Is Rhaegar and Lyanna's secret marriage truly valid for Targ Iron Throne Succession?

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

23 minutes ago, SeanF said:

One's judgement on Rhaegar has to be provisional, pending completion of the series.  His treatment of Elia seems pretty shitty, but one point in his favour is that he was told by Maesters that another pregnancy would kill his wife.  So, that was a decent motive for ending sexual relations  with her, unlike Aegon IV, who simply didn't care that he could kill his sister-wife.

Fantastic. He spared her death in the birthing bed because he 'needed' to have another child or it was byebye to his prophecy. He could simply stop laying with her? But then that'd make him a shit towards Lyanna, dishonouring her and himself with a bastard child? Dunno.

Bad choice, worse choice. Par for the course with Targaryens, too hotblooded to plan for all contigencies before charging ahead with a 'plan'. Passionate, indeed.

[A Manwoody Grown]

I strongly suspect the annulment is a show creation. Martin went out of his way to create a genealogy where Aegon the Conqueror was polygamous and sons by both of his wives each became king. Rhaegar embracing polygamy despite knowing how incredibly legally and politically problematic the practice was fits well with his history of taking crazy actions to fulfill his perceived prophetic role. And having Jon be of questionable legitimacy (since many would outright refuse to accept a son of a second wife legitimate) helps play up the uncertainty of whether Jon could or should press a claim against Dany.

[Ygrain]

14 hours ago, Br16 said:

The passage you cited seems to suggest that The KG were only informed when Ned talked, as no KG offered any information, they just gave a tough response each time Ned revealed.

The very first exchange reveals they know already. If they were not up-to-date, they would have no idea why Ned was looking for them at the Trident and they wouldn't refer to Robert as Usurper, he became one only after he took the throne. 

12 hours ago, Br16 said:

I believe the lack of royal assent by a crowned and recognized Targaryen Sovereign recognizing Rhaegar and Lyanna's marriage makes their marriage invalid and Jon could not bear the Targaryen name. 

Look no further than Jaehaerys II and Shaera, who married without the royal consent but their children, Aerys and Rhaella, became king and queen. 

 

3 hours ago, A Manwoody Grown said:

I strongly suspect the annulment is a show creation. Martin went out of his way to create a genealogy where Aegon the Conqueror was polygamous and sons by both of his wives each became king. Rhaegar embracing polygamy despite knowing how incredibly legally and politically problematic the practice was fits well with his history of taking crazy actions to fulfill his perceived prophetic role. And having Jon be of questionable legitimacy (since many would outright refuse to accept a son of a second wife legitimate) helps play up the uncertainty of whether Jon could or should press a claim against Dany.

That's the way I see it, too. Some would be cool with Jon's claim, given the precedent in the family, others would totally deny it. The rest would support him if they could see some gain for themselves in it.

[SirArthur]

4 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

That's the way I see it, too. Some would be cool with Jon's claim, given the precedent in the family, others would totally deny it. The rest would support him if they could see some gain for themselves in it.

I guess king Jon should get a massive faith uprising.  Oh and he believes in the old gods too, he swears his NW oath the old way. This will be fun. 

[Br16]

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

The very first exchange reveals they know already. If they were not up-to-date, they would have no idea why Ned was looking for them at the Trident and they wouldn't refer to Robert as Usurper, he became one only after he took the throne. 

Look no further than Jaehaerys II and Shaera, who married without the royal consent but their children, Aerys and Rhaella, became king and queen. 

 

That's the way I see it, too. Some would be cool with Jon's claim, given the precedent in the family, others would totally deny it. The rest would support him if they could see some gain for themselves in it.

The problem with Jaehaerys II and Shaera is that their marriage received retroactive assent from Aegon V. If Rhaegar had lived and forced Aerys II to abdicate, he could likewise retroactively validate his marriage with Lyanna as crown approved. However, since both he and Aerys died, Jon can never receive that retroactive royal assent for his parent's marriage. The best he could hope for would be a William and Mary type joint rule settlement with Dany, sealed by Great Council acclamation, assuming if he did wish to press his claim.

