The whole "Tower of Joy" story is flawed

[Crippledtank]

Anyone else think, Neds main reason for stopping past Starfall was to wait and see if Jon would have Valyrian or Stark features. If had the Golden hair and purple eyes Ned could have left Jon there as a Dayne bastard. Returning the sword would have been the perfect cover.

 

[John Suburbs]

21 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

True.

But I'm not sure Jon is a bastard. Of course, most people would assume that but I think it's very possible that Rhaegar married Lyanna which makes Jon trueborn.

Jon as a trueborn son of Rhaegar is 3x more dangerous than Jon as a baseborn son of Rhaegar

But why?

Until I started asking these sort of questions, the Areo POV never ever made sense. Why do we need him when we had Arianne and Quentyn to use?

Rhaegar could not have married Lyanna, at least not under the Faith of the Seven. The Doctrine of Exceptionalism only allows marriage between brother and sister, not multiple wives. And since only the High Septon can absolve a marriage, particularly one in which a wife has been faithful and has produced two children, then any marriage performed by some minor septon would be viewed as illegitimate by both the church and the public at large. So no matter what legal rationale R&L might have given themselves for getting married, they were not and therefore Jon would not be a trueborn son. 

But again, this is the kind of thing that leads to disputes of inheritance and, when the Iron Throne is involved, civil war. So even under this scenario Jon is a danger to established powers, so it is best to keep his identity secret.

Inre the Daynes, like I said, I'm not sure what they are up to. I think it is highly possible that some Daynes are up to one thing and some are up to something else.

[corbon]

12 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Rhaegar could not have married Lyanna, at least not under the Faith of the Seven. The Doctrine of Exceptionalism only allows marriage between brother and sister, not multiple wives. And since only the High Septon can absolve a marriage, particularly one in which a wife has been faithful and has produced two children, then any marriage performed by some minor septon would be viewed as illegitimate by both the church and the public at large. So no matter what legal rationale R&L might have given themselves for getting married, they were not and therefore Jon would not be a trueborn son. 

zzzz. same old same old. We don't actually know these things you claim as though they are hard facts and there is plenty of disagreement over the meaning of the little we do know.

[John Suburbs]

12 hours ago, corbon said:

zzzz. same old same old. We don't actually know these things you claim as though they are hard facts and there is plenty of disagreement over the meaning of the little we do know.

Sigh

Quote

"Get her with child, and the prize is all but won. Do I need to remind you that a marriage that has not been consummated can be set aside?"

"By the High Septon or a Council of Faith. Our present High Septon is a trained seal who barks prettily on command. Moon Boy is more like to annul my marriage than he is."

So how on earth do you suppose that Rhaegar and Lyanna could convince the High Septon to set aside his marriage to Elia against the wishes of both Aerys and the Martells. And if they are perfectly willing to tout Jon as their newborn son and legitimate heir to the throne, then why bother to keep the annulment and new marriage a secret?

[corbon]

7 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Sigh

So how on earth do you suppose that Rhaegar and Lyanna could convince the High Septon to set aside his marriage to Elia against the wishes of both Aerys and the Martells. And if they are perfectly willing to tout Jon as their newborn son and legitimate heir to the throne, then why bother to keep the annulment and new marriage a secret?

Wrong point.

You claim that Targaryen Exceptionalism covers only incest. We don't know that. We know it does cover incest, but we don't know what else it may or may not cover. Catelyn tells us that the Targaryens are excepted from the rules of normal men (and gods).

Quote

She had seen enough of Robert Baratheon at Winterfell to know that the king did not regard Joffrey with any great warmth. If the boy was truly Jaime's seed, Robert would have put him to death along with his mother, and few would have condemned him. Bastards were common enough, but incest was a monstrous sin to both old gods and new, and the children of such wickedness were named abominations in sept and godswood alike. The dragon kings had wed brother to sister, but they were the blood of old Valyria where such practices had been common, and like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men.

Quote

The tradition amongst the Targaryens had always been to marry kin to kin. Wedding brother to sister was thought to be ideal. Failing that, a girl might wed an uncle, a cousin, or a nephew; a boy, a cousin, aunt, or niece. This practice went back to Old Valyria, where it was common amongst many of the ancient families, particularly those who bred and rode dragons. "The blood of the dragon must remain pure," the wisdom went. Some of the sorcerer princes also took more than one wife when it pleased them, though this was less common than incestuous marriage. In Valryia before the Doom, wise men wrote, a thousand gods were honored, but none were feared, so few dared to speak against these customs.

...

  Targaryen cultural practices include both incest (common) and polygamy (less common).

