder in her voice. Now that it was over, it seemed like some strange dream that she had dreamed. "Ser Jorah, do you think . . . he'll be so angry when he gets back . . . "She shivered. "I woke the dragon, didn't I?"
Ser Jorah snorted. "Can you wake the dead, girl? Your brother Rhaegar was the last dragon, and he died on the Trident. Viserys is less than the shadow of a snake." (Dany III, AGOT 23)

If it is, Jorah isn't badmouthing Rhaegar. And he is another person who doesn't have anything negative to say about Rhaegar even though he fought against him on the Trident. 

The only person so far in the story who thinks negatively of him is Robert. I had expectations when the Martells entered the story in ASoS, but nothing's been said about him on that side so far.

Well that's what I said, Jorah is one of the persons (meaning everyone bar Robert) who didn't badmouth him. About the Martells, GRRM mentioned they were displeased with the way Elia had been treated and prince Lewynn had to be threaten by the mad king. I suppose we may learn on their part in the next book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2019 at 9:44 PM, Minsc said:

They have also been content with plenty of regencies in the past when the young king is supported by a powerful lord.  Similar to how Joffrey has the backing of Tywin Lannister.

The norm that a son inherits is strong, but if succession is uncertain, then they can choose to avoid a regency.

Quote

All of the Baratheons are going alone, if anything only Joffrey has Robert's seal of approval.  They can also gain positions by supporting Joffrey.  Stannis isn't any less nepotistic with his appointments with him appointing his in-laws to almost every important position within his command.

Joffrey never had any "seal of approval" from Robert, who told Ned he was staying on the throne just to keep Joffrey off it. Stannis & Renly were both granted castles & seats on the small council. Even if he didn't get along with Stannis, he still trusted him with defeating the Greyjoys at sea. And Davos serves as evidence that Stannis prioritizes good service over lineage (Cersei Lannister does promote Janos "son of a butcher" Slynt, but Tywin condemns this and Tyrion sends him to the wall for precisely the reason he was promoted).

Quote

Stannis was annoyed that Robert didn't execute/punish all of the Reach and Stormlords that sided with Aerys II.  Stannis was annoyed that Robert didn't execute the Greyjoys (meaning they won't corporate with him like the Lannisters and Tyrells).  Stannis isn't going to negotiate a peace exchange with Tywin that spares Jaime, Cersei, and the children meaning he won't have peace with him any more than Joffrey would with Robb.

Stannis' objectives would serve as a barrier to any eventual peace, but I brought up more everyday negotiations like the exchange of prisoners after a battle. The Lannisters have a credibility problem where Stannis does not.

Quote

So once more the argument that he kept the incest a secret because he wanted to argue him and Stannis were equal rebels is complete bull.  Renly was right, no one besides the Maesters cared about Robert's Targaryen's blood.  Robert was chosen because he was the popular figurehead.  While, Ned was an aloof Northerner, Jon was an old man that has had trouble securing a heir, and Hoster was from a family that had never been kings before.  If they cared about the legitimacy of bloodline than Viserys was the clear choice.

Stannis was making the incest argument, and Renly did not want to grant it because it served Stannis over Renly. I have already said that Renly would not argue for his equality rather than his superiority. The Baratheons had also never been "kings" before, instead their founder was the alleged bastard half-brother of Aegon the conqueror. Viserys was the son of the very king they were trying to overthrow, he was far too young and would require a regency, and he was in the hands of the Mad King's regime (until Tywin sacked the city and the Mad King's wife fled to Dragonstone and then Essos). Additionally, anyone who overthrew the Mad King while keeping his young son as next in line might expect a fate like Roger Mortimer under Edward III.

Quote

The Seven is even weaker in present day Westeros than they were in the Andal invasion.  The fact that they didn't happen isn't relevant to the point that people in Westeros clearly believe that marriages can be set aside.  Moreover, Robert wouldn't have any of the limitations that those individuals had when pursuing their marriages set aside.  Robert is the king, unlike Daemon and Naenys, thus he won't have to ask the king's permission.  Nor is Robert as weak willed as Tytos.

