Jump to content

R+L=J v.166


SFDanny

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Mithras said:

When AGoT was published, Alysanne was the daughter of Maegor, making all the Targaryens descendants of yet another polygamous king.

Unfortunately we never learned from what wife, no? If Alysanne's mother was the first one who we know as Ceryse Hightower she would have been the only legitimate child ;-).

5 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The issue of polygamy never disappeared, as Aenys and all his descendants owed their existence to polygamy. Every living Targ was a reminder of polygamy, and incest. And in fact, after Rhaenys died, lords and knights jumped at the opportunity to wed their daughters to Aegon, who not only now had an heir from his deceased second wife, but was still married to his first wife. It's abundantly clear most lords didn't give a shit about Targ polygamy, were more than ready to enter their daughters into a polygamous marriage, and pretty much only a single insane High Septon made an issue of it. Even the supposedly pious Lord Hightower during the conquest was ready to wed his daughter to Aegon while he had two sister wives already. So if we are being honest, the Targs obviously were not worried about any religious or legal prohibition. In Rhaegar's case the issue would have been alienating Elia and/or her family, Lyanna and/or her family, and Robert by interfering with his agreed to marriage, not any religious or legal bullshit.

Do you have any textual evidence backing up the claim that people in Westeros actually think of the Targaryen dynasty being the result of polygamy, and thus seeing polygamy as something they can and should do? I'd really like to read passages like that, passages were characters in-universe would use such justifications.

I mean, guys, I'm a fan of Targaryen polygamy. I want it to be a thing and hope it comes back with both Aegon and Daenerys, but George cut it out of the history post-Maegor. You don't know how much I wanted there to be some polygamous union taking place during the reigns of Jaehaerys I and Viserys I - or it being used as a political ploy to secure alliances during the Dance (Rhaenyra and Aegon II both could have had multiple spouses at the same time during the war) - but the fact remains that it didn't happen, and nobody ever says anything about Aegon the Conqueror having taken two sister-wives back in a (possibly barbaric) ceremony on Dragonstone before the Conquest as proof that polygamy is something royalty do in Westeros.

The opposite is true. Instead we got a Targaryen king who is abhorred by polygamy (Jaehaerys I):

Quote

“I will be married,” the princess [Saera] said. “Why shouldn’t I be? You were married at my age. I shall be wedded and bedded, but to whom? Jonah and Roy both love me, I could take one of them, but they are both such boys. Stinger does not love me, but he makes me laugh and sometimes makes me scream. I could marry all three of them, why not? Why should I have just one husband? The Conqueror had two wives, and Maegor had six or eight.

She had gone too far. Jaehaerys rose to his feet and descended from the Iron Throne, his face a mask of rage. “You would compare yourself to Maegor? Is that who you aspire to be?” His Grace had heard enough. “Take her back to her bedchamber,” he told his guards, “and keep her there until I send for her again.”

Also note that polygamy is something associated with psychopaths and monsters (Maegor & Saera).

Jaehaerys I also considered his uncle's polygamous union and not his siblings' incest marriage the main cause of the Faith Militant Uprising:

Quote

Jaehaerys had concluded that the violent opposition that had greeted his brother Aegon’s marriage had several causes. Their uncle Maegor’s taking of a second wife in 39 AC, in defiance of both the High Septon and his own brother, King Aenys, had shattered the delicate understanding between the Iron Throne and the Starry Sept, so the marriage of Aegon and Rhaena had been seen as a further outrage. The denunciation thus provoked had lit a fire across the land, and the Swords and Stars had taken up the torches, along with a score of pious lords who feared the gods more than their king. Prince Aegon and Princess Rhaena had been little known amongst the smallfolk, and they had begun their progress without dragons (in large part because Aegon was not yet a dragonrider), which left them vulnerable to the mobs that sprung up to attack them in the riverlands.

As for ambitious lords and such - also note that a lot of the stuff there are rumors, as is the piety of the people involved. If you read the Hightower story on the Conquest, then it is quite clear the gods have little to nothing to do with the High Septon's deep insights, but rather the fact that Oldtown had no defense against three monstrous dragons (and the same would have been what convinced old Lord Manfred that the High Septon had the truth on the matter). Later, after the death of Queen Rhaenys, we have no idea who the lords and knights were who tried to marry their daughters to Aegon.

But I never denied that people were rather keen to throw another woman at an already polygamous king - the issue is whether it was seen as exemplatory or, in later years, possible without causing an uprising to break out of the normal monogamous framework.

Again, Aegon the Conqueror was a incestuous polygamist when he conquered Westeros. People couldn't do anything about his marital status. But they could with his descendants. And they did. The Targaryens from Aenys onwards married in septs, not in Valyrian rites which may or may not allow for multiple spouses. By doing that, they agreed to the marriage rites as stipulated by the Faith. And the Doctrine of Exceptionalism didn't change that - it said the Targaryens were created differently and could marry their sisters, but not that they they were created differently to have multiple wives.

And it is rather refreshing that, the incest issue aside, the blood of the dragon were turned into pious little Andals by their maesters and ladies and septons and septas. Neither King Aenys nor his sons and grandsons fathered any bastards, even the prospect of that happening was seen as distateful by Aenys and Alyssa, causing the announcement of the Aegon-Rhaena match. And this continued throughout the reign of Jaehaerys I. The Targaryens were expected to be monogamous and chaste outside the marriage bed. There was no tolerance for aberrant behavior in this regard until Viserys I - and with him the door opened for bastards, but clearly not polygamy.

3 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

You are overly complicating things.

If Rhaegar has or finds a septon or other officiant to wed him with Lyanna, and they consummate, they are wed, their children are legitimate, and neither the Faith nor Aerys has any power to invalidate the marriage.

If he were to be married by a septon the marriage would be invalid from the start, because as per his marriage vow to Elia Rhaegar Targaryen was already in a monogamous marriage.

And of course other people can undo marriages against the will of the people involved in the matter - Tywin does that with Tysha and Tyrion, and Aegon V chose to allow the marriage of Jaehaerys and Shaera to stand instead of doing away with it, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have.

