Jump to content

R + L = J v.167


Ygrain
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, QhorinQuarterhand said:

Nothing from outside canon can reinforce the canon. 

I'm concerned with interpreting the text correctly instead of bending it to fit a theory. It isn't a question of whether or not a few words are off. It isn't anything so close as that. It's that every piece of "evidence" for RLJ is incorrect in one manner or the other. I do not say lightly that there isn't a single word of evidence in the books that supports RLJ. I do not say lightly that it is a non starter of a theory anyway because Jon's father isn't even a mystery in the books. Isolating quotes in vacuums and pretending Ned never called Jon son doesn't count. And that's the problem. Twisting is always necessary when it comes to RLJ evidence. It is at minimum a fan construct of quotes that may or may not be at all related. None of which ever mention Rhaegar, Lyanna and Jon together. None of which ever puts even two of them together. None of which ever even hints that Rhaegar is Jon's father, or that Lyanna is Jon's mother. 

Do you have any quotes to show that I'm wrong? I'd love to see them.

My question is, if you don't believe it's a mystery, and you don't subscribe to any theory regarding Jon's parentage (I presume), why.......be here in this thread? After all this is a thread specifically made to discuss RLJ. Quoting people's posts just to say they're wrong because *you* specifically don't like theories on this subject - when you don't have anything to add to RLJ because you *don't* subscribe to it - then why do it? Let people theorize about RLJ in a thread specifically made for it.

Edited by Lady Anna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, QhorinQuarterhand said:

Trying to talk sense into RLJers is like leading a horse to water and watching it die of thirst because it refused to stop eating the rocks. Except this horse could talk and it spent the whole insisting that the rocks were the only source of nourishment.

Regardless of where you go on the internet the only thing you ever get out of the Faith Militant is outright dismissal,ridicule, abuse, or some twisted fan fiction version of the text or George's words. Or D&Ds words. Whatever they need to twist to fit their fan fiction. Whatever they can make up to support their non starter of a theory. 

We have to pretend Jon's father is a mystery? We have to pretend Ned never called Jon his son? We have to pretend George confirmed Lyanna is Jon's mother in the books? That Ned's fever dream placed Lyanna inside the tower of joy and that the KG were guarding a never mentioned baby Jon and Rhaegar ordered them to kill even Ned if he showed up looking for her? We have to pretend that our the Faith Militant interpretation of Ned's fever dream is the only possible correct interpretation? Even though it was a fever dream? We have to pretend that Rhaegar and Lyanna were in a legal polygamous marriage? We have to pretend that Lyanna is the best possible candidate for the KOTLT? We have to pretend whatever we need to in order to maintain our RLJ fanfiction and dismiss, ridicule and abuse whoever dares question our obvious fan fiction? 

RLJers: NO PROBLEM! 

Not even George proving their fanfiction wrong will deter them either. Not one bit. You see, many of them have already thought of that and have been screaming from the rooftops for years that if their absolutely delusional interpretation of the text doesn't become canon then George RR Martin IS A LIAR! HE CHANGED IT! NO GIGANTIC HIVE MIND EGO DETECTED!

Honestly, i've always wanted that Jon was Ned's and Ashara's, i do think that that makes a better story but the Jon beinf Rhaegar's, however that happened, seems pretty flawless and whatever one might think about the showm they at least didn't botch that. 

If Martin starts cracking the wall. that is one thing but until then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lady Anna said:

My question is, if you don't believe it's a mystery, and you don't subscribe to any theory regarding Jon's parentage (I presume), why.......be here in this thread? After all this is a thread specifically made to discuss RLJ. Quoting people's posts just to say they're wrong because *you* specifically don't like theories on this subject - when you don't have anything to add to RLJ because you *don't* subscribe to it - then why do it? Let people theorize about RLJ in a thread specifically made for it.

If he believes Ned never lies because the "canon text" says so, then he's right that there is no mystery: Wylla is Jon Snow's mother, and we've had 167 threads of nonsense for nothing :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lehutin said:

If he believes Ned never lies because the "canon text" says so, then he's right that there is no mystery: Wylla is Jon Snow's mother, and we've had 167 threads of nonsense for nothing :rofl:

Ned didn't say Wylla was Jon's mother. Robert did.