"When the Andals came, the Hightowers were amongst the first lords of Westeros to welcome them. "Wars are bad for trade," said Lord Dorian Hightower, when he set aside his wife of twenty years, the mother of his children, to take an Andal princess as his bride. "

Sorry I was thinking Hightower rather Gardner.

The Westerosi place legal weight on precedent, like the "iron precedent" that only a son can inherit the Iron Throne. Marriage under the Seven involves sacred oaths, which is why the Faith later put Margaery & Cersei on trial for violating said oaths. Robert is admittedly not too big on various formalities, hence his permitting non-knight Northerners to participate in a tourney alongside southron knights, but permitting the king to set aside a marriage under the Seven without anyone involved taking the costly step of swearing sacred oaths of celibacy undermines the reliability of the marital alliances at the core of westerosi politics (including the ties that bound together the victors of Robert's rebellion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The norm that a son inherits is strong, but if succession is uncertain, then they can choose to avoid a regency.

That doesn't mean in the slightest that any of them would favor Stannis over Joffrey to the degree that they more reluctant to usurp the former than the later.

Quote

Joffrey never had any "seal of approval" from Robert, who told Ned he was staying on the throne just to keep Joffrey off it. Stannis & Renly were both granted castles & seats on the small council. Even if he didn't get along with Stannis, he still trusted him with defeating the Greyjoys at sea. And Davos serves as evidence that Stannis prioritizes good service over lineage (Cersei Lannister does promote Janos "son of a butcher" Slynt, but Tywin condemns this and Tyrion sends him to the wall for precisely the reason he was promoted).

Of course Joffrey has Robert's "seal of approval" as seen how Robert officially had him declared his designated heir.  Davos is only made Hand after Stannis had previously appointed three different in-laws to the important positions of Hand, Lord Admiral, and Castellan.  Furthermore, Davos, himself, is a nepotistic appointment he wasn't appointed because of some exceptional qualities that would make him an ideal Hand rather because he is the closest Stannis has to a friend.  Tywin, Jaime, Tyrion, and Kevan are less nepotistic than Davos as all are more highly qualified for their appointed positions than Davos is for being Hand.  There is a reason Davos's Handship has him basically doing the same messenger acts as he was doing before.

Quote

Stannis' objectives would serve as a barrier to any eventual peace, but I brought up more everyday negotiations like the exchange of prisoners after a battle. The Lannisters have a credibility problem where Stannis does not.

The Lannisters were more than able to still negotiate prisoner exchanges as Stannis would be.  Ned's execution doesn't stop them from being able to exchange terms with Robb.

Quote

Stannis was making the incest argument, and Renly did not want to grant it because it served Stannis over Renly. I have already said that Renly would not argue for his equality rather than his superiority. The Baratheons had also never been "kings" before, instead their founder was the alleged bastard half-brother of Aegon the conqueror. Viserys was the son of the very king they were trying to overthrow, he was far too young and would require a regency, and he was in the hands of the Mad King's regime (until Tywin sacked the city and the Mad King's wife fled to Dragonstone and then Essos). Additionally, anyone who overthrew the Mad King while keeping his young son as next in line might expect a fate like Roger Mortimer under Edward III.

You still have nothing backing that up.  In fact, Renly is more than willing to bring up Stannis's argument when Catelyn references them both rebelling against the throne.  Similarly, he repeatedly concedes Stannis has the better claim just that is irrelevant.  Sure, they hadn't been kings before but Robert was younger and more popular than Hoster.  Irrelevant, if straight blood succession is what matters than Viserys came before Robert twice be it as either Aerys or Rhaelle's heir.