Quote

...This was not true in Westeros, where the power of the Faith went unquestioned. Incest was denounced as vile sin, whether between father and daughter, mother and son, or brother and sister, and the fruits of such unions were considered abominations in the sight of gods and men. With hindsight, it can be seen that conflict between the Faith and House Targaryen was inevitable.

Incest (even more so than polygamy) was a vile sin in the faith of the Seven. We have a doctrine of Targaryen Exceptionalism, not a Doctrine of Targaryen Incest Permission. Targaryen Exceptionalism allows them to practice a most vile sin with no stain. There is nothing anywhere that states the doctrine does not cover any other (lesser) sins, and the way it is described by Catelyn (a well educated follower of the Seven) indicates that they simply aren't held to the same rules as other men are.

Further, we have many examples of post-exceptionalism attempts or discussions of polygamy, even to 'current times' with Dany. That these have not carried through as yet have always been due to the politics or needs of the current head Targaryen, not because it would be 'impossible' or 'unacceptable to the Faith'. It is very clear that there is no huge negative for Targaryen polygamy such as there is for non-Targaryen incest or these discussions or attempts would not even be had.
We also have GRRM commenting that the loss of the dragons made it less likely that the Targaryens could successfully go against the desires of their lesser Lords and vassals (with a polygamous marriage for example), not 'impossible'.

In short, this: 

On 6/13/2019 at 1:50 AM, John Suburbs said:

Rhaegar could not have married Lyanna, at least not under the Faith of the Seven. The Doctrine of Exceptionalism only allows marriage between brother and sister, not multiple wives.

is simply not what we know, Its a poor interpretation of limited data that does not match multiple parts of the text. 

[John Suburbs]

14 hours ago, corbon said:

Wrong point.

You claim that Targaryen Exceptionalism covers only incest. We don't know that. We know it does cover incest, but we don't know what else it may or may not cover. Catelyn tells us that the Targaryens are excepted from the rules of normal men (and gods).

  Targaryen cultural practices include both incest (common) and polygamy (less common).

Incest (even more so than polygamy) was a vile sin in the faith of the Seven. We have a doctrine of Targaryen Exceptionalism, not a Doctrine of Targaryen Incest Permission. Targaryen Exceptionalism allows them to practice a most vile sin with no stain. There is nothing anywhere that states the doctrine does not cover any other (lesser) sins, and the way it is described by Catelyn (a well educated follower of the Seven) indicates that they simply aren't held to the same rules as other men are.

Further, we have many examples of post-exceptionalism attempts or discussions of polygamy, even to 'current times' with Dany. That these have not carried through as yet have always been due to the politics or needs of the current head Targaryen, not because it would be 'impossible' or 'unacceptable to the Faith'. It is very clear that there is no huge negative for Targaryen polygamy such as there is for non-Targaryen incest or these discussions or attempts would not even be had.
We also have GRRM commenting that the loss of the dragons made it less likely that the Targaryens could successfully go against the desires of their lesser Lords and vassals (with a polygamous marriage for example), not 'impossible'.

In short, this: 

is simply not what we know, Its a poor interpretation of limited data that does not match multiple parts of the text. 

Double sigh.

Quote

In later years, the Citadel and the Starry Sept alike would call it the Doctrine of Exceptionalism.

Its basic tenet was simple. The Faith of the Seven had been born in the hills of Andalos of old, and had crossed the narrow sea with the Andals. The laws of the Seven, as laid down in sacred text and taught by the septas and septons in obedience to the Father of the Faithful, decreed that brother might not lie with sister, nor father with daughter, nor mother with son, that the fruits of such unions were abominations, loathsome in the eyes of the gods. All this the Exceptionalists affirms, but with this caveat: the Targaryens were different. Their roots were not in Andolos, but in Valyria of old, where different laws and traditions held sway.

Nowhere in any text does it say the DoE allows multiple wives, and no Targaryen ever attempted to interpret that way. So the point remains: if R&L decided for themselves that this was allowed by law, they would be the first to claim it and it would definitely create a crisis between the church, the crown and the nobility. So even if you do believe that this is what happened, that would only make it more important for Lyanna to hide Jon's existence, just as they both decided to hide the fact of their "marriage."

 

 

[Gerg Sknab]

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Double sigh.

Nowhere in any text does it say the DoE allows multiple wives, and no Targaryen ever attempted to interpret that way. So the point remains: if R&L decided for themselves that this was allowed by law, they would be the first to claim it and it would definitely create a crisis between the church, the crown and the nobility. So even if you do believe that this is what happened, that would only make it more important for Lyanna to hide Jon's existence, just as they both decided to hide the fact of their "marriage."

 

 

How does the DoE explain Aegon 1 Visenya and Rhaenys?