Ned gave Wylla as the name of the woman Robert was thinking of, whom Robert thought was Ned's 'one time', his 'bastard's mother. Answering the question may be seen as confirming the associated assumptions, but it is not in fact doing such. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, frenin said:

There is a tradition of incest, but 2 people doing polygamy in 300 years it's not really a tradition.  A tradition would've been done more than twice.

Sorry, really poor word choice on my part. I should have said "history" or "precedent". 

So now that we are done with wording, how about the fact that Rhaegar's ancestors' actions may have served as an inspiration for him?

12 hours ago, frenin said:

- I wonder he would remain a superpopular man once he involves himself with heresy, Aenys was a well liked dude at the beginning and people were cheering for him right until he married his children with each other. 

Again arguing something completely different. I never claimed that Rhaegar's popularity would have survived unscathed, only that being so popular could be something to rely on to pull something unpopular.

12 hours ago, frenin said:

-snip

Doesn't really adress what I wrote.

12 hours ago, frenin said:

I think Dany is going to be polygamist, if anyone is Aegon the Dragon come again is her.

Ah. So Dany is going to, though there doesn't seem to be any narrative need for her to (not counting Jorah), but the one guy for whom polygamy would have been a convenient loophole in his situation, absolutely cannot? 

12 hours ago, frenin said:

Jon needs to be Aragorn 

Well, he sort of does - the hidden prince trope involves not just a prince, but the one who is an heir to the throne. So if GRRM intends to deconstruct this trope, he needs to build it first and then do something unexpected about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, corbon said:

Ned didn't say Wylla was Jon's mother. Robert did.

Ned gave Wylla as the name of the woman Robert was thinking of, whom Robert thought was Ned's 'one time', his 'bastard's mother. Answering the question may be seen as confirming the associated assumptions, but it is not in fact doing such. 

Robert did because that's the name Ned had given him before. Ned did say a woman named Wylla was the mother of his bastard.

 

 

58 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

So now that we are done with wording, how about the fact that Rhaegar's ancestors' actions may have served as an inspiration for him?

We're back to the square of it being heresy and him being armyless, crownless and dragonless.

 

 

58 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Again arguing something completely different. I never claimed that Rhaegar's popularity would have survived unscathed, only that being so popular could be something to rely on to pull something unpopular

Half the Realm would be looking for his head just for the fact that he disappeared with Lyanna, the other half would not be so much happy with heresy, who he was trying to convince??

 

 

58 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Doesn't really adress what I wrote.

- The fact that he needs a child doesn't mean he has to remarry. He can simply legitimized a bastard he could have with any average girl. And be done.

 

- He needs armies to pull all that off, regardless of popularity. Access to them become increasingly difficult with every step he makes.

 

- He has to convince the Major houses and a father he is trying to oust... Well good luck with that.

 

 

58 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Ah. So Dany is going to, though there doesn't seem to be any narrative need for her to (not counting Jorah), but the one guy for whom polygamy would have been a convenient loophole in his situation, absolutely cannot? 

You keep bringing Aegon and his sisters time after time and is clear that if anyone is going to follow his steps is Dany,she even has a black ride, since Dany is quite literally Aegon reborn. And i think that she's going to remain married to Hizdahr when she lands in Westeros and she'll need an ally there so.

 

- Dany has been raised up in Essos, where polygamy is absolutely common. (Unlike Rhaegar)

- Dany is mostly ignorant of Westerosi customs and laws. (Unlike Rhaegar).

- Dany has a very powerful standing army. (Unlike Rhaegar).

- Dany would come as a  Re/Conqueror, which means that she can and will dictate her own terms. (Unlike Rhaegar).

 

- Dany has dragons to intimidate people. (Unlike Rhaegar).

 

The odds are stacked in Dany's favor, the odds are stacked so heavily against Rhaegar that instead of a convenient loophole, it becomes a convenient rope.

I think he planned to legitimized Jon, set Elia aside an marry Lyanna once he became King (changes will be made) and a hammer robbed him the time. Polygamy can backfire  in so many ways and Rhaegar situation was already very very delicate without adding heresy.