Quote

The Westerosi place legal weight on precedent, like the "iron precedent" that only a son can inherit the Iron Throne. Marriage under the Seven involves sacred oaths, which is why the Faith later put Margaery & Cersei on trial for violating said oaths. Robert is admittedly not too big on various formalities, hence his permitting non-knight Northerners to participate in a tourney alongside southron knights, but permitting the king to set aside a marriage under the Seven without anyone involved taking the costly step of swearing sacred oaths of celibacy undermines the reliability of the marital alliances at the core of westerosi politics (including the ties that bound together the victors of Robert's rebellion).

Precedent shows individuals within Westeros believes that marriage can be set aside and only in Naerys is it suggested one take a sacred oath.  Also there isn't precedent saying non-knight Northeners couldn't participate in a tourney with southron knights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Minsc said:

Of course Joffrey has Robert's "seal of approval" as seen how Robert officially had him declared his designated heir.  Davos is only made Hand after Stannis had previously appointed three different in-laws to the important positions of Hand, Lord Admiral, and Castellan.  Furthermore, Davos, himself, is a nepotistic appointment he wasn't appointed because of some exceptional qualities that would make him an ideal Hand rather because he is the closest Stannis has to a friend.  Tywin, Jaime, Tyrion, and Kevan are less nepotistic than Davos as all are more highly qualified for their appointed positions than Davos is for being Hand.  There is a reason Davos's Handship has him basically doing the same messenger acts as he was doing before.

True. Davos has no great experience or shown tact governing large lands, waging war, or shown an in depth knowledge about the laws of the realm. When addressing a nobleman that should be at least technically lower in stature to him he often treats them as a peasant whose been  granted the privilege of being addressed by a nobleman.  For instance when going to the three sisters, or trying to get the Manderlys to support Stannis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 10:30 AM, Ygrain said:

Grrr, I've just lost a  long post responding to several points, and I don't have the time to do it all over again, so my apologies for the brevity.

On polygamy:

- unlike incest, it was not a regular custom even pre-conquest, Aegon's marriage to both his sisters was unusual

 - in some regions of pre-conquest Westeros, polygamy was possible

- there were several attempts at polygamy post-conquest, meaning it was never expressly banned

- GRRM stated that "there was and is precedent" for polygamy

 

On Rhaegar's supposed madness and cowardice and the outcome of his supposed abduction of Lyanna:

- no character in the books, not even Robert, describes him as such

- there is not clearcut connection between the abduction and the atrocities that led to the outbreak of the Rebellion. Aerys' cruelty and madness had never been directed at the highest-ranking noblemen of the realm before, with the exception of the Darklynn where he had a valid reason (and who were not lords Paramount, anyway). 

I forgot to address this. Of course there are parts of Westeros where polygamy is perfectly fine-beyond  the wall , and in Iron islands, in the woods of Vale where the savage Moutain roam for. The faith however did not grant the same leniency they did for Targyen incest towards Targyen polygamy. They allowed  one queer practice. Not all of them.  Seriously, you might as well argue the Targyens owning slaves(a practice they did heavily participate in), was/would be seen as legal by virtue of the doctrine.

When Lucerys Targyen went to try to secure the allegiance of Borros Baratheon in the dance of dragons the would have succeeded if polygamy was considered covered under the doctrine of exceptionalism. Lucerys when told by Borros would side with Rhaenyra if Luke married one his daughters replied he couldn’t because he was already betrothed. If there was a general understanding even just amongst the Targyens of polygamy for them being acceptable by the Faith why would that be his response? 

And where are you getting there were 7 attempts from House Targyen since the reign of Jaerys of polygamy? The only example I could find in the wiki is one instance Of Aegon the unworthy trying it with his legitimized bastard Daemon Blackfyre.

A mad king being told openly  of how his subjects are angry with him and his family has little chance of responding peacefully. Aerys in the final stages of his life was quick to anger and ready to go on the offensive at the mere chance his subjects would attack him. It was a very low-bar to incur his rage.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2019 at 10:39 PM, The Mother of The Others said:

We want Rheagar to be onto something, hot on the trail of proper prophecy interpretation, but who's to say he wasn't totally wrong about the 2 dragon heads he'd identified, and fooled by folklore into seeking the 3rd through Lyanna? 