Also, there were already several battles fought during Robert's Rebellion prior to the Trident (i.e. Ashford, Battle of the Bells), so the KG would know Robert was rebelling, and as he declared his intent to seek iron throne after the Bells battle, he was a usurper to all Targaryen loyalists already. It was only after the Battle of the Bells that the KG were sent to find and fetch Rhaegar for the final showdown at the Trident, where the combined rebel host were camped north of the river, and were ordered by Rhaegar to stay at TOJ.

I feel that if Rhaegar had decided to go the Polygamy route, it would be perfectly legit if he had received Royal Assent. For the Doctrine of Execeptionalism could accommodate it as a grandfathered Valyrian tradition. 

[Ygrain]

4 hours ago, Br16 said:

The problem with Jaehaerys II and Shaera is that their marriage received retroactive assent from Aegon V. If Rhaegar had lived and forced Aerys II to abdicate, he could likewise retroactively validate his marriage with Lyanna as crown approved. However, since both he and Aerys died, Jon can never receive that retroactive royal assent for his parent's marriage. The best he could hope for would be a William and Mary type joint rule settlement with Dany, sealed by Great Council acclamation, assuming if he did wish to press his claim.

"By the time this became known to their royal parents, Jaehaerys and Shaera had already consummated the marriage, forcing Aegon to accept it."

That's not a retroactive assent, that's Aegon being able to do nada about it. 

4 hours ago, Br16 said:

Also, there were already several battles fought during Robert's Rebellion prior to the Trident (i.e. Ashford, Battle of the Bells), so the KG would know Robert was rebelling, and as he declared his intent to seek iron throne after the Bells battle,

That's from the World Book, I suppose? 

5 hours ago, Br16 said:

as he declared his intent to seek iron throne after the Bells battle, he was a usurper to all Targaryen loyalists already

Now that totally requires a quote, as by definition, usurper is someone who takes over the power, which Robert hasn't done yet at that point. Therefore, calling him and Usurper with a capital U suggests that they knew not only about the Trident but the Sack and its aftermath, as well.

4 hours ago, Br16 said:

It was only after the Battle of the Bells that the KG were sent to find and fetch Rhaegar for the final showdown at the Trident, where the combined rebel host were camped north of the river, and were ordered by Rhaegar to stay at TOJ.

Not the KG, just Hightower. 

4 hours ago, Br16 said:

I feel that if Rhaegar had decided to go the Polygamy route, it would be perfectly legit if he had received Royal Assent. For the Doctrine of Execeptionalism could accommodate it as a grandfathered Valyrian tradition. 

It certainly would. Such a royal assent, or a promise of one, may have been part of a deal which convinced Rhaegar to return (though I doubt that in his state of mind, Aerys would have been able to keep such a thing secret, so this probably didn't happen and Rhaegar most likely planned to grant himself the assent once Aerys was deposed)

[Br16]

6 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

"By the time this became known to their royal parents, Jaehaerys and Shaera had already consummated the marriage, forcing Aegon to accept it."

That's not a retroactive assent, that's Aegon being able to do nada about it. 

Now that totally requires a quote, as by definition, usurper is someone who takes over the power, which Robert hasn't done yet at that point. Therefore, calling him and Usurper with a capital U suggests that they knew not only about the Trident but the Sack and its aftermath, as well.

 

I still feel it was retroactive assent. If he wanted to, he could have excluded them from the throne but didn't, thereby giving his retroactive assent, especially considering that such an incestuous match would be prestigious from a Targ tradition point of view (albeit one he didn't like). 

My reading is that in a world like ASOIAF, words such as Treason and Usurper are usually applied in an extremely unforgiving and broad way.

For instance, the Treason Act of 1351 makes it High Treason to "When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his [X2Queen] or of their eldest Son and Heir; ."

Moreover, I recall (I think it was a interview or tour and Martin was asked) that Robert declared his desire for the throne between the end of the Bells battle and just before Trident, but he didn't elaborate further. Realistically,  this makes sense as the best time to decide and proclaim a intention to seize Iron Throne would be when Robert linked up with Ned, Tully, Arryn, and the Tully Marriages were done in Riverrun. Since everybody was together and their goals needed clarification, especially before the big battle.

Thus, he need not have actually to sit on the Iron Throne to be the Usurper, he simply needed to display his intention, which he certainly did. Thus, the use of the term "usurper" does not guarantee that they were full aware of the rapid pace of events after Trident. 