But on the obvious legal thing of a marriage - a secret marriage is no marriage at all. A marriage is by definition a public event. If to took place in secret and wasn't revealed and believed by the public as an event that took place, then it simply didn't exist. It is like as if it never happened.

This is why in Jon Snow's case the facts are completely irrelevant - just as they are in the case of the son of Aemond and Alys Rivers. It depends on what people believe to be true, not what's actually is true. Just as is the case with Aegon's identity - it is irrelevant whether he is Rhaegar's son, but whether people believe this to be the case or not.

With Rhaegar-Lyanna we have a couple of such problems:

1) Is Westeros at large willing to see a Targaryen polygamous union as a proper marriage 250 years after Maegor? Unknown, but I think we have sufficient reason to doubt that the Westerosi at large will be written as polygamist sympathizers. Honestly, I expect there to be more polygamist sympathizers in this thread than there in all the Seven Kingdoms... (I guess Rhaegar could count on the support of the likes of Craster and Ygon Oldfeather and such, but I'm not sure that's going to help his case all that much.)

2) Was this marriage a secret or public polygamous union? If the former is the case then I see little to no reason why many people - especially Targaryen loyalists - should want to believe that the great Prince Rhaegar was a secret polygamist. That would certainly not make him look good.

3) What reason is there to want to believe that a Stark bastard is in truth the offspring of this (alleged) polygamous union? Who should want to believe that for what reason?

Vice versa, people wanting to believe Jon Snow was the offspring of a polygamous union - either secret or public - could also believe that even if it was factually incorrect. The idea that the truth of the matter shapes the future plot here is pretty much nonsensical. If that were so, Stannis would have succeeded Joffrey without much/any resistance, Aegon would only have success if he truly were Rhaegar's son, etc.

And, to be sure, the overall consensus on the matter as such certainly is that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents and they believed they were legally married by the time the child was born. But that doesn't mean this is going to shape the Jon Snow plot.

Quote

Aerys can remove Rhaegar and his line(s) from the succession, or execute Rhaegar and/or Lyanna, but he can't undo the marriage, and "you can't do this cause the Faith forbids polygamy" would undermine the legitimacy of Aerys personally and House Targaryen generally.

Again, I really would like you to point us to any textual evidence where in-universe people say we have to defend polygamy because else the Targaryen claim to the Iron Throne evaporates. That is not a line of argument anyone in the book ever makes.

Could be somebody will use that in future books - although I see no context in which this might make sense - but until that time that's not a valid argument.

It is also a kind of ridiculous argument if you think about that. The dynasty is well-established, they control the Realm they conquered and created for hundreds of years. Nothing they say about their distant ancestors is going to affect the power they have. Just as Viserys I ignoring the Great Council which made him king didn't unmake him as a king - because he was the king already.

I mean, are you also saying that if some historian discovered that King Aenys was actually not Aegon the Conqueror's seed that this would result in Aegon V or Jaehaerys II or Aerys II lose his claim to the Iron Throne? I don't think so. And to be frank, neither did that kind of talk ever effect or even shake a real world royal dynasty.

One could even argue that George deliberately decided that Aemond would not marry his Baratheon girl so that Alys Rivers could (allegedly) be his first wife - and their son thus a stronger version of Jon Snow, since their marriage, if it had taken place, wouldn't be a polygamous union.

Quote

Aerys wouldn't do it for that very reason, and I doubt any High Septon two centuries into the Targs being the Faith's only protectors had the balls to tell pyromaniac Aerys his son wasn't allowed to marry two women, even if he was certain Aerys was against it too.

Aerys II had problems with Rhaegar at the time. He considered disinheriting his ingrate son. Taking a second wife without royal permission - as Prince Maegor also did back in the day - certainly could have provided him with the necessary pretext to rid himself of his son. Even more so since the king actually had pretty close ties to the Faith, having humbled himself in a walk of repentance just a couple of years back, while Rhaegar had never acknowledged the authority of the Faith in a similar manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The opposite is true. Instead we got a Targaryen king who is abhorred by polygamy (Jaehaerys I):

Slow clap.  I think this pretty much ends this argument.  We can talk Aegon all day long, but it was Jaehaerys that created the rule of law for Targaryen kings.  Aegon came in as an outsider and made it clear that he was above Westeros law.  Maegor made a mockery of the Westeros laws.  It was Jaehaerys who crafted a rule of law, adopting the Faith with a significant caveat to allow the Targaryens maintain their genetic purity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Slow clap.  I think this pretty much ends this argument.  We can talk Aegon all day long, but it was Jaehaerys that created the rule of law for Targaryen kings.  Aegon came in as an outsider and made it clear that he was above Westeros law.  Maegor made a mockery of the Westeros laws.  It was Jaehaerys who crafted a rule of law, adopting the Faith with a significant caveat to allow the Targaryens maintain their genetic purity. 

Oh, well, this was brought up in the past already. The way people try to dismiss this was that Jaehaerys I doesn't really have an issue with polygamy there, that he merely objects against Saera's Maegor comparison. Which is, of course, not really valid since the issue at hand is polygamy and it is Saera's suggesting that she could emulate her great-uncle and great-grandfather in this that raises the ire of her royal father.

@Bael's Bastard certainly did make a correct point in the past that Rhaegar may have thought the Doctrine of Exceptionalism - which sort of is an implicit thing throughout the series, it is merely condified in FaB; whenever Jaime/Cersei, Dunk, or any character think about the Targaryens being closer to gods than men, being Valyrian special guys allowed to bang and marry their sisters, then they are thinking about the Doctrine of Exceptionalism - also allows him to follow in Maegor's and the Conqueror's footsteps.

But we are not arguing that Rhaegar couldn't have been mad enough to believe he could get away with polygamy. We are just not willing to believe that all of Westeros would have agreed with him, and cheered him as the Great Rhaegar Of the Two Wives afterwards. And the fact remains that thanks to how George told his story no Targaryen after Maegor, and no Targaryen after Jaehaerys I  designed the Doctrine of Exceptionalism used it to justify, defend, or support polygamy. That never happened. Which means Rhaegar would have to go back all the way to Maegor to cite a precedent. Which is going to make him look as good as Princess Saera.