Of course he might have been wrong, yet again. But figuring out the prophecy and figuring out Rhaegar's mindset in regards to the prophecy, are two different things. 

On 2/18/2019 at 11:10 PM, Geddus said:

Exactly, Rhaegar marrying someone else while already having children would have been very dangerous in any case. It's that kind of thing that caused the Dance.

Yes, it is not a politically stable situation. However, the point is that in this respect, a polygamous marriage is not really different from a serial second marriage. And if he thinks that he needs more children to achieve a goal higher than the usual succession shenanigans, then succession trouble is what he would feel had to be risked.

On 2/18/2019 at 11:10 PM, Geddus said:

If it's a real prophecy it will happen, there's no point in trying to fulfill it.

That depends on the the philosophy, or mindset. In most legends, prophecies don't just happen, their fullfillment is born from action. If Harry Potter didn't think he had to fight Voldemort, the situation in which he was able to defeat him would never happen.

On 2/19/2019 at 1:57 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This assumes Lyanna bears more children, with at least one son and one daughter. Lyanna could only bear sons to Rheagar.  It’s a real possibility Lyanna bears Rheagar one son. Rhaeyns may not be enough to broker a peace.  Lyanna could also be whispering in her son’s ear talk of him being the true heir like Visenya did Maegor. And Rheagar clearly showed more affection towards Lyanna. It’s quite reasonable for Ellia to have feared his affections would extend to the son of Ellia. It creates needless risk to Ellia’s  progeny. I see no reason for Ellia  to be in favor of Rheagar taking on Lyanna.

See my response to Geddus above. If Elia was on board with the prophecy of doom and gloom that needed to be averted, doing so by any means necessary was more important than sibling squabbles about succession.

Or, you know, she may have just trusted Rhaegar that he would see to it thathis firstborn son was not robbed of his claim.

On 2/19/2019 at 4:39 AM, zoenerys said:

Yes, it is victimizing, because that's what she is in all of this, a victim. I can totally understand wanting Elia to have some power over her love life and headcanon-ing that, but I have a problem with this segueing into absolving Rhaegar of his responsibility in all of this. She is literally blamed by everyone that's not related to her in-verse for Rhaegar going off with Lyanna. Even Dany thinks she must've been a horrible person for Rhaegar to have done that to her. Giving him a valid reason such as an affair for him to abandon her and their kids for a year is so unfair.  She did nothing wrong to deserve this treatment. Her cheating on him would validate everything he did in this situation. I'm not having it. 

I don't see her having an affair as validating or absolving of anything, I rather perceive their loveless marriage absolving them both

As for Rhaegar abandoning her for a year, I don't think it was the original plan. Also, it's not like she was left to strive for livelihood and take care of her children totally on her own, she had resources and servants to lead a comfortable life, Rhaegar or no Rhaegar. In the medieval setting, it was perfectly common for noblement to be gone for most of the time, they were not expected to be full-time fathers.

On 2/24/2019 at 3:35 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I forgot to address this. Of course there are parts of Westeros where polygamy is perfectly fine-beyond  the wall , and in Iron islands, in the woods of Vale where the savage Moutain roam for.

Not what I meant. I don't possess the TWOIAF, so I can't give you a quote, but polygamy was practiced in some of the original kingdoms (Riverlands, I think). It seems that the taboo against it wasn't as universal as the one against incest and monogamy became the norm only gradually.

On 2/24/2019 at 3:35 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The faith however did not grant the same leniency they did for Targyen incest towards Targyen polygamy. They allowed  one queer practice. Not all of them.  Seriously, you might as well argue the Targyens owning slaves(a practice they did heavily participate in), was/would be seen as legal by virtue of the doctrine.

The faith didn't grant anything, the faith were the ones who had to make concessions. 