[FictionIsntReal]

On 6/10/2019 at 9:28 AM, John Suburbs said:

 Jon will certainly draw the ire of the Martells, who are very good with poisons

I thought Martells (and the Dornish generally) didn't hold anything against bastards. They might be angry at Rhaegar for publicly shaming Ellia, but merely having a bastard wouldn't be such a problem. Catelyn isn't even Dornish, and she was willing to tolerate Ned having an acknowledged bastard, as long as it was raised away from their shared home (Cersei made the same demand regarding Robert's first bastard, although Mya was only semi-acknowledged).

On 6/11/2019 at 9:29 AM, Jabar of House Titan said:

Benjen was at Winterfell so maybe Benjen knows more than even Ned. Maester Luwin was the maester of Riverrun at the time and if he got a letter from Lyanna, it makes sense why he left Riverrun for Winterfell instead of just staying put.

It does make for a lot of dramatic irony: Ned comes home from a year of travelling, warring and politicking with Lyanna's son only to find that Lyanna had sent a letter to Winterfell a long time ago. Benjen could never contact him for obvious reasons and so he was forced to sit on it. Imagine how Ned and Benjen must feel? Benjen's odd decision to join the Night's Watch instead of taking a highborn wife and siring more Stark children suddenly makes sense now...

I don't see what the "obvious" reason is that Benjen couldn't notify Ned, who we know spent time during the rebellion in Riverrun, a place you mentioned as a possible destination for the message. Prior to the rebellion actually starting (but after Lyanna's disappearance/"abduction") Benjen didn't tell his oldest brother either, resulting in Brandon riding to Kings Landing & his doom.

On 6/11/2019 at 9:59 AM, John Suburbs said:

True or not, Jon would be seen across the realm as another potential claimant to the Iron Throne, capable of unleashing all of the same bloodshed of the last set of bastards, whom they only got rid of some 10 years before.

Jon is a threat to the new Baratheon regime because Targaryen loyalists regard Robert as a usurper. Jon would not be a threat to the Targaryen regime as it existed during the rebellion. The bloodshed caused by the Blackfyres was the result of Aegon IV legitimizing all his bastards, granting the titular sword to Daemon (which was symbolically connected to Targaryen rule), and the rumor that Daeron was the illegitimate offspring of Aemon the Dragonknight. Those things don't apply to Jon.

On 6/11/2019 at 10:48 AM, Jabar of House Titan said:

But I'm not sure Jon is a bastard. Of course, most people would assume that but I think it's very possible that Rhaegar married Lyanna which makes Jon trueborn.

Jon as a trueborn son of Rhaegar is 3x more dangerous than Jon as a baseborn son of Rhaegar

It only makes him dangerous to the Baratheon regime, even a legitimate Jon would go behind Aegon in the succession. Plus, Aerys exercised his right to choose a (male) heir and named Viserys above Jon. But even if Rhaegar married Lyanna polygamously, the Faith of the Seven wouldn't recognize that, and most kingdoms (and the Targaryens since the Conquest) profess the Faith.

On 6/11/2019 at 12:09 PM, alienarea said:

Fuck honor. Bring a crossbow.

Seven live, and maybe Lyanna, too.

Knights tended to defeat archers. They're heavily armored enough to survive being shot, and their mounts permit them to close the distance with light infantry. You can find exceptions, but crossbows aren't a reliable means of defeating them. Remember that knights were very expensive compared to ordinary infantry and dominated the middle ages. This wasn't because everybody became too stupid to try shooting them, but because it was difficult to defeat them without cavalry of your own.

On 6/11/2019 at 11:47 PM, Crippledtank said:

Anyone else think, Neds main reason for stopping past Starfall was to wait and see if Jon would have Valyrian or Stark features. If had the Golden hair and purple eyes Ned could have left Jon there as a Dayne bastard. Returning the sword would have been the perfect cover.

 

He might have been born without much hair, but his eyes would have been visible early on. Then again, eyes can change color after infancy.

On 6/12/2019 at 8:50 AM, John Suburbs said:

Rhaegar could not have married Lyanna, at least not under the Faith of the Seven. The Doctrine of Exceptionalism only allows marriage between brother and sister, not multiple wives.

I agree not under the Faith. Lyanna was not a member of the Faith and may have disregarded the vows made under it (as Melisandre does regarding oaths not made under R'hllor). Targaryen polygamy preceded their adoption of the Faith, so one theory I've read is that they conducted an old Targaryen ceremony of the type polygamous marriages had been conducted under. Of course, this ceremony would not be accepted by basically anyone else in Westeros (polygamous Iron Islanders might be something of an exception).