There is also the glaring issue that Prince Maegor couldn't get away with polygamy - only King Maegor and King Aegon the Conqueror could. Which means there is actually no precedent whatsoever for a mere royal prince to successfully get away with polygamy - especially not a royal prince in bad standing with his royal father (like Prince Rhaegar). We only have that for ruling monarchs - and they tend to get away with a lot of shit.

And that allows us to conclude that chances are that if Rhaegar did that it wouldn't have worked - and also that nobody is running around anywhere in Westeros who is going to cry 'Hail the rightful king' if somebody were to figure out that Jon Snow is Rhaegar's son by Lyanna by means of some sort of weird (secret) polygamous union.

Not to mention that all that only merits serious consideration if people know/believe Rhaegar and Lyanna married. If this were something only the trees and the crippled boy and a wetnurse and a bog devil knew, then, well, it has as much chance of being taken seriously as the story about Shireen's true parentage.

If that is your take (addressed at everybody reading this) on the matter, then it is actually irrelevant how people see polygamy in the Seven Kingdoms, because nobody will ever have proof that such a polygamous union ever took place. Much less there being a clash over it.

In fact, the main reason why I think Rhaegar and Lyanna should have had a public wedding is so that this polygamy thing of theirs can have proper impact on the political plot of the books insofar as other players of the time - King Aerys II and his court, Lord Rickard Stark and his heir Brandon, Lord Robert Baratheon, Prince Doran Martell, etc. - would have to react to this event in some manner. It would influence and shape actual policy in Westeros as the Rebellion approached.

If it were this secret marriage thing, a hushed affair behind closed doors or in the wild, then it would be nonexistent in the political sphere. And, of course, the child, Jon Snow, wouldn't be in any danger as Lyanna's bastard.

How many people are speculating about Rhaegar even keeping his second marriage a secret after he returned to court! There are people who assume that Rhaegar even kept this thing from his mother and father! What a cowardly, craven course that would be, if true! What a disgrace! The one thing that could ennoble this whole mad enterprise, that could sort of make Rhaegar and Lyanna look reasonably well is if they owned what they did. If they decided: 'We want to be together, we want to get married, so let's marry publicly!' It means that these two people would actually love each other to the point that they would be in an 'us vs. the world' scenario. The idea that Rhaegar shamefully hid Lyanna at that tower is, frankly, pretty shameful itself.

All this idea of this being a hushed-up thing nobody ever knew anything or suspected anything about would do the characters a great disservice. And what we know about them, especially Lya, is that she would have never hide behind lies or deceit if she truly loved Rhaegar. And for the Targaryens as a family (although not necessarily for Rhaegar as depicted) we can also say that they usually stood their ground and did what they believed in openly and honestly.

Rhaegar's great-uncles and grandparents all owned and forced their marriages through no matter the odds or the resistance. Why it is that people believe that Rhaegar would be less of a man than his immediate ancestors/relations I don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Yeah, go ahead and explain to GRRM what he meant...

:wacko:He meant exactly that, when you have dragons you can do whatever you want regardless of law, religion, convention etc. When you don't have dragons you have to play by the rules, even when you eye color is weird. 

I've read Martin's quote and he doesn't say that Maegor's set a legal precedent for Targs and polygamy, quite the contrary, that's why he remarks the dragons and that you have to behave when you don't have them. If Rhaegar could force the Realm to accept it however...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, frenin said:

:wacko:He meant exactly that, when you have dragons you can do whatever you want regardless of law, religion, convention etc. When you don't have dragons you have to play by the rules, even when you eye color is weird. 

I've read Martin's quote and he doesn't say that Maegor's set a legal precedent for Targs and polygamy, quite the contrary, that's why he remarks the dragons and that you have to behave when you don't have them. If Rhaegar could force the Realm to accept it however...

 

Right. But he clearly says, “there was and is precedent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Right. But he clearly says, “there was and is precedent

Ofc it is. Again, precedents don't have to be legal ones... Maegor did practice polygamy so it's a precedent for every Targ who wants to follow his steps. He also inmediately goes on about that being doable without dragons... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If that is your take (addressed at everybody reading this) on the matter, then it is actually irrelevant how people see polygamy in the Seven Kingdoms, because nobody will ever have proof that such a polygamous union ever took place. Much less there being a clash over it.

It's a silly argument for a silly end.  Trying to make Jon the "legitimate" ruler of Westeros, for a kingdom who's "legitimacy" was created through mass murder and submission.  A kingdom which was brought down with more murder and bloodshed.

It pretty much ignores the most important lesson taught by Varys: "power resides where men believe it resides.  No more and no less."

The truth of a subjective "legitimacy" created through a religious fiction which no one is aware of means less than nothing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Ofc it is. Again, precedents don't have to be legal ones... Maegor did practice polygamy so it's a precedent for every Targ who wants to follow his steps. He also inmediately goes on about that being doable without dragons... 

I think maybe you’re getting way too caught up on the “legal”, or lawful aspect of it, and not giving enough weight to the fact that there was and is precedent. Laws change, rulers change, and these rulers also change their minds, human nature and all that, yadda yadda yadda. The main thing is, it was done before, it will be easier (not necessarily easy, but easier) to do it again than something that was never ever done ever. And sure, everything is even easier w/ big WMDs at your disposal, but again, that doesn’t mean that it can’t be done w/o dragons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two different matters.

One is: What really happened in 282 AC?

The other is: How, if at all, will that affect what happens in 300 AC and beyond?

What exactly did Rhaegar do in 282 AC, and what logic, reasoning, justification, etc. did he have for doing it?

How, if at all, will that affect people and events in 300 AC and beyond?

Jon's parentage, legitimacy, illegitimacy, etc. need not ever become publicly known, or have a public impact, in order for the facts of his parentage, legitimacy, illegitimacy, etc. to be true, and possibly learned by him or others.

I don't give a shit if Jon ever sits a throne, or is recognized publicly as legitimate, or a Targ, or an heir, or any of that. My posts literally discuss none of that, so stop projecting that shit onto me. 

If you want to speculate about what will happen in the future, have at it, but that isn't what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the possibilities of what Rhaegar actually did, and why he might have. He almost certainly had no intention of any child with Lyanna displacing or jumping Aegon, so that obviously wouldn't be a motivating factor for him wedding Lyanna.