I don't know about Aegon bringing any slaves into Westeros, do you? He did bring two wives along, though. Which was queer by not only Westerosi standards but by Targaryen, as well. Which may be why no-one bothered to push it into the doctrine in the first place

On 2/24/2019 at 3:35 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

When Lucerys Targyen went to try to secure the allegiance of Borros Baratheon in the dance of dragons the would have succeeded if polygamy was considered covered under the doctrine of exceptionalism. Lucerys when told by Borros would side with Rhaenyra if Luke married one his daughters replied he couldn’t because he was already betrothed. If there was a general understanding even just amongst the Targyens of polygamy for them being acceptable by the Faith why would that be his response? 

And we have other instances where people did think it possible, so isn't this example more about a personal stance, rather than legal or religious possibility?

On 2/24/2019 at 3:35 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And where are you getting there were 7 attempts from House Targyen since the reign of Jaerys of polygamy? The only example I could find in the wiki is one instance Of Aegon the unworthy trying it with his legitimized bastard Daemon Blackfyre.

Several, not seven.

Daemon asked for Rhaenyra's hand. Plus some more I don't recall that well - didn't even Aegon the Conqueror receive a proposal from someone? And I'm almost certain that one king - Aegon IV? - was offered either a pick from some lord's daughters, or all of them.

So, while the Faith probably wouldn't have liked the idea, some people seemed to consider it possible.

On 2/24/2019 at 3:35 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

A mad king being told openly  of how his subjects are angry with him and his family has little chance of responding peacefully. Aerys in the final stages of his life was quick to anger and ready to go on the offensive at the mere chance his subjects would attack him. It was a very low-bar to incur his rage.

That's why there is this thing called diplomacy,  where you don't tell the mad king how angry you are with him and his family but instead politely require about the prince Rhaegar's whereabouts and how to solve the unfortunate situation of a missing daughter. Because if you recall, Aerys was pissed with Rhaegar, as well, and if you allied with the right people at the court, you could have a strong case against Rhaegar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

See my response to Geddus above. If Elia was on board with the prophecy of doom and gloom that needed to be averted, doing so by any means necessary was more important than sibling squabbles about succession.

Or, you know, she may have just trusted Rhaegar that he would see to it thathis firstborn son was not robbed of his claim.

The odds of the former being the case I find pretty small. If Rheagar did disclose his whole “I will sire the messiahs” stick I think Ellia would think Rheagar has become touched a little with the Targyen madness. Or simply narcissistic. He doesn’t really have any proof for his claims and his claims are pretty outlandish. I mean this notion he had on how he’s key to the apocalypse wasn’t wide-spread. Maybe Rheagar knew how queer that would sound to so many people especially people  of the faith. 

And the latter, why and how?  Rheagar can’t live forever the second he dies as far as Ellia knows that can be when the son of Lyanna starts attacking. Short of castrating or shipping the son off to the wall(which would kinda be counterproductive to his efforts), I can’t see him being able to guarantee his sons won’t go for each other’s throats when dies. And to be clear it’s not just Rheagar she’d be putting her faith in here. She’d have to hope Lyanna wouldn’t whisper in her own son’s ear on how his father truly wants him to succeed him. And the son of Lyanna could.The son of Lyanna would have greater alliegance from most the Riverlands and the north than the son of Ellia, his uncle would be warden of the north, whose wife would be the daughter of the river lands. Should the son of Lyanna rebel he could very well when. The lives of Ellia’s children as a result could be very well snuffed out in the usurpation. It’s a massive risk. One I don’t really Ellia being fine with. 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Not what I meant. I don't possess the TWOIAF, so I can't give you a quote, but polygamy was practiced in some of the original kingdoms (Riverlands, I think). It seems that the taboo against it wasn't as universal as the one against incest and monogamy became the norm only gradually.

Quote

Yeah before the faith truly took a hold of the south.

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:
Quote

 

The faith didn't grant anything, the faith were the ones who had to make concessions. 