However, lets assume KG knew without doubt that Aerys was dead and Rhaegar fell in battle long beforehand. By reason, they should have gone to protect Viserys, yet they stayed. Could the KG be hoping that after Lyanna could travel, they were going to take Jon and Lyanna to Dragonstone to have Rhaella issue a Royal Decree as Queen Regent (perhaps persuading her it was Rhaegar's intention), and  use the Stark connection to poach Bannerman from Ned?

[Gigei]

I also think that the annulment is a show-only thing. Annulment isn't the same thing as divorce - people have to prove that the marriage was null from the start. There doesn't seem to be a reason for that.

Now, if they had divorced, the grounds being that Elia was too ill to perform as a proper wife, then I would believe it.

[Br16]

1 hour ago, Gigei said:

I also think that the annulment is a show-only thing. Annulment isn't the same thing as divorce - people have to prove that the marriage was null from the start. There doesn't seem to be a reason for that.

Now, if they had divorced, the grounds being that Elia was too ill to perform as a proper wife, then I would believe it.

I agree that it can't be justifiable as they have two kids and are in a widely recognized Royal Marriage between a Royal House and Great House. Perhaps D&D wanted the High Septon (who did the secret annulment in the show) to have some sort of clerical infallibility. Also, I think the working assumption is that divorce is not possible in Westeros. 

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

3 hours ago, Gigei said:

I also think that the annulment is a show-only thing. Annulment isn't the same thing as divorce - people have to prove that the marriage was null from the start. There doesn't seem to be a reason for that.

Now, if they had divorced, the grounds being that Elia was too ill to perform as a proper wife, then I would believe it.

Well, that'd really make Rhaegar a Henry VIII type a-hole. But, yeah, obsedé=Targaryen. Checks out.

[aquintus]

One of the main themes of the books is that power resides where people believe that it resides. 

For some lords, Jon being the legitimate heir would benefit them, and they'll say that he is the legitimate heir. For other lords, Jon being legitimate wouldn't benefit them, and they'll say that he's not the heir. If the number of lords (and more importantly, their armies) wanting Jon to be legitmate outnumber the number that want him to be illigitimate, then he's legitimate. That's essentially how medieval laws (and modern law really) works - might makes right. 

[King Jon Snow Stark]

12 hours ago, Br16 said:

I agree that it can't be justifiable as they have two kids and are in a widely recognized Royal Marriage between a Royal House and Great House. Perhaps D&D wanted the High Septon (who did the secret annulment in the show) to have some sort of clerical infallibility. Also, I think the working assumption is that divorce is not possible in Westeros. 

I think it should have been challenged but it was accepted so quickly. Dany could have easily started calling Jon a bastard Targ. But no they had her freak out. 

[CrypticWeirwood]

2 hours ago, aquintus said:

One of the main themes of the books is that power resides where people believe that it resides. 

Only when dragons and magic aren't involved. When they are, then power resides with whoever has the dragons. :/

[Br16]

11 hours ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

I think it should have been challenged but it was accepted so quickly. Dany could have easily started calling Jon a bastard Targ. But no they had her freak out. 

I agree, Dany's gut reaction should have been how an annulment would even be possible. However, despite her power, her dragons, dothraki, and unsullied, she for some reason held very traditional views regarding the superiority of male claimants, especially considering how revolutionary she was. You could sort of feel her confidence in her claim melt away after she learns about Jon's claim, becoming like someone holding a cracked wine bottle trying to drink it all before it leaks all away. Even though she has enough force to restart Targaryen rule under her new creation, and even make a new iron throne just for herself. 

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

18 minutes ago, Br16 said:

I agree, Dany's gut reaction should have been how an annulment would even be possible. However, despite her power, her dragons, dothraki, and unsullied, she for some reason held very traditional views regarding the superiority of male claimants, especially considering how revolutionary she was. You could sort of feel her confidence in her claim melt away after she learns about Jon's claim, becoming like someone holding a cracked wine bottle trying to drink it all before it leaks all away. Even though she has enough force to restart Targaryen rule under her new creation, and even make a new iron throne just for herself. 

Imo, regardless of achieved power, some of her will always be the little girl at her brother's disposal. She was sold like a breeding sow, that tends to create a lasting impression that 'cocks matter'.