Quote

But again, this is the kind of thing that leads to disputes of inheritance and, when the Iron Throne is involved, civil war. So even under this scenario Jon is a danger to established powers, so it is best to keep his identity secret.

As I said above, that was under unusual circumstances in which a legitimized bastard was able to argue he was MORE legitimate than the trueborn son. So it would put him above Robert, but not the Targaryens alive during the supposed marriage.

On 6/13/2019 at 6:00 PM, corbon said:

You claim that Targaryen Exceptionalism covers only incest. We don't know that. We know it does cover incest, but we don't know what else it may or may not cover. Catelyn tells us that the Targaryens are excepted from the rules of normal men (and gods).

No, it doesn't exempt them from ALL rules. They accepted the Faith, and they swear its oaths when getting married (and being knighted, and possibly other ceremonies). There is no notion that they are effectively holding their fingers crossed while swearing oaths. Targaryen marriages are regarded as binding, which helps give them political value like other Westerosi marriages.

[alienarea]

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Knights tended to defeat archers. They're heavily armored enough to survive being shot, and their mounts permit them to close the distance with light infantry. You can find exceptions, but crossbows aren't a reliable means of defeating them. Remember that knights were very expensive compared to ordinary infantry and dominated the middle ages. This wasn't because everybody became too stupid to try shooting them, but because it was difficult to defeat them without cavalry of your own.

Crossbows were outlawed because the knights didn't have a chance. The three KG at the ToJ were basically sitting ducks. Ned and his comrades could have run them over with their horses as well.

My point was that I would place a knight's honor second and rescuing my sister first.

If Ned and his comrades had killed the three KG "shooting first", who would have blamed them? And if Lyanna had lived because of that?

 

[corbon]

On 6/15/2019 at 1:41 AM, John Suburbs said:

Double sigh.

Nowhere in any text does it say the DoE allows multiple wives,

This text only covers some part of TE doctrine, specifically incest. It does not state that this is the only thing TE covers.
You are arguing an absence of evidence in this one place, not arguing actual evidence.

On 6/15/2019 at 1:41 AM, John Suburbs said:

In later years, the Citadel and the Starry Sept alike would call it the Doctrine of Exceptionalism.

Its basic tenet was simple. The Faith of the Seven had been born in the hills of Andalos of old, and had crossed the narrow sea with the Andals. The laws of the Seven, as laid down in sacred text and taught by the septas and septons in obedience to the Father of the Faithful, decreed that brother might not lie with sister, nor father with daughter, nor mother with son, that the fruits of such unions were abominations, loathsome in the eyes of the gods. All this the Exceptionalists affirms, but with this caveat: the Targaryens were different. Their roots were not in Andolos, but in Valyria of old, where different laws and traditions held sway.

 The laws of the Seven say that Incest is terrible. Exceptionalism agrees, reaffirms this, but adds a caveat - the Targaryens are different.  As Catelyn says, the Targaryens answer to neither Gods nor men.

On 6/15/2019 at 1:41 AM, John Suburbs said:

and no Targaryen ever attempted to interpret that way.

Daemon Blackfyre is thought to have. Given the context, he should count as a Targaryen.

Quote

It has been said in the years after Daemon Blackfyre proved a traitor that his hatred of Daeron began to grow early. It was Aegon's desire—not Daemon's—that he be wed to Rohanne of Tyrosh. Instead, Daemon had developed a passion for Daeron's sister, young Princess Daenerys. Only two years younger than Daemon, the princess supposedly loved the bastard prince in turn, if the singers can be believed, but neither Aegon IV nor Daeron II were willing to let such feelings rule in matters of state. Aegon saw more profit in a tie to Tyrosh, perhaps because its fleet would be of use if he made another attempt to conquer Dorne.

This seems plausible enough, but a different tale claims that Daemon was not so much opposed to wedding Rohanne of Tyrosh as he was convinced that he could follow in the footsteps of Aegon the Conqueror and Maegor the Cruel and have more than one bride. Aegon might even have promised to indulge him in this (some of Blackfyre's partisans later claimed this was the case) but Daeron was of a different mind entirely. Not only did Daeron refuse to permit his brother more than one wife, but he also gave Daenerys's hand to Maron Martell, as part of the bargain to finally unite the Seven Kingdoms with Dorne.

So Daemon interpreted it as possible, and no one suggested it was impossible. Daeron II declined for other political reasons.

Jorah suggested it to Dany.

Quote

"Yes," said Dany, "but my brothers are dead."

"Rhaenys and Visenya were Aegon's wives as well as his sisters. You have no brothers, but you can take husbands. And I tell you truly, Daenerys, there is no man in all the world who will ever be half so true to you as me."