 

Quote

Well, he sort of does - the hidden prince trope involves not just a prince, but the one who is an heir to the throne. So if GRRM intends to deconstruct this trope, he needs to build it first and then do something unexpected about it.

Young G is already said hidden prince etc etc etc, even my poor Rickon is already playing that role. The idea of Jon being trueborn and heir to the Throne, regardless of he is ever going to sit his ass there, it's a fan desire rather than a narrative necessity.

Edited by frenin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proposition: Rhaegar and Lyanna married even though Rhaegar was married to Elia at that time.

Status: Confirmed for all intents and purposes (unless a person feels confident enough to know the story better than the people who learned GRRM's secrets).

Examples of strawman attacks against this proposition:

1. "Polygamy is illegal"

Not only this is textually unsupported, but also it is irrelevant even if we assume that it is true. Polygamy being illegal does not mean that Rhaegar and Lyanna did not marry. Rhaegar might have still married Lyanna even if he, for some reason, considered it illegal. The proposition is about only the existence of this wedding, not its legality. Hence, this is strawman fallacy.

2. "Rhaegar could never get away with polygamy"

Again, a very popular strawman. The proposition does not have anything to do with whether Rhaegar actually could get away with it or he thought he could. We don't know Rhaegar's thought process until further material is published. Also similar to the point above, it might be revealed that Rhaegar still married Lyanna even if he thought, for some reason, he could not get away with it.

3. "No one at that time or in the present story would consider that marriage legal/No one would consider Jon legitimate based on this secret wedding"

Again, the proposition does not have anything to do with people's approval or the recognition of Jon's legitimacy. These are all speculations about the future unpublished material.

I am sure there are more. These were the most common ones that came to my mind because the same people were typing the same things about a decade ago. You would expect some progress, considering the TV show started and ended in the meanwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

The Aegon/Visenya/Rhaenys triumvirate is probably a reference to the Adam/Lilith/Eve triumvirate: Lilith, in Hebrew mythology, being made from the same clay as Adam, Adam’s first wife and associated with witchcraft and the Occult (i.e. Visenya) Eve on the other hand the wife that was the mother of the human race (Rhaenys being the mother of the Targaryen dynasty).

Nice one, but what narrative purpose does it serve?

11 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

As for a parallel to Aegon the Conqueror and perhaps the one more likely to take two  spouses, we have Daenaerys presumably the future conqueror, who’s unique upbringing would probably make her

As a reversed parallel? Perhaps. But she would still need two Targaryen spouses for the parallel to work. Legitimate, if possible.

 

11 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

more open to the concept of polygamy than Rhaegar “Baylor the Blessed come again” Targaryen.

You are aware that Rhaegar was called that for being bookish, not religious, right?

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

No I already addressed your point.  You argued that it was your position that the nobles will be concerned with the fundamental concept of legal legitimacy.  I showed why during wartime that’s bullshit.  And I brought up the example of the Blackfyre rebellion as an example of why that was bullshit.

Ah. So now you use as an argument that there can be times when the usual rules do not apply, but when it comes to Jon's possible, you keep insisting on the usual standards reasonings?

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

 It’s my further takeaway from this convoluted theory with no textual support whatsoever that the only reason this idea is being championed is that it is very important for many of the posters here to make Jon a “legitimate” heir to a Targaryen succession that stopped existing once the Targaryens were forcibly removed from power.  

You claiming something doesn't make it so.

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I mean I suppose it’s possible but that’s not my take on Rhaegar’s character.  Reasonable minds can certainly differ on this.  Because as Jorah said, no one truly knew Rhaegar’s mind.  I think Rhaegar was playing a different game than everyone around him , which may be part of the reason we are struggling with his motivations.

Certainly. But since we are not shown the contrary, it remains a possibility.

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

That’s certainly true Cat who uttered those words.  And it is certainly true of the vast majority of Westeros save for an outlier here or there.  And it is true in at least some of the wildling villages.  It’s certainly not true of Craster.  He worships the Old Gods and believes he is more godly than anyone else because he gives them their due.  Who’s to say that Craster’s wrong and the other Wildlings are right?  After all back in the day some First Men apparently gave the Old Gods a human sacrifice.  That part of the North’s religion apparently didn’t survive to the present day.  But it apparently existed at one point.  Religion is like everything else.  It’s based on a people’s belief system.  If you’re looking for an inherent truth in any of this I think you’re reading the wrong series.