 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

 I don't know about Aegon bringing any slaves into Westeros, do you? He did bring two wives along, though. Which was queer by not only Westerosi standards but by Targaryen, as well. Which may be why no-one bothered to push it into the doctrine in the first place

Quote

Yes, no one tried to push Polygamy as acceptable into the doctrine. Glad we could agree on that at least Though I’m slightly confused. Do you contend the Targyens bought and owned slaves during their rule of the kingdoms they’d be seen legally ok? Again slavery was a widespread practice they did participate in.

 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

And we have other instances where people did think it possible, so isn't this example more about a personal stance, rather than legal or religious possibility?

Quote

The most I could find is Aegon the unworthy’s attempt with Daemon Blackfyre. Which honestly isn’t really that compelling. And given arrangement never I don’t see why you’re so confident that the arrangement would be be met with acceptance by the populous.The man is known for caring nothing about law, propriety or basic decency. I take Lucerys view of what Targyen exceptionalism actually covers.

 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Plus some more I don't recall that well -

I think it’s better to wait until you could properly source cite what instance you’re looking at.

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Daemon asked for Rhaenyra's hand.

When? The man only married his niece after his third wife’s death. And this is another man whose known to care nothing of propriety, law or common decency is trying polygamy again after the doctrine of exceptionalism.

 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

didn't even Aegon the Conqueror receive a proposal from someone? 

Which would’ve came a good few decades before the guy who came up with the doctrine was even born. And I imagine if Aegon took another wife on the mainland it wouldn’t have gone that much better than Maegor’s taking on multiple wives. 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

That's why there is this thing called diplomacy,  where you don't tell the mad king how angry you are with him and his family but instead politely require about the prince Rhaegar's whereabouts and how to solve the unfortunate situation of a missing daughter. 

“Politely” nothing. The fact they’re raising complaint tells even him they’re angry with the situation-rightly so-Aerys was mad, not totally  simple, even he could realize Rheagar would’ve angered his vassals by in a way cucking Robert  , and bedding a daughter of House Stark without as far they know well wedding her. 

 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Because if you recall, Aerys was pissed with Rhaegar, as well, and if you allied with the right people at the court, you could have a strong case against Rhaegar.

You know as much as Aerys hated Rheagar in the end, the prince was still Aerys’ son. If people are angry with him, they’re angry with House Targyen, if they’re angry with House Targyen they are a threat.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Yes, it is not a politically stable situation. However, the point is that in this respect, a polygamous marriage is not really different from a serial second marriage. And if he thinks that he needs more children to achieve a goal higher than the usual succession shenanigans, then succession trouble is what he would feel had to be risked.

That depends on the the philosophy, or mindset. In most legends, prophecies don't just happen, their fullfillment is born from action. If Harry Potter didn't think he had to fight Voldemort, the situation in which he was able to defeat him would never happen.

Well, a polygamous marriage is actually worse because it will inevitably raise many complaints and piss out a lot of people. But yes, the situations are similar and in both cases it's not a great idea.

I'm not familiar with Harry Potter at all. Anyway, I think that GRRM's mindset on the matter is the same Marwyn has so everyone would be better off staying clear of prophecies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2019 at 9:35 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I forgot to address this. Of course there are parts of Westeros where polygamy is perfectly fine-beyond  the wall , and in Iron islands, in the woods of Vale where the savage Moutain roam for. The faith however did not grant the same leniency they did for Targyen incest towards Targyen polygamy. They allowed  one queer practice. Not all of them.  Seriously, you might as well argue the Targyens owning slaves(a practice they did heavily participate in), was/would be seen as legal by virtue of the doctrine.

@Varysblackfyre321

The Doctrine of Targaryen Exceptionalism exempted the Targaryens from being judged by gods or men for the marital practices that they, as dragonlords, brought with them from Valyria.

There is no statement, nor hint, that the Faith asked the Targaryens to relinquish the already unusual practice of polygamy, let alone that the Targaryens agreed or volunteered to relinquish the practice.