[Br16]

25 minutes ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

Imo, regardless of achieved power, some of her will always be the little girl at her brother's disposal. She was sold like a breeding sow, that tends to create a lasting impression that 'cocks matter'.

Great point, and this reminds me of the scene where Jon "bends the knee" on the ship and she, visibly moved, replies "I hope I deserve it" in an unusually meek and vulnerable voice. 

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

Just now, Br16 said:

Great point, and this reminds me of the scene where Jon "bends the knee" on the ship and she, visibly moved, replies "I hope I deserve it" in an unusually meek and vulnerable voice. 

D&D got a problem with tailoring their female protagonists as either naive victims or villainous cows.

[King Jon Snow Stark]

2 hours ago, Br16 said:

I agree, Dany's gut reaction should have been how an annulment would even be possible. However, despite her power, her dragons, dothraki, and unsullied, she for some reason held very traditional views regarding the superiority of male claimants, especially considering how revolutionary she was. You could sort of feel her confidence in her claim melt away after she learns about Jon's claim, becoming like someone holding a cracked wine bottle trying to drink it all before it leaks all away. Even though she has enough force to restart Targaryen rule under her new creation, and even make a new iron throne just for herself. 

Dany, Tyrion and Varys were all off. Tyrion is supposed to be the smartest guy and he just accepted Jon as a legitimate Targ. I can understand them believing Jon is Lyanna's and Rhaegar's son. And that Jon's parents wanted to try to make him legit but is her real. A wedding done and secret that only 3 people know about. Ned doesn't even count as witness. He just witness the birth and knew what they wanted to call Jon. How is the marriage legal?

I expected Dany to challenge Jon's claim and even publicly denounce it. They had her beg instead. And Tyrion and Varys just accept that Ned was lying about Jon this whole time.  

[Br16]

15 hours ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

Dany, Tyrion and Varys were all off. Tyrion is supposed to be the smartest guy and he just accepted Jon as a legitimate Targ. I can understand them believing Jon is Lyanna's and Rhaegar's son. And that Jon's parents wanted to try to make him legit but is her real. A wedding done and secret that only 3 people know about. Ned doesn't even count as witness. He just witness the birth and knew what they wanted to call Jon. How is the marriage legal?

I expected Dany to challenge Jon's claim and even publicly denounce it. They had her beg instead. And Tyrion and Varys just accept that Ned was lying about Jon this whole time.  

Agree, it's as if Daenerys suddenly became disposable to all her advisors after the NK was defeated. Considering that Tyrion bent the knee after she appointed him Hand, he should have fought exclusively for the superior legitimacy of her claim as her principal counsel. 

In general, I frown upon being nit picky with ritual, rules, and legal requirements. Too much suspicion makes the world a hard place to live in. So if it was inheritance to anything other than the Iron Throne, Jon would deserve as least a share or settlement of some sort in my eyes, especially considering the preponderance of honesty surrounding him (i.e. Sam and Bran are trustworthy people).  

However, when something as important succession to the Iron Throne is considered, things like witnesses, royal assent, public ceremony and minimum controversy are important for the stability of the realm. 

[legba11]

23 hours ago, Br16 said:

I agree, Dany's gut reaction should have been how an annulment would even be possible. However, despite her power, her dragons, dothraki, and unsullied, she for some reason held very traditional views regarding the superiority of male claimants, especially considering how revolutionary she was. You could sort of feel her confidence in her claim melt away after she learns about Jon's claim, becoming like someone holding a cracked wine bottle trying to drink it all before it leaks all away. Even though she has enough force to restart Targaryen rule under her new creation, and even make a new iron throne just for herself. 

Jon's better claim has nothing to do with his cock.  He is above her on the line of succession being the child of the crown prince.  If Jon was a woman and Dany was a man, he would still be above her in the line of succession.  It wouldn't have mattered anyway as Dany was taking the throne through conquest AND none of her supporters were following her due to her lineage.  Yara and her three ships were the only Westeros house on her side at that point.

 

D&D were trying to poke up some sympathy for Dany before she went batshit by using the gender issues, but it made no sense.  If they had presented it like the men in charge of armies would be more likely to follow him due to his cock, then it would have made sense.