Eh... do you think that Craster is presented as that one exception that is right in the books? I'll do some re-read but I am fairly sure that his version of worship is presented as corrupt.

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

But you can’t cherry pick the practices and beliefs of a specific wildling and then attribute those beliefs to everyone who professes to worship the Old Gods.  I mean some of the Wildlings practiced cannibalism, we can’t attribute that to all Northerners.  

In case it escaped your attention, I'm not picking specific Wildling customs but looking at similarities between their customs and the customs of the North, which apparently stem from the same root.

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

After all the Northerners hated the wildlings.  They were told horror stories about the Wildlings practices and customs.  To argue that the Starks or the other Northern lords would be ok with polygamy or believed it was allowed by their religion because some strange wildling,  Ygon Oldfather, practiced it is folly.

Nice strawman there, because that's not what I said. I wondered if the North remembered that there was a time when their ancestors also did polygamy.

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I didn’t’ realize that now, we have evidence that not only did Rhaegar marry Lyanna but he married her in front of a weirwood tree.

I said IF they married before weirwood. IF. As in, a possibility. After all, it is Lyanna's religion, you guys have spent ungodly time arguing that the Faith absolutely wouldn't allow it, and the Isle of Faces is right there under the nose. 

 

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

 So I guess poor Jeyne Poole is screwed because she was forced to marry Ramsay in front of a Weirwood tree.  Or does she get a legal loophole (knothole) because she was cast in the part of Arya?  And if so does that mean Arya is screwed because the oath taken in front of the Weirwood tree was wedding her to Ramsay?  

I'd say it binds the person who said the words, regardless of their identity, but since the problem can always be solved by relieving Ramsay of his ugly head, I don't think anyone is screwed. IIRC, the legality might rather be challenged because Jeyne didn't say the words of her free will, just like Lady Hornwood.

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

 The North who would be in favor of Jon would be in favor of him as Jon Stark not as Jon Targaryen.

Quite possible. It is definitely the South that would find his Targ heritage more appealing than his Starkness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mithras said:

Status: Confirmed for all intents and purposes (unless a person feels confident enough to know the story better than the people who learned GRRM's secrets).

The people that learned GRRM's secrets made several mistakes GRRM pointed out, while it's obvious that  Rhaegar and Lyanna fathered Jon and they did get that part right, the manner and the context is anything but unconfirmed.

 

Calling strawman the arguments you don't like is a really bad move.

 

12 minutes ago, Mithras said:

1. "Polygamy is illegal"

Not only this is textually unsupported,

It really isn't, polygamy was never made legal,  nor its status was ever regularized as incest was, its use was also always dependant of having dragons, so there you go.

I'm not giving quotes again, it has been done enough.

To the rest i do agree, they could have a sham of a marriage,knowing full well it was a sham of a marriage but still wanting that sham of a marriage. Crazier things happen everyday, but most of the time people marry to actually being legally married, not to feel themselves a married couple.Even in the show, he had his previous marriage annulled first.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

We're back to the square of it being heresy and him being armyless, crownless and dragonless.

See Mithras' post about fallacy.

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

Half the Realm would be looking for his head just for the fact that he disappeared with Lyanna, the other half would not be so much happy with heresy, who he was trying to convince??

See Mithras' post about fallacy.

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

- The fact that he needs a child doesn't mean he has to remarry. He can simply legitimized a bastard he could have with any average girl. And be done.

Are you reading the same books?

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

- He needs armies to pull all that off, regardless of popularity. Access to them become increasingly difficult with every step he makes.

See Mithras' post about fallacy.

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

- He has to convince the Major houses and a father he is trying to oust... Well good luck with that.

See Mithras' post about fallacy.

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

You keep bringing Aegon and his sisters time after time and is clear that if anyone is going to follow his steps is Dany,she even has a black ride, since Dany is quite literally Aegon reborn. And i think that she's going to remain married to Hizdahr when she lands in Westeros and she'll need an ally there so.