On 2/23/2019 at 9:35 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

When Lucerys Targyen went to try to secure the allegiance of Borros Baratheon in the dance of dragons the would have succeeded if polygamy was considered covered under the doctrine of exceptionalism. Lucerys when told by Borros would side with Rhaenyra if Luke married one his daughters replied he couldn’t because he was already betrothed. If there was a general understanding even just amongst the Targyens of polygamy for them being acceptable by the Faith why would that be his response?

Lucerys's failure to broach the idea of wedding two wives doesn't prove that the Targaryens had accepted upon themselves a prohibition on polygamy.

On 2/23/2019 at 9:35 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And where are you getting there were 7 attempts from House Targyen since the reign of Jaerys of polygamy? The only example I could find in the wiki is one instance Of Aegon the unworthy trying it with his legitimized bastard Daemon Blackfyre.

It doesn't matter how many attempts there were after Jaehaerys. That tells us nothing about whether the Targaryens accepted a prohibition on polygamy.

The Targaryens, especially males, had good reasons to avoid polygamy, as well as to avoid taking wives after the deaths of their first wives, assuming their first wife produced sons.

There is already no guarantee that children from the same mother will get along, and support each other. Having children from multiple mothers only increases the chances that there is conflict down the road.

But there is no statement or hint that the Targaryens were asked to, or agreed to, accept a prohibition on polygamy, something even the lowly pre-king Targaryen lords of Dragonstone practiced freely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The Doctrine of Targaryen Exceptionalism exempted the Targaryens from being judged by gods or men for the marital practices that they, as dragonlords, brought with them from Valyria.

There is no statement, nor hint, that the Faith asked the Targaryens to relinquish the already unusual practice of polygamy, let alone that the Targaryens agreed or volunteered to relinquish the practice.

The incestuas marital practices. Explicitly, Jaerys did not request all practices the Valaryians were accustomed to be recognized by the faith because they’re Valaryian. There is no hint he tried broach this controversial proposition as well. There’s no statement or hint he actually asked Polygamy to be accepted by the faith as ok for the Targyens.

54 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Lucerys's failure to broach the idea of wedding two wives doesn't prove that the Targaryens had accepted upon themselves a prohibition on polygamy.

On 2/23/2019 at 6:35 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Literally no one else having covered the event said his reaction was at odds with reality. Not the historians, no one recorded to have been present at the confrontation, no one. Hell even Barth express surprise that Lucerys thought he couldn’t take on a second-wife even when the fate of his entire family depended upon it. No one actually suggests he could have taken on one of Orys’ daughters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The incestuas marital practices. Explicitly, Jaerys did not request all practices the Valaryians were accustomed to be recognized by the faith because they’re Valaryian. There is no hint he tried broach this controversial proposition as well. There’s no statement or hint he actually asked Polygamy to be accepted by the faith as ok for the Targyens.

You are putting limits on the doctrine that are not stated or hinted to have existed. Jaehaerys did not request, nor need to request, that the Faith accept anything. Polygamy, like incest, is one of the marital practices that the lords of Dragonstone and dragonlords of the Valyrian Freehold before them, had long practiced. And while one was more common, and the other more unusual, there is no statement or hint that a distinction was made between them as far as the Targaryens being an exception.

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Literally no one else having covered the event said his reaction was at odds with reality. Not the historians, no one recorded to have been present at the confrontation, no one. Hell even Barth express surprise that Lucerys thought he couldn’t take on a second-wife even when the fate of his entire family depended upon it. No one actually suggests he could have taken on one of Orys’ daughters

None of which is a substitute for a statement or implication that the Targaryens ever agreed to a prohibition on polygamy. Lucerys could have any number of reasons for not bringing up the idea. But that would just be speculation. What we know is that there is not a single statement or hint that Jaehaerys, or any Targaryen king after Jaehaerys, accepted or upheld a ban on Targaryens practicing polygamy. A lack of examples is no substitute for actual proof of a ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×