Dany's own thoughts indicate she agrees its possible.

Quote

Would that make him one of the heads of the dragon? Ser Jorah would be angry, she knew, but he was the one who'd said she had to take two husbands. Perhaps I should marry them both and be done with it.

....

The dragon has three heads. There are two men in the world who I can trust, if I can find them. I will not be alone then. We will be three against the world, like Aegon and his sisters.

 

 

On 6/15/2019 at 1:41 AM, John Suburbs said:

So the point remains: if R&L decided for themselves that this was allowed by law, they would be the first to claim it

Until Aerys is removed from power, he can unmake it. So no, they would not be able to proclaim it far and wide.
Besides which, the shit has already hit the fan with Aerys and Brandon's interactions leading to the rebellion.

On 6/15/2019 at 1:41 AM, John Suburbs said:

and it would definitely create a crisis between the church, the crown and the nobility.

So you claim. Shame about the complete lack of evidence presented.

Lets look at what GRRM has said.

Quote

Maegor the Cruel has multiple wives, from lines outside his own, so there was and is precedent. However, the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object

Polygamy has precedence for Targaryens.
The Targaryen ability to defy conventions, the faith and the opinion of their lords decreased markedly after the dragons died. Not "was removed entirely". That means is still possible, just more difficult than it used to be.

So much for saying "its impossible".

[corbon]

21 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

No, it doesn't exempt them from ALL rules. They accepted the Faith, and they swear its oaths when getting married (and being knighted, and possibly other ceremonies). There is no notion that they are effectively holding their fingers crossed while swearing oaths. Targaryen marriages are regarded as binding, which helps give them political value like other Westerosi marriages.

And yet there is evidence showing a number of people, Targaryens and others, thought it possible (for Targaryens) and no evidence anywhere of any person or any document saying it is impossible.

We don't know what rules TE exempts them from, or even if it is specifically limited to certain rules. We only know that the exemption includes incest, and that the Targaryens are different and do not answer to Gods or men.

[SFDanny]

On 6/14/2019 at 6:41 AM, John Suburbs said:

Nowhere in any text does it say the DoE allows multiple wives, and no Targaryen ever attempted to interpret that way. So the point remains: if R&L decided for themselves that this was allowed by law, they would be the first to claim it and it would definitely create a crisis between the church, the crown and the nobility. So even if you do believe that this is what happened, that would only make it more important for Lyanna to hide Jon's existence, just as they both decided to hide the fact of their "marriage."

Quite the opposite. While the exact phrase you choose is not used - so much is true - the concept is explained very well.

Quote

“In later years, the Citadel and the Starry Sept alike would call it the Doctrine of Exceptionalism."

"Its basic tenet was simple. The Faith of the Seven had been born in the hills of Andalos of old, and had crossed the narrow sea with the Andals. The laws of the Seven, as laid down in sacred text and taught by the septas and septons in obedience to the Father of the Faithful, decreed that brother might not lie with sister, nor father with daughter, nor mother with son, that the fruits of such unions were abominations, loathsome in the eyes of the gods. All this the Exceptionalists affirmed, but with this caveat: the Targaryens were different. Their roots were not in Andalos, but in Valyria of old, where different laws and traditions held sway. A man had only to look at them to know that they were not like other men; their eyes, their hair, their very bearing, all proclaimed their differences. And they flew dragons. They alone of all the men in the world had been given the power to tame those fearsome beasts, once the Doom had come to Valyria."

“One god made us all, Andals and Valyrians and First Men,” Septon Alfyn would proclaim from his litter, “but he did not make us all alike. He made the lion and the aurochs as well, both noble beasts, but certain gifts he gave to one and not the other, and the lion cannot live as an aurochs, nor an aurochs as a lion. For you to bed your sister would be a grievous sin, ser…but you are not the blood of the dragon, no more than I am.”

“What they do is what they have always done, and it is not for us to judge them.”

(Fire and Blood 192-193) bold emphasis added

Or more simply as Prince Maegor once put it,

Quote

Prince Maegor remained defiant. His father had taken both of his sisters to wife, he pointed out; the strictures of the Faith might rule lesser men, but not the blood of the dragon. (F&B 68) bold emphasis added

Once Septon Alfyn is named High Septon and the Doctrine of Exceptionalism is accepted by the Faith, there is nothing to stop any Targaryen from taking multiple spouses or unions between siblings, or anything else accepted in Old Valyria except the will of the reigning king. That Targaryen kings kept tight reign on who their family members wed is not surprising, but it isn't controlled by the Faith or by other customs, laws, or traditions. That remains true down to the end of Targaryen rule. The idea that another polygamous marriage could not take place among House Targaryen is simply without merit. It only waited the approval of a Targaryen king.