But what are those steps

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

- Dany has been raised up in Essos, where polygamy is absolutely common. (Unlike Rhaegar)

- Dany is mostly ignorant of Westerosi customs and laws. (Unlike Rhaegar).

- Dany has a very powerful standing army. (Unlike Rhaegar).

- Dany would come as a  Re/Conqueror, which means that she can and will dictate her own terms. (Unlike Rhaegar).

 

- Dany has dragons to intimidate people. (Unlike Rhaegar).

See Mithras' post about fallacy. You're not adressing what I wrote in the least. So far, Dany has had zero drive to consider her ancestors' example as an inspiration for herself, while Rhaegar was obsessed with it, yet she will be the one to pull an Aegon? Why? Because she can?

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

I think he planned to legitimized Jon, set Elia aside an marry Lyanna once he became King (changes will be made) and a hammer robbed him the time. Polygamy can backfire  in so many ways and Rhaegar situation was already very very delicate without adding heresy.

On what grounds would he set Elia aside? Show me some textual proof that he could get away with that and not lose the support of his lords. Show me that they would accept his marriage to Lyanna as valid and not consider her a concubine. Because all those arguments you are trying to heap against a polygamous marriage apply to dissolving his marriage to Elia, as well, and even worse, because he is harming both Elia and the status of her children. If marriages could be dissolved, quite a couple of kings would happily do that when their offspring married without the royal consent. (And if you need a RL example, look at Henry VIII setting aside Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn).

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

Young G is already said hidden prince etc etc etc, even my poor Rickon is already playing that role. The idea of Jon being trueborn and heir to the Throne, regardless of he is ever going to sit his ass there, it's a fan desire rather than a narrative necessity.

1) YG may be an impostor,

2) Rickon does not fulfill the trope because there are other heirs available

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

See Mithras' post about fallacy.

Saw it and  answered it.

Polygamy is a sin, hence heresy, polygamy was never regularized, never accepted and never made legal and its use was dependant of bigger army diplomacy. This is all in the text.

Again, i'm not giving quotes again.

 

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

See Mithras' post about fallacy.

Mithras post was based on the idea they would do it, regardless of it been legal or not, which i don't argue.  I'm arguing its legality of a marriage like that.   Whether they had a ceremony and they called each other hubby and wifey is not really what i'm arguing.

 

 

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Are you reading the same books?

Apparently not, tell me. Why does he need to remarry instead of fathering a bastard with any girl and then legitmized the kid once he is King.

 

 

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

See Mithras' post about fallacy.

Done that, again.

 

Not only this is textually unsupported, but also it is irrelevant even if we assume that it is true. Polygamy being illegal does not mean that Rhaegar and Lyanna did not marry. Rhaegar might have still married Lyanna even if he, for some reason, considered it illegal. The proposition is about only the existence of this wedding, not its legality. Hence, this is strawman fallacy.

 

Again, a very popular strawman. The proposition does not have anything to do with whether Rhaegar actually could get away with it or he thought he could. We don't know Rhaegar's thought process until further material is published. Also similar to the point above, it might be revealed that Rhaegar still married Lyanna even if he thought, for some reason, he could not get away with it.

 

Are you just redirecting me because you're out of arguments?? Are you even reading mine?? 

 

 

  1. I'm not arguing whether Rhaegar and Lyanna had a marriage and considered themselves wife and husband, i never did,  i've been clear that i don't know nor i care if they did.
  2. I'm arguing the validity of said hypothetical marriage.
  3. You were also arguing the validity of said hypothetical marriage.
  4. Since Mithras post about fallacy rest on the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a marriage regardless of its legality, this is the very definition of a strawman.

 

 

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

See Mithras' post about fallacy.

Ditto.

 

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

But what are those steps

Oh, being polygamist.

 

 

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

See Mithras' post about fallacy. You're not adressing what I wrote in the least. So far, Dany has had zero drive to consider her ancestors' example as an inspiration for herself, while Rhaegar was obsessed with it, yet she will be the one to pull an Aegon? Why? Because she can?

Ditto.

I doubt Dany is going to consider her ancestors in anything, she will do it because she needs it, because she want and ofc yes, because she can. You asked about why would Martin make Aegon polygamist... Well Dany is Aegon come again, that's simply undeniable.