Rhaegar clearly went into the Battle of the Trident with every intention of coming back and being the ruler of Westeros. His intentions to do so might go back to before he ever met Lyanna at Harrenhal in late 281. He commanded three KG to do whatever the hell they were doing in the middle of nowhere before the decisive battle of the war.

He wasn't above giving commands and using the powers he had or believed he had, including calling a council to deal with his father the king of Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I think maybe you’re getting way too caught up on the “legal”, or lawful aspect of it, and not giving enough weight to the fact that there was and is precedent. Laws change, rulers change, and these rulers also change their minds, human nature and all that, yadda yadda yadda. The main thing is, it was done before, it will be easier (not necessarily easy, but easier) to do it again than something that was never ever done ever. And sure, everything is even easier w/ big WMDs at your disposal, but again, that doesn’t mean that it can’t be done w/o dragons. 

it's important whether the thing was done lawfully or not because it's a good bar to see whether if circumstances change it can be done again succesfully. And how likely is that it's going to be even considered a legitimate marriage in the first place and not an arrogant man and a whore?? 

If Maegor needed the biggest dragons in Westeros history to succesfully do polygamy, how succesful is Rhaegar going to be?? Rhaegar has no, again, legal power, how could he stand against Aerys and the High Septon?? Polygamy is antinatural for Westerosi... Why would they accept it?? Because 300 hundred years ago Targaryen's archetype of tyrant did it?  If Martin himself is linking the viability of the polygamy to dragons, why make you think otherwise?

A woman sat on the Iron Throne and it's way harder that that happens again "peacefully" after she sat on the Iron Throne than it was before. 

 

Honestly if Rhaegar wanted to be polygamist he only needed to take Lyanna as his salt wife. At least there he'd have a better defense than Maegor did it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Right. But he clearly says, “there was and is precedent

The most recent precedent there is is the prcedent of Maegor the Cruel. That would only change if George had given us another, more recent precedent in FaB (or would do so in FaB II with some obscure Targaryens). Which hasn't happened so far, unfortunately.

That SSM is from before TWoIaF and FaB, i.e. long after he mapped out the reigns of the Targaryen kings from Aegon I to Aegon III in detail. It doesn't supersede how the history actually unfolded in published works - instead it was superseded by those and should be ignored.

Translating 'there is precedent' into the actual events we know if we read the books means that there was a mad tyrant 250 years ago who believed he could have a harem and was overthrown for that mad belief (among some other things he did).

That has about as much weight on what's decent or permissable or accepted as Craster's incestuous harem means for how things work beyond the Wall. Craster also sets a precedent that wildlings can marry their daughters and have multiple wives. There was and is precedent for that, too. But somehow that didn't make incest and polygamy all that popular beyond the Wall, nor are many people getting popular by justifying things by pointing to Craster as a precedent.

The point is not whether there are precedents one could cite, but who would want to hear about or accept/be happy about a precedent set by Maegor the Cruel? That's like saying it is okay to burn down your own city with wildfire because Aerys II set a precedent for that.

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

It's a silly argument for a silly end.  Trying to make Jon the "legitimate" ruler of Westeros, for a kingdom who's "legitimacy" was created through mass murder and submission.  A kingdom which was brought down with more murder and bloodshed.

It pretty much ignores the most important lesson taught by Varys: "power resides where men believe it resides.  No more and no less."

The truth of a subjective "legitimacy" created through a religious fiction which no one is aware of means less than nothing.  

Basically this is where the adults and the children part ways - or rather: the childish interpreters and the sober ones. The former live in their fairy-tale fantasy worlds where reality and beliefs/ideology align or are even identical.

Jon Snow as a universally accepted sacrosanct royal prince - or 'the rightful king', no less - is making him into an Aragorn. But this just isn't Tolkien. We do no longer live in the 1950s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

What exactly did Rhaegar do in 282 AC, and what logic, reasoning, justification, etc. did he have for doing it?

Assuming that's directed at me - I don't doubt that we will learn that George will give Rhaegar some sort of motivation and justification there. But as I tried to make clear - the point I'm making is that I don't believe - in the basis of the history of House Targaryen as given to us so far by George R. R. Martin - that Westeros at large (the king and queen included) didn't accept those justifications.

You do know that I assume Rhaegar and Lyanna married, and that I think (or rather: would prefer if) it was a public wedding. Of course Rhaegar and Lya would have had some sort of justification for that.

I just don't buy it for a second that everybody accepted this - not after 250 years without polygamy, with there being no dragons to force or stun or intimidate people into silence, and with Prince Rhaegar not being on good terms with his father the king by the time this marriage would have taken place.

Some people may have - Rhaegar's friends, say, perhaps some other people, too. But the king's people wouldn't have, and neither would have the Starks and Baratheons and Martells.

8 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Jon's parentage, legitimacy, illegitimacy, etc. need not ever become publicly known, or have a public impact, in order for the facts of his parentage, legitimacy, illegitimacy, etc. to be true, and possibly learned by him or others.

That is certainly true - my point is that here clearly are people who believe that facts have to/will shape plot in this particular instance, ignoring that they did not shape plot in the case of Cersei's children so far. Which is rather significant considering Stannis Baratheon is a great lord and the brother of King Robert, not a wetnurse or an obscure crannogman.

8 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I don't give a shit if Jon ever sits a throne, or is recognized publicly as legitimate, or a Targ, or an heir, or any of that. My posts literally discuss none of that, so stop projecting that shit onto me.

I didn't project anything on you, I just referred to a general tendency. However, I did call you out on projecting your own idea - that the Targaryens/their loyalists have to be polygamy fans because denouncing Targaryen polygamy would somehow undermine the Targaryen claim to the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros, and they wouldn't/couldn't have that - on the text when this isn't a concept/idea that's ever mentioned in the text.

It is something that could come up, but I find it not very likely. It would be far too legalistic an approach and doesn't fit well at all with the casual manner in which Westerosi deal with legal issues. Factual possession of power decides who is right, not legal arguments. Aegon the Conqueror and his sister-wives could turn out to be bunch of lowborn mummers and it would still not take away the power their descendants inherited from them while they still have that power.