[John Suburbs]

On 6/15/2019 at 10:22 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

I thought Martells (and the Dornish generally) didn't hold anything against bastards. They might be angry at Rhaegar for publicly shaming Ellia, but merely having a bastard wouldn't be such a problem. Catelyn isn't even Dornish, and she was willing to tolerate Ned having an acknowledged bastard, as long as it was raised away from their shared home (Cersei made the same demand regarding Robert's first bastard, although Mya was only semi-acknowledged).

Jon is a threat to the new Baratheon regime because Targaryen loyalists regard Robert as a usurper. Jon would not be a threat to the Targaryen regime as it existed during the rebellion. The bloodshed caused by the Blackfyres was the result of Aegon IV legitimizing all his bastards, granting the titular sword to Daemon (which was symbolically connected to Targaryen rule), and the rumor that Daeron was the illegitimate offspring of Aemon the Dragonknight. Those things don't apply to Jon.

I agree not under the Faith. Lyanna was not a member of the Faith and may have disregarded the vows made under it (as Melisandre does regarding oaths not made under R'hllor). Targaryen polygamy preceded their adoption of the Faith, so one theory I've read is that they conducted an old Targaryen ceremony of the type polygamous marriages had been conducted under. Of course, this ceremony would not be accepted by basically anyone else in Westeros (polygamous Iron Islanders might be something of an exception).

As I said above, that was under unusual circumstances in which a legitimized bastard was able to argue he was MORE legitimate than the trueborn son. So it would put him above Robert, but not the Targaryens alive during the supposed marriage.

No, it doesn't exempt them from ALL rules. They accepted the Faith, and they swear its oaths when getting married (and being knighted, and possibly other ceremonies). There is no notion that they are effectively holding their fingers crossed while swearing oaths. Targaryen marriages are regarded as binding, which helps give them political value like other Westerosi marriages.

They won't be upset by his bastardy, but in his potential to deprive Aegon of the crown. Catelyn couldn't do anything about Jon, but despised his presence in Winterfell, partly due to the fact that bastards were usually kept quiet and partly due to the threat he posed to her own children's inheritance, which eventually came to fruition under King Robb. If she was a more ruthless player like Doran or Tywin, she would have offed him early.

These things don't apply to Jon yet, but suppose Rhaegar legitimizes him in the future? Suppose the northern houses don't like the idea of a half-Dornish prince on the IT and all the political influence that brings to Dorne? There are all kinds of ways Jon could threaten peace in the realm or either diminish or enhance the status of one house over another, which means he could unleash bloodshed even if he himself does nothing to bring this about.

Any farcical ceremony they use to get "married" will be seen as illegitimate by the only religion that matters in the south, which would mean Jon's mere presence produces a constitutional crisis right from the start. Thus, the need to keep his presence, and the real circumstances of Lyanna's abduction, secret. The realm had just gotten rid of the last Targ bastard after nearly 100 years of bloodshed -- just the existence of another one, legitimate or not, would be too much to bear and would put a huge target on Jon's back.

[John Suburbs]

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Quite the opposite. While the exact phrase you choose is not used - so much is true - the concept is explained very well.

Or more simply as Prince Maegor once put it,

Once Septon Alfyn is named High Septon and the Doctrine of Exceptionalism is accepted by the Faith, there is nothing to stop any Targaryen from taking multiple spouses or unions between siblings, or anything else accepted in Old Valyria except the will of the reigning king. That Targaryen kings kept tight reign on who their family members wed is not surprising, but it isn't controlled by the Faith or by other customs, laws, or traditions. That remains true down to the end of Targaryen rule. The idea that another polygamous marriage could not take place among House Targaryen is simply without merit. It only waited the approval of a Targaryen king.

Nowhere has the DoE ever been used to justify a multiple marriage, and no Targaryen has ever tried. For Rhaegar and Lyanna to sneak off on their own, get married in secret by a septon, and then try to claim this marriage as legitimate would instantly produce a crisis in the realm -- not just between the crown and the faith, but between the crown and Dorne, the crown, Dorne and other noble houses . . .

Plus, we have the fact that we are not just talking about a Targaryen here, but a Targaryan and a Dornishwoman, who is a member of the faith and who is bound by its tenets. So, no, Rhaegar cannot take another wife without annulling his existing marrage, which is virtually impossible since she has been utterly faithful to her husband and has produced two children so far.