She will enter to a new land, she will need allies and what better way to seal that with marriages, she may fall in love and she can get away with murder. It doesn't matter how many times Rhaegar dreamed about Aegon, ¿Rhaegar was obsessed with his ancestors?, he simply doesn't have the tools necessary to pull that off, Dany does. Which is something Rhaegar would have noticed if he was as fixated in his ancestors as you want to believe he was,  Rhaegar needed bigger army diplomacy and or dragons to get his marriage to be accepted. He had neither and the lords of the Realm had little reason to indulge him.

 

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

On what grounds would he set Elia aside? Show me some textual proof that he could get away with that and not lose the support of his lords. Show me that they would accept his marriage to Lyanna as valid and not consider her a concubine. Because all those arguments you are trying to heap against a polygamous marriage apply to dissolving his marriage to Elia, as well, and even worse, because he is harming both Elia and the status of her children. If marriages could be dissolved, quite a couple of kings would happily do that when their offspring married without the royal consent. (And if you need a RL example, look at Henry VIII setting aside Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn).

Kings can set aside their wives and they don't really need great motives to do so, we know that setting aside wives has been done and suggested a lot of times in history.

 

Quote

“He betrayed one already, or have you forgotten?” the woman said. “Oh, I don’t deny he’s loyal to Robert, that’s obvious. What happens when Robert dies and Joff takes the throne? And the sooner that comes to pass, the safer we’ll all be. My husband grows more restless every day. Having Stark beside him will only make him worse. He’s still in love with the sister, the insipid little dead sixteen-year-old. How long till he decides to put me aside for some new Lyanna?

 

Quote

The girl is a maid of fourteen, sweet and beautiful and tractable, and Lord Renly and Ser Loras intend that Robert should bed her, wed her, and make a new queen.

 

Quote

"He was a wretched king . . . vain, drunken, lecherous . . . he would have set your sister aside, his own queen . . . please . . . Renly was plotting to bring the Highgarden maid to court, to entice his brother . . . it is the gods' own truth . . ."

 

Quote

Daemon had been wed to Rhea Royce in 97 AC when she was heir to the ancient seat of Runestone in the Vale. It was a fine, rich match, but Daemon found the Vale little to his liking, and liked his wife even less, and they were soon estranged.
It had likewise proved a barren union, and though Viserys I refused his brother's entreaties to set aside the marriage, he did recall him to court to take up the burden of rule. Daemon served first as master of coins, then master of law, but it was his chief rival, the Hand Ser Otto Hightower, who finally convinced Viserys to remove him from these offices. So in 104 AC, Viserys made his brother commander of the City Watch.

 

Quote

Eustace claims that Daemon and Princess Rhaenyra were caught abed together by Ser Arryk Cargyll, and it was this that made Viserys exile his brother from the court. Mushroom tells a different tale, however: that Rhaenyra had eyes only for Ser Criston Cole, but that the knight had declined her overtures. It was then that her uncle offered to school her in the arts of love, so that she might move the virtuous Ser Criston to break his vows. But when she finally thought herself ready to approach him, the knight—whom Mushroom swears was as chaste and virtuous as an aged septa—reacted in horror and disgust. Viserys soon heard of it. And whatever version of the tale was true, we do know that Daemon asked for Rhaenyra's hand, if only Viserys would set aside his marriage to Lady Rhea. Viserys refused, and instead exiled Daemon from the Seven Kingdoms, never to return upon pain of death. Daemon departed, returning to the Stepstones to continue with his war.

 

Quote

Lady Ellyn remained, but her influence dwindled, while that of Lady Jeyne grew. Soon, the rivalry between Ser Tion's widow and Tytos's wife became truly ugly, if the rumors set down by Maester Beldon can be believed. Beldon tells us that in 239 AC, Ellyn Reyne was accused of bedding Tytos Lannister, urging him to set aside his wife and marry her instead. However, young Tytos (then nineteen) found his brother's widow so intimidating that he was unable to perform. Humiliated, he ran back to his wife to confess and beg her forgiveness.