Another example for this a too legalistic approach is this idea that only the Targaryen descendants of Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters have a claim to the Iron Throne - made on the basis that they conquered Westeros, not any descendants Lord Aerion, or the other Targaryens on Dragonstone may have had. But the Great Council of 101 AC flushed that down the toilet since that guy who claimed to be descended from Gaemon the Glorious actually could make a claim to the Iron Throne. In a lesser sense this also pops up with Lord Rogar's Targaryen blood and claim are discussed if he truly were a great-grandson of Lord Aerion.

If one discusses legal precedents and focus on those one doesn't really care so much about the facts but how they are seen - and whether they could be or even had to be seen as valid in the sense that the populace of Westeros had to accept a polygamous prince.

I mean, why do you think Rhaegar cared about historical precedents to justify a love match? Is there a compelling reason for us to assume he must have considered legalistic arguments about polygamy precedents before following his heart and/or filfilling a prophecy?

8 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Rhaegar clearly went into the Battle of the Trident with every intention of coming back and being the ruler of Westeros. His intentions to do so might go back to before he ever met Lyanna at Harrenhal in late 281. He commanded three KG to do whatever the hell they were doing in the middle of nowhere before the decisive battle of the war.

He wasn't above giving commands and using the powers he had or believed he had, including calling a council to deal with his father the king of Westeros.

Here you are pushing things too far for my taste. Rhaegar seems to have considered treason back in 281 AC, but he didn't go through with it then as far as we know. He also considered doing something about his father after he came back from the Trident, but what that was we don't know nor whether it would have set himself up as 'the ruler of Westeros' (he could have intended to install a regency council, for instance).

And whether he commanded the KG to do stuff at the tower is also not clear. Chances are not that bad that he did, but we have no confirmation for that so far. A member of the royal family giving commands to the Kingsguard isn't particularly unusual, though. It would be more telling if Rhaegar had given commands to his father's Hand and the members of his council after his return to KL. But about that we don't know anything.

Instead we can make a case about Rhaegar's relative weakness after he returned to court - he didn't know/couldn't stop the wildfire plot, he could protect his mother from his father, he couldn't free his family from his father's 'protection', and he failed to depose/arrest his father before he rode to the Trident when true command over the army should have put him in such a position. He had about half a year or so while he trained the new recruits to try to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2020 at 4:39 PM, Lord Varys said:

Again, I really would like you to point us to any textual evidence where in-universe people say we have to defend polygamy because else the Targaryen claim to the Iron Throne evaporates. That is not a line of argument anyone in the book ever makes.

Just a few points, LV. First, the textual evidence starts with the history of the war of conquest. When the kings kneel and give their oaths of fealty to Aegon and accept Targaryen overlordship, they accept his sisters as his queens. They accept the validity of their descendants as inheritors to the Iron Throne. Every Targaryen ruler after that claims their rule through that polygamous marriage. So, quite the opposite to your claim there isn't "any textual evidence" the entire backstory of the Targaryen conquest and the family's almost three hundred year rule is the textual support that you wish to sweep away as if it didn't exist.

Second, the outcome of the struggles with the Faith during the reigns of Aenys, Maegor, and Jaehaerys cements Targaryen authority over the Faith for the rest of the Targaryen rule. This struggle for power ends any claim of authority the Faith can try to impose on the Targaryens. In their marriage customs or in any other way. We see the sum total of the Faith's power relative to the Crown in attempts to delay coronation ceremonies after the Targaryens have already been ousted.

On the other side we see the formalized subservience of the Faith to the Crown in the abolishment of the Faith Militant orders, the acceptance of the Targaryen monarchy as the "protectors of the Faith," the placement of members of the Faith under the judicial authority of the Crown instead of that of the Faith itself, the acceptance of "Targaryen exceptionalism" as official religious doctrine, and in the ability of the Crown to handpick the High Septons until Cersei's time as Queen Regent.

It is a total complete victory of Targaryen dominance over the institutions of the Faith. What has absolutely no textual support is that after the victories of Jaehaerys I that the Faith had any power to dictate anything to the Targaryens. The Faith has only the degree of influence they may have with an individual Targaryen king in their advisory capacity they may or may not have during Targaryen rule. 

What also we have textual support for is that polygamous marriages are considered as an option available to Targaryens, but not used after Maegor, unless Rhaegar did so with Lyanna. The examples of Daemon Blackfyre, and, in the story present, Daenerys in her discussion with Ser Jorah are proof that this was an option open to the Targaryens. It was never outlawed by any Targaryen ruler we know of, and there is absolutely no textual evidence that show that it was.

Lastly, let me disagree with you in the strongest possible way in your read of Jaehaerys's discussion with his daughter. This in no way even implies that the king was against polygamy as an option. It is clearly a discussion where a father tells his daughter that he, and he alone will decide whom she can marry, and that she should never use Maegor ever again as an example of what she should or could do. Not Aegon and his sister-wives as well as Maegor, but only Maegor, for all the obvious reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Basically this is where the adults and the children part ways - or rather: the childish interpreters and the sober ones. The former live in their fairy-tale fantasy worlds where reality and beliefs/ideology align or are even identical.

No. What seperates adults and children is the ability to admit their mistakes. For example, if I was a person who looked down on "lowly plebs" believing in "ordinary" RLJ instead of the "super-intelligent" theories I produced involving complex non-RLJ equations and multiple baby swaps; the adult thing to do after we got the confirmation of RLJ would be to ... just stop. Same goes for this polygamy discussion. Before I gave a break on this forum (which was around a century ago), I remember you vehemently arguing against a poygamous wedding between Rhaegar and Lyanna in previous iterations of this thread. Now you accept the wedding (because it was confirmed after all) but still you are making up stretches to invalidate or undermine it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Just a few points, LV. First, the textual evidence starts with the history of the war of conquest. When the kings kneel and give their oaths of fealty to Aegon and accept Targaryen overlordship, they accept his sisters as his queens. They accept the validity of their descendants as inheritors to the Iron Throne. Every Targaryen ruler after that claims their rule through that polygamous marriage. So, quite the opposite to your claim there isn't "any textual evidence" the entire backstory of the Targaryen conquest and the family's almost three hundred year rule is the textual support that you wish to sweep away as if it didn't exist.