To think that R&L would run away and get married in secret, have a child in secret and then expect to simply stroll back into KL after the war and live as one big happy family is insane. There is no possible way these relatively rational, reasonable people would think they could get away with this. Their goal -- if indeed they did run away together and Rhaegar is the father -- had to have been bigger than the Iron Throne, bigger than the realm and had nothing to do with Jon's legitimacy or place in the royal succession: his is the true song of ice and fire and his destiny is nothing less than to save all mankind.

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Nowhere has the DoE ever been used to justify a multiple marriage, and no Targaryen has ever tried. For Rhaegar and Lyanna to sneak off on their own, get married in secret by a septon, and then try to claim this marriage as legitimate would instantly produce a crisis in the realm -- not just between the crown and the faith, but between the crown and Dorne, the crown, Dorne and other noble houses . . .

Plus, we have the fact that we are not just talking about a Targaryen here, but a Targaryan and a Dornishwoman, who is a member of the faith and who is bound by its tenets. So, no, Rhaegar cannot take another wife without annulling his existing marrage, which is virtually impossible since she has been utterly faithful to her husband and has produced two children so far.

To think that R&L would run away and get married in secret, have a child in secret and then expect to simply stroll back into KL after the war and live as one big happy family is insane. There is no possible way these relatively rational, reasonable people would think they could get away with this. Their goal -- if indeed they did run away together and Rhaegar is the father -- had to have been bigger than the Iron Throne, bigger than the realm and had nothing to do with Jon's legitimacy or place in the royal succession: his is the true song of ice and fire and his destiny is nothing less than to save all mankind.

Read what the Doctrine of Exceptionalism says, not what phrase you arbitrarily decide it must say. It quite clearly means the Faith can no longer judge what the Targaryens do in their customs, traditions regarding marriage. As Septon Alfyn so succinctly puts its, 

“What they do is what they have always done, and it is not for us to judge them.”

It is hard to be clearer than that. The Faith will no longer judge what the Targaryens do. That includes polygamous marriages if they see fit. We know this why? Because that is clearly part of Targaryen history in the founding of their dynasty. Read and understand the history put forward for us to read, and it is very clear.

Instead of distorting the Doctrine of Exceptionalism so that it excludes what it clearing includes, the question becomes why did the Targaryen kings of Westeros choose to not use polygamy as an option? It would seem that tightly controlling who married into the royal house benefitted Targaryen power, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the power of the Targaryen who sat the Iron Throne, than creating multiple loyalties  through the lines of others.

 

[John Suburbs]

20 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Read what the Doctrine of Exceptionalism says, not what phrase you arbitrarily decide it must say. It quite clearly means the Faith can no longer judge what the Targaryens do in their customs, traditions regarding marriage. As Septon Alfyn so succinctly puts its, 

“What they do is what they have always done, and it is not for us to judge them.”

It is hard to be clearer than that. The Faith will no longer judge what the Targaryens do. That includes polygamous marriages if they see fit. We know this why? Because that is clearly part of Targaryen history in the founding of their dynasty. Read and understand the history put forward for us to read, and it is very clear.

Instead of distorting the Doctrine of Exceptionalism so that it excludes what it clearing includes, the question becomes why did the Targaryen kings of Westeros choose to not use polygamy as an option? It would seem that tightly controlling who married into the royal house benefitted Targaryen power, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the power of the Targaryen who sat the Iron Throne, than creating multiple loyalties  through the lines of others.

 

Maybe so, but nobody has ever interpreted it this way, nor has anyone ever tried. The point is, for R&L to suddenly and arbitrarily decide that it was OK for them to interpret the doctrine this way would be an act of sheer madness, and there is no way either of them could have even the slightest confidence that the church or the nobility would go along with this. And even if they thought they would, we then go back to the OP's central question as to why they would do all of this in secret?

So, no, I think we can reject this notion that this was a legitimate marriage or that R&L thought it would be.

[corbon]

5 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Maybe so, but nobody has ever interpreted it this way, nor has anyone ever tried.

I guess the text isn't relevant then...

[John Suburbs]

17 hours ago, corbon said:

I guess the text isn't relevant then...

It is entirely relevant. In the text, nobody has ever interpreted it in this way, so to the think that R&L would just take it upon themselves to do so and then imagine that everybody will just be OK with this is ludicrous. And there would be no reason to keep all of this hidden if this is what they were thinking.

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

It is entirely relevant. In the text, nobody has ever interpreted it in this way, so to the think that R&L would just take it upon themselves to do so and then imagine that everybody will just be OK with this is ludicrous. And there would be no reason to keep all of this hidden if this is what they were thinking.

Let's take this a step at a time.