 

Quote

When the Andals came, the Hightowers were amongst the first lords of Westeros to welcome them. "Wars are bad for trade," said Lord Dorian Hightower, when he set aside his wife of twenty years, the mother of his children, to take an Andal princess as his bride. His grandson Lord Damon (the Devout) was the first to accept the Faith. To honor the new gods, he built the first sept in Oldtown and six more elsewhere in his realm. When he died prematurely of a bad belly, Septon Robeson became regent for his newborn son, ruling Oldtown in all but name for the next twenty years and ultimately becoming the first High Septon. The boy he raised and trained, Lord Triston Hightower, raised the Starry Sept in his honor after his passing.

 

Quote

ASSUMING THE THRONE in 209 AC, Daeron’s second son, Aerys, had never imagined he would be king, and was singularly ill suited to sit the Iron Throne. Aerys was learned, in his way, though his interests were largely to do with dusty tomes concerned with ancient prophecy and the higher mysteries. Wed to Aelinor Penrose, he never showed an interest in getting her with child, and rumor had it that he had even failed to consummate the marriage. His small council, at their wits’ ends, hoped it was simply some dislike of her that moved him, and thus they urged him to put her aside to take another wife. But he would not hear of it.

 

Quote

The chance encounter between Alyn Velaryon and Drazenko Rogare at Sunspear had provided a perfect opportunity to effect the return of Prince Viserys to his brother…but it is not in the nature of any Lyseni to make a gift of anything that might be sold, so it was first necessary that Oakenfist come to Lys and agree to terms with Lysandro Rogare. “The realm might have been better served had it been Lord Alyn’s mother at that table rather than  Lord Alyn,” Mushroom observes, rightly. Oakenfist was no haggler. To secure the prince, his lordship agreed that the Iron Throne would pay a ransom of one hundred thousand golden dragons, agree not to take up arms against House Rogare or its interests for a hundred years, entrust the Rogare Bank of Lys with such funds as were presently held by the Iron Bank of Braavos, grant lordships to three of Lysandro’s younger sons, and…above all…swear upon his honor that the marriage between Viserys Targaryen and Larra Rogare would not be set aside, for any cause. To all of this Lord Alyn Velaryon had agreed, and affixed his sign and seal.

 

Quote

Garland [Gardener] accomplished the same in the south, bringing Oldtown into his kingdom by wedding his daughter to Lymond (the Sea Lion) of House Hightower, whilst putting his own wives aside to marry Lord Lymond’s daughter.

 

However, marriages in the Seven Kingdoms can be ended in several ways. A king is able to put his queen aside – even if she has given birth to his children – and marry another In the Faith of the Seven, a marriage that has not been consummated can be set aside by the High Septon or a Council of Faith. Even a marriage that has been consummated can be set aside, even a marriage of many years with children. Neither bride nor groom needs to be present for an annulment; however, it must be requested by at least one of the wedded pair. The role and procedure of a Council of Faith has not yet been stated.

 

This great excerpt makes a great case about how setting aside Elia was not only feasible but also quite easy and there is no need many grounds to do it. Rhaegar could not annul the marriage once consumated, but he sure as hell could set her aside.  Annulment does damage his children status,  Setting aside Elia doesn't.  And sure, Rhaegar would have to kiss goodbye any goodwill with Robert and the Martells but that was a given from the very beginning if he was worried about that he shouldn't started the charade. He would lose the good faith of two kingdoms but he would have the Realm, and if he marries Viserys to Cersei, there is Robert and the Martells have no other choice but sulking, as usual the easy way was to not exciting enough for Rhaegar. Marriages can be set aside, that's a fact,   Robert himself would've set Cersei aside had he wanted it, he had zero reasons to do it... until Margaery came at play. Setting aside wives is indeed custom and tradition in the seven kingdoms that has its roots in the First Men and no no one but the aggreviated parties would be outraged. And there is no word about children being bastards or whatever. Cersei is the clearest example, Pycelle and her talking about  Robert setting her aside but they don't ever utter that Joffrey's position would be at risk.

Polygamy is a very weird way of complicating his life, unless of  course, he wanted to be honorable and keep banging both Elia and Lyanna, that's a possibility.

 Annulments happened during the Middle ages, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Louis VII for example, even in Henry VII case, the Pope did grant him  the divorce not so much because it couldn't be done but because Catherine of Aragon was Charles's V aunt and after the Sack of Rome, he was shitscared of going against him ever again. Nor children became bastards after the marriages were declared void from the beginning, they were still legit.