They accepted it for Aegon, not for his descendants, which is why Aenys  faced rebellions with incest and Maegor faced rebellions with both incest and polygamy and why the Faith oposed to. Aegon himself didn't want trouble with the Faith which is why he was so cozy with them during his entire reign which is why he was perfectly fine with leave his situation in a limbo or as an exception as long as things remained quiet.

Aegon was also married in prior the conquest so they have little to do there.

 

 

5 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Second, the outcome of the struggles with the Faith during the reigns of Aenys, Maegor, and Jaehaerys cements Targaryen authority over the Faith for the rest of the Targaryen rule. This struggle for power ends any claim of authority the Faith can try to impose on the Targaryens. In their marriage customs or in any other way. We see the sum total of the Faith's power relative to the Crown in attempts to delay coronation ceremonies after the Targaryens have already been ousted.

No, the outcome of the struggles with the Faith let the Faith without an army and without much political, the High Septon could remain a threat and easily start wars with his words, which is why Jaeharys goes on a massive propaganda campaign  to get his subjects to accept incest and Exceptionalism  and that's why he is very wary about Septon Mattheus being chosen. 

But odd enough after Jaeharys and with the Exceptionalim made a doctrine, the Targs forgot about polygamy and behaved like proper Andals for 250 years. The Faith simply had nothing to complain  about.

 

 

5 hours ago, SFDanny said:

It is a total complete victory of Targaryen dominance over the institutions of the Faith. What has absolutely no textual support is that after the victories of Jaehaerys I that the Faith had any power to dictate anything to the Targaryens. The Faith has only the degree of influence they may have with an individual Targaryen king in their advisory capacity they may or may not have during Targaryen rule. 

And after Jaeharys 1 the Targs never engaged on polygamy and or other sinful activities, difficult to see who was behaving there.

 

 

5 hours ago, SFDanny said:

What also we have textual support for is that polygamous marriages are considered as an option available to Targaryens, but not used after Maegor, unless Rhaegar did so with Lyanna. The examples of Daemon Blackfyre, and, in the story present, Daenerys in her discussion with Ser Jorah are proof that this was an option open to the Targaryens. It was never outlawed by any Targaryen ruler we know of, and there is absolutely no textual evidence that show that it was.

We really haven't. 

We have one rumour among many with Daemon Blackfyre and we have Jorah, not famous for disregarding the law at all, wanting to get Dany to bed. Does Jorah say that Targs can have more than one partner?? No, because he doesn't care.

Again, polygamy was never made legal in the first place so it's difficult it would be made illegal. Yes, Aegon did it, but Aegonn also did incest and Jaeharys had to make sure of actually made Targ incest an official doctrine in the Realm. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Just a few points, LV. First, the textual evidence starts with the history of the war of conquest. When the kings kneel and give their oaths of fealty to Aegon and accept Targaryen overlordship, they accept his sisters as his queens. They accept the validity of their descendants as inheritors to the Iron Throne. Every Targaryen ruler after that claims their rule through that polygamous marriage. So, quite the opposite to your claim there isn't "any textual evidence" the entire backstory of the Targaryen conquest and the family's almost three hundred year rule is the textual support that you wish to sweep away as if it didn't exist.

That isn't the case, as I showed above. Yes, Aegon was the king and the sister-wives the queens, but they did not treat those abominable marriages the same way as they did normal monogamous marriages which didn't involve sister-wives.

That is not that difficult to understand. If they had been fine with the incest-polygamy thing there wouldn't have been wars about this later, and the royal family wouldn't have been split over the issue of the Jaehaerys-Alysanne marriage in 49-50 AC.

What I asked for is an in-universe confirmation that King Aegon's polygamous incest match is seen by anyone as a necessary prerequiste for the Targaryen claim to the Iron Throne. Aegon was a conqueror, he forced people with fire and blood to see things his way, not by strength of argument or persuasion. He could have made a bastard his successor, or some fourth cousin, or the children he had from his polygamous incest matches which were seen as controversial by the Westerosi.

This doesn't mean people accepted this or later people had to accept or did argue for polygamy nonsense when we have no reason to think they did and instead have evidence that they were horrified by it.

If there were textual evidence that a Targaryen king had said something along the lines 'We no longer do polygamy/I resent polygamy, but due to our dear ancestor Aegon I and his sister-wives I cannot help but admit that any scion of the blood of the dragon has the eternal right to take as many spouses as he or she wants (or at least two, as the Conqueror did)' then there would be some sort of basis for this.

The way it is now there were just two historical freaks there (and, to be sure, also back on Dragonstone/Valyria at least with Lord Aenar).

If you look at it politically Rhaegar would have as much 'right' to take a second wife in Lyanna as Jaime has a right to demand that he can marry his sister because the Targaryens did that. Both have historical precedents for that, but common interpretation limits those to a specific family (the Targaryens) who have now replaced as royal family by the Lannister-Baratheons, so Jaime does have a certain point there. Rhaegar just can point to very distant and controversial precedents.

And my entire point is that I don't buy that pointing to Maegor or Aegon I would have helped Rhaegar to sway public opinion to consider polygamy a great thing - to support him in that endeavor or to necessarily view children from such a union as legitimate in the same sense as children from a monogamous union.

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Second, the outcome of the struggles with the Faith during the reigns of Aenys, Maegor, and Jaehaerys cements Targaryen authority over the Faith for the rest of the Targaryen rule. This struggle for power ends any claim of authority the Faith can try to impose on the Targaryens. In their marriage customs or in any other way. We see the sum total of the Faith's power relative to the Crown in attempts to delay coronation ceremonies after the Targaryens have already been ousted.

That isn't the case. Again, we see even the marriage of Jaehaerys-Alysanne being controversial within the royal family itself even after the power of the Faith in the military department has been broken. This is actually pretty good example/parallel for my case. I always said that if Aerys II and the Targaryens in 281 AC had been all on the same page Rhaegar's second marriage may not have been all that controversial - but the point here is that I don't see Rhaegar getting his royal father's support on this at all - just like Alyssa Velaryon and Rogar Baratheon originally refused to support the marriage of Jaehaerys and Alysanne.