• "In the text, nobody has ever interpreted it in this way"

The "Doctrine of Exceptionalism" is first laid out in the recently published Fire & Blood, Part 1, so it is quite understandable that previous to this some people have put theories out that don't lay out exactly what the doctrine itself says. However, Fire & Blood is quite explicit in what the doctrine means. It gives not only an explanation of the doctrine's meaning concerning the Faith's relationship to Targaryen marriage customs, but to Targaryen rule as a whole. It is the culmination of struggle by the Faith to overthrow the Targaryens and to reinstitute the Faith's sway over all such questions Westeros wide. It is the complete capitulation of the Faith's war with the Targaryens and is the surrender, along with Jaehaerys's imposition of royal power over religious trials and the formal outlawing of the Faith Militant. The Targaryens won. Big time. They won it all.

However, other than the recent explanation in Fire & Blood of the Doctrine itself, it is totally wrong to say the relationship between the Targaryens and the Faith, and the Targaryen ability continue with its marriage customs - including polygamy - "has never been interpreted this way."

Quite the contrary. That the Targaryens retained these rights throughout their dynasty has not only been "interpreted" as such by many readers, but has been done so for far longer than the publication of Fire & Blood. When @corbon gives you Catelyn's quote from A Clash of Kings and Ser Jorah's from A Storm of Swords, you should recognize clues used by readers as far back as the publication of ACoK that place polygamy firmly within Targaryen customs and choices. These boards don't go back that far, but I can tell you these quotes have been used by myself and many others to argue the same point @corbon makes. By far and away, the minority position over these many years has been that somewhere, somehow, the Targaryens had lost the right to choose a polygamous marriage if approved by the Targaryen king. It is this idea that has nothing to support it. Although, some few, have argued it along the way.

• "so to the think that R&L would just take it upon themselves to do so and then imagine that everybody will just be OK with this is ludicrous."

What is ludicrous is to characterize the choice Rhaegar and Lyanna may have made to marry in this way. The history of events tells that if they made the choice to marry, it was with a very, very clear understanding that short of Rhaegar becoming king himself and winning against the rebellion that it would not be a choice accepted by either side of the rebellion. That does not mean the choice to marry as a Husband to a second wife was not made, nor that polygamy was not thought to be an acceptable choice by a Targaryen to make. It is a choice both within Targaryen custom and within the context of the political realities the couple faced highly unlikely to be accepted. Unless Rhaegar wins it all.

Obviously he didn't. But that doesn't mean his and Lyanna's plan wasn't to win both the throne and the acceptance of their marriage.

• "And there would be no reason to keep all of this hidden if this is what they were thinking."

Again to the contrary, there is every reason to "keep all of this hidden." In the beginning, hiding is their only method available for winning through to an unlikely victory. The two choose hiding in the pre-rebellion world in hopes that the Starks and the Baratheons would have to eventually accept Lyanna's refusal to marry Robert. Short of a duel to the death between Rhaegar and either Robert or a Stark family member, there is no path forward for them other than a refusal to come out into the open. The death of any of these people is hardly part of their plan.

When open war breaks out after Aerys has gone batshit crazy and killed Rickard, Brandon, and so many others, the two have little they can do to effect the outcome. But when Rhaegar is called back by Aerys, there opens a  very slim path to their plan succeeding. But that entails Rhaegar leaving Lyanna hidden and coming out to fight the rebellion and, hopefully replace his father on the throne. Hiding is a tactic towards an end. An end that might have been achieved if Robert's and Rhaegar's duel at the Trident had gone another way.

[BlackLightning]

On 6/12/2019 at 9:50 AM, John Suburbs said:

Rhaegar could not have married Lyanna, at least not under the Faith of the Seven. The Doctrine of Exceptionalism only allows marriage between brother and sister, not multiple wives. And since only the High Septon can absolve a marriage, particularly one in which a wife has been faithful and has produced two children, then any marriage performed by some minor septon would be viewed as illegitimate by both the church and the public at large. So no matter what legal rationale R&L might have given themselves for getting married, they were not and therefore Jon would not be a trueborn son. 

But again, this is the kind of thing that leads to disputes of inheritance and, when the Iron Throne is involved, civil war. So even under this scenario Jon is a danger to established powers, so it is best to keep his identity secret.

Inre the Daynes, like I said, I'm not sure what they are up to. I think it is highly possible that some Daynes are up to one thing and some are up to something else.

I completely disagree.

Why? You are forgetting one thing.

The High Septon. What makes you think that Rhaegar (who everyone loved) couldn't have convinced the High Septon to make an exception and marry them both? Or any other powerful septon for that matter.

Thanks to Obara, we know that Oldtown is close enough to the Red Mountains for it to be stormed and sacked by a Dornish army. So, it is not implausible for Rhaegar and Lyanna to make a secret trip to Oldtown and then back to the Tower of Joy.