Later on the Faith itself taught that the Targaryens were created differently and could marry their sisters because they also rode dragons. But nobody ever taught that they could have more than one wife at the same time.

And as the story of Faith and Iron Throne is told in FaB the Targaryens didn't so much take over the Faith - as one previously believed - but they simply convinced them to see their point of view insofar as their incestuous marriage practices and their general 'dragonriding specialness' was concerned.

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

On the other side we see the formalized subservience of the Faith to the Crown in the abolishment of the Faith Militant orders, the acceptance of the Targaryen monarchy as the "protectors of the Faith," the placement of members of the Faith under the judicial authority of the Crown instead of that of the Faith itself, the acceptance of "Targaryen exceptionalism" as official religious doctrine, and in the ability of the Crown to handpick the High Septons until Cersei's time as Queen Regent.

Unfortunately we lack the details on a lot of those things - and remember on the downside there is the Storming of the Dragonpit and the slaying of five dragons at the hands of a religious mob led by a man who is rumored to have been a (former) Poor Fellow.

How the dynamics between Faith and Crown changed when the High Septon moved to KL is an interesting question, but we have to on good record that the High Septon being there could also give him great influence over the government - as happened during the reign of King Baelor.

How much actual power the Iron Throne wields over the Most Devout and whether this is the stick and not just the carrot of corruption - keep in mind that most them seem to be highborn men themselves - is unclear.

But this is all not that important since the specific case of Prince Rhaegar has a man trying polygamy while he wasn't king and not in good standing with his royal father - who would have been the one holding the High Septon's leash if the man was wearing one.

I'm not saying no Targaryen could have pushed through a polygamous marriage if he wanted to - a king likely could have, but Rhaegar never was a king, nor a prince in good standing with or the full support of his royal father.

And one should not forget that Rhaegar (apparently) never presented his second wife Lyanna Stark to his royal parents or the court, not did he get publicly the blessing of his lawful monogamous wife, Elia Martell on the matter. Unlike Maegor the Cruel, he never sat the Iron Throne and could never force his first wife and her family to accept his other marriages (as Maegor did with Ceryse and the Hightowers). Instead he died in battle and his dynasty was overthrown. That doesn't make it very likely this issue can be seen as universally accepted. In fact, I'd not be surprised at all if Rhaegar's filthy polygamy thing is going to be a big cause of the Rebellion and the successful deposition of the Targaryen dynasty.

Because if Rhaegar and Lyanna married publicly as I think they did then this would have been the major thing triggering Robert's wrath.

Even if all of Westeros agreed that Rhaegar's polygamy thing was completely normal and the right thing, etc. then Jon Snow being his posthumous child, possibly born after Rhaegar himself and Aerys II were dead, doesn't exactly mean such a child would be seen as a royal prince (because the ruling dynasty was ousted). Would Rhaego have been 'Prince Rhaego' in the eyes of anyone born in exile? Were the sons and grandsons of Daemon Blackfyre princes in the eyes of Targaryen loyalists?

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

It is a total complete victory of Targaryen dominance over the institutions of the Faith. What has absolutely no textual support is that after the victories of Jaehaerys I that the Faith had any power to dictate anything to the Targaryens. The Faith has only the degree of influence they may have with an individual Targaryen king in their advisory capacity they may or may not have during Targaryen rule. 

I never said that the Faith as an institution was a problem, I said the Faith in confluence with King Aerys II may have been a problem. And I say public opinion shaped by the Faith was a problem. I don't view the Westerosi people as Targaryen polygamy fanboys. They did accept the incest thing, but the last polygamy thing happened with Maegor 250 years ago ... and he was overthrown. Why should anyone consider it a great idea for a prince to take a second wife when the last guy doing that had been fucking Maegor? It is like saying because there are polygamists in the Bible we in monogamous societies have no issue with the prospect of one of our own taking multiple wives. We also have our precedents there, but they are no longer accepted.

The idea is that the king himself and the High Septon as a man with closer ties to the king than an absent Prince Rhaegar would be opposed to the Lyanna thing. Then we would have three great houses in oppositions to that - the Starks, Martells, and Baratheons. Once the Rebellion starts we can also expect all the rebels to oppose this travesty of a marriage (assuming they knew anything about it, of course).

And like Rhaegar himself died at Robert's hands, his marriage would have been done away with, too, especially if Lya had lived and had been made the queen at Robert's side as it should have been in the eyes of the rebels.

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

What also we have textual support for is that polygamous marriages are considered as an option available to Targaryens, but not used after Maegor, unless Rhaegar did so with Lyanna. The examples of Daemon Blackfyre, and, in the story present, Daenerys in her discussion with Ser Jorah are proof that this was an option open to the Targaryens. It was never outlawed by any Targaryen ruler we know of, and there is absolutely no textual evidence that show that it was.

Again, the Blackfyre example is just a rumor. We don't know what went on there, and it is an odd and disjointed idea (Daemon was still an unlegitimized bastard until his father's death). And this was just something that was allegedly entertained - nobody went through with it. Jorah's talk is not representative of Westerosi public opinion, nor are the Targaryens own justifications by citing their own historical precedents. It is like saying all of Westeros have to/will accept Dany or Aegon as their rightful rulers without another fight because their ancestors conquered the place. That is not going to happen.

And my point was *never* that polygamy was *outlawed*. There was no reason for this because the marriage concept of the Faith is monogamous. If you marry in a sept you marry just one wife, not two or 27. That is the basis. There is a reason why Maegor couldn't marry Alys Harroway in a sept after he had been married in the Starry Sept the first time, just as there are reasons why Maegor had to kill a lot of septons to find one who would marry him to Tyanna, and he had to make his own creature the High Septon for him to marry him to the black brides - because polygamy doesn't fly in the marriage concept of the Faith.

If you actually look at the text then the Faith's opposition to polygamy is larger to the incest thing - King Aenys and Jaehaerys I found septons to officiate at incestuous marriages easily enough, but people really had to be forced to do that at polygamous unions. This is rather striking in the case of Septon Oswyck, the aged man who gladly married Jaehaerys to Alysanne in 49 AC on Dragonstone, but who apparently refused to do a similar thing for Maegor and Alys back in 39 AC.

Bottom line there is - a single Targaryen king, Maegor the Cruel, forced representatives of the Faith two times to go through with his polygamous blasphemy (with Tyanna and the black brides). As long as we don't know the circumstances around Aegon the Conqueror's marriage, i.e. we don't whether he married Rhaenys and Visenya in a sept, we cannot count him among those. What Aegon did as ruler of a foreign country prior to the Conquest also has no bearing on what he did later. Even if Aegon married Rhaenys and Visenya in a sept, this could very well have caused this man to no longer be a part of the Faith's orthodoxy, i.e. him making himself a heretic by doing that.

Compare him to Jaehaerys-Alysanne. They had a controversial first wedding on Dragonstone - to put that to rest and make it clear to all they were truly married they had a second wedding in KL after Jaehaerys I had taken the government into his own hands. If Aegon the Conqueror had had a second wedding with his sister-wives after the Conquest, officiated by the High Septon (say, as part of his coronation in Oldtown) then we could say that Westeros and the Faith did accept this. But instead we know that they chose to ignore that issue and that it simmered beneath the courtesies like poison. They acknowledged Aegon as their king and his sisters as their queens, but they did not say theirs was a proper, normal, universally accepted marriage.

It is ludicrous to try to reinterpret Aegon's reign as king as Westeros being happy with the man's controversial marriages. That undermines the entire buildup for the Faith Militant Uprising.

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Lastly, let me disagree with you in the strongest possible way in your read of Jaehaerys's discussion with his daughter. This in no way even implies that the king was against polygamy as an option. It is clearly a discussion where a father tells his daughter that he, and he alone will decide whom she can marry, and that she should never use Maegor ever again as an example of what she should or could do. Not Aegon and his sister-wives as well as Maegor, but only Maegor, for all the obvious reasons.

No, that's not what's there in the text at all. Jaehaerys I never says he will decide who Saera can marry (in fact, he makes it clear to another daughter that his wife the queen is the matchmaker in the family, not he), he is abhorred by the idea that she wants to take multiple spouses like Maegor and the Conqueror.

It might be worse because a daughter suggests that, of course, but this cannot be read as Jaehaerys I being a fan of polygamy.

The very prospect that polygamy was still an option for as straightforwardly monogamous a man as Jaehaerys I is ludicrous. The man didn't even have any affairs or paramours, nor did he allow any to his children, be they male or female (and when his youngest daughter got knocked up by a singer, produced a bastard, and killed herself, this was all hushed-up).

The idea that polygamy - being one of the monstrous crimes of Maegor the Cruel and, in the end, the thing that destroyed him (what brought him down were the black brides affair, and the stillborn monstrosities of Jeyne and Elinor) - survived as a practice in the eyes of Jaehaerys I - whose own sister was forced to become one of Maegor's whores in a 'polygamous union' - is also absolutely unlikely. For King Aenys' family Maegor was a curse, and everything he did would have been bad just because he did it. Even if polygamy had been seen as a fun thing back in Aegon's days (which it wasn't since Aegon only married two sisters, not everybody and his sisters) it certainly wasn't due to the fact that Maegor did it.

Any Targaryen after Maegor would have to cite him as a precedent for polygamy. If Rhaegar wanted to do it he would have to tell his dear dad that Maegor the Cruel did it, too. With any decent king that wouldn't fly - not just with Jaehaerys I (but especially with him) but any of the good kings after him as well.

8 hours ago, Mithras said:

No. What seperates adults and children is the ability to admit their mistakes. For example, if I was a person who looked down on "lowly plebs" believing in "ordinary" RLJ instead of the "super-intelligent" theories I produced involving complex non-RLJ equations and multiple baby swaps; the adult thing to do after we got the confirmation of RLJ would be to ... just stop. Same goes for this polygamy discussion. Before I gave a break on this forum (which was around a century ago), I remember you vehemently arguing against a poygamous wedding between Rhaegar and Lyanna in previous iterations of this thread. Now you accept the wedding (because it was confirmed after all) but still you are making up stretches to invalidate or undermine it.

Did we discuss things in the past? I'm not that good with names, especially with internet names.

But I never argued that Lya and Rhaegar weren't married. I thought they were since I figured out that they are Jon's parents before I even signed up here. I consistently argued - and still argue, as more and more evidence in that regard shows up - that Jon being their child doesn't necessarily make him a 'royal prince' in the eyes of all, nor (especially not) 'the rightful king'.

And as I said above somewhere - I wanted there to be more Targaryen polygamy. I even looked forward to that since George hinted at that there may have been more than just Aegon and Maegor. If there had been some during the reigns of Jaehaerys I and Viserys I or later still then Rhaegar-Lyanna wouldn't have the potential to be (very) controversial, especially if such unions had also included royal princes marrying in opposition to their fathers or against the will of (the families) of their original wives.

Because that would have then established that polygamy is as normal for a Targaryen as incest.

But that never happened.

The crucial thing here is that for the Raegar-Lya thing as such there really isn't need for 'precedent' at all. If they wanted to marry, they just could do that the way Tysha and Tyrion did. Get a septon and do it, case closed. Then they will be married in their own hearts and for themselves. For that there is no reason for historical Targaryens or other people doing the same thing.

But if you want some sort of legal shenanigans to follow from such a union then you look on historical precedents because that then increases the likelihood that other people don't see that travesty and perversion but as a valid union which has some sort of positive legal consequence for the child from that union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I don't mean to be rude, but why do we still have these threads when R + L = J is the most obvious theory out there? I mean, I don't want it to be, but it just kinda is. I can't change it. I would rather it be different, but I can't change that and barring any retcons, it's not going to happen any time soon.

Hey everyone, I had a previous account about 7 years or so ago, but lost it. I'm technically kinda new here but I remember these threads. I'm a bit out of the loop. Isn't R + L = J kinda taken for granted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Goro said:

Hey everyone, I had a previous account about 7 years or so ago, but lost it. I'm technically kinda new here but I remember these threads. I'm a bit out of the loop. Isn't R + L = J kinda taken for granted?

The haters are just more bitter than ever. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...