 

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

1) YG may be an impostor,

2) Rickon does not fulfill the trope because there are other heirs available

1) Irrelevant, he is the hidden prince.

2) None as good as Rickon, who again is the hidden heir of Winterfell.

 

 

Edited by frenin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Frey family reunion

Daenerys definitely is the Targaryen for who the specific situation of Aegon the Conqueror and his two sister-wives was created. She has three dragons, can only ride one of those, and is looking for two other men - two other dragon heads, mirroring Aegon's sisters - who she is going to marry. She actually says this point blank in ADwD.

They won't be her brothers because those are both dead, but Rhaegal and Viserion will become riders and she will marry them. And Jon Snow is not going to be one of them ... at least not originally.

This whole idea that 'riding a dragon' is going to be 'proof legitimacy or ancestry' is childish nonsense if you consider that both dragons will have riders - and possibly riders with no or very little Targaryen blood - back in Slaver's Bay and when the dragons first arrive in Westeros.

If Brown Ben Plumm, Tyrion Lannister, Victarion or Euron Greyjoy are not going to be seen as/promoted to or cheered as 'hidden princes', 'rightful kings', etc. because they are dragonriders, then why the hell should Jon Snow be any different? Or do we assume that those men are going to be seen as 'hidden princes', 'secret Targaryens' and 'rightful kings', too, just because some of them will become dragonriders?

We do know historically what happened in this world when people who shouldn't/weren't expected to be dragonriders claimed a dragon happened - they were murdered or vilified.

People really have to start to grow up. We are no longer living in the 1990s, nor in the 2000s. It is 2020, and the 'hidden prince' in this story since 2011 is Aegon Targaryen, not Jon Snow. With him going to Westeros all by himself with his own army, without dragons or miracles heralding his rise to power, we have him playing the role a Jon Snow could have technically played before (if he had not taken the black and had not been brought up without knowing he was and/or hanging out in a region which is out of the game of thrones since ASoS).

All that crap about secret signs and symbols and tokens and revelations by crippled boys and crannogmen and wetnurses is just that - crap. It will make for a fine chapter or a succession of hints and clues for the readers, but Stannis' letters are going to affect policy to a higher degree than anything these people will claim ... if they even bother doing it, which is questionable in Howland Reed's case (he might prefer it for himself and the North if Jon Snow takes over Winterfell as Robb and Ned's heir rather than setting him up to for failure in a pointless fight for the Iron Throne).

Like with Simon in Osten Ard Jon's royal blood could have been a deciding factor in him becoming king in the end if no other claimant was left for some convenient reason ... until he was killed in ADwD. We are not going to get an undead/resurrected king in this series, just as Catelyn Stark isn't going to rule Winterfell or Riverrun happily ever after at the end of the series ... and neither is the precedent of 'Ser Robert Strong' going to foreshadow that zombie knights are the new way to staff the Kingsguard.

In that sense the only proper plot point of the Jon origin story should be the promised prince shit, and the Others and the War for the Dawn, etc. Nothing political at all. And that is actually the most satisfatying story that being 'the promised prince' actually has nothing to do with royalty and that he can only fulfill his destiny if he doesn't even get close to the throne. You have to sacrifice home and honor and gold and crowns to save the world.

@frenin:

The example about Cersei fearing that Robert would set her aside and Renly planning to do that while nobody ever thought about/feared/expected that Robert would take a second wife in Margaery Tyrell in addition to Cersei Lannister (which could have been a compromise if he didn't want to set her aside) is another of those things that's odd if you think royal polygamy were a thing.

Since that is post-Rhaegar - and Robert and Cersei and Renly should have known that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married if that happened - it is quite odd that all they could think about was Robert replacing the old queen with a new one instead of just taking as many wives as he wanted to.

Up until FaB it was unclear whether 'annulling a marriage' and 'setting aside a marriage/wife' are the same thing, but it seems FaB confirms they are used interchangably after all:

Quote

Once the marriage had been annulled, his lordship [Rogar Baratheon] reasoned, it would be as if it had never happened so far as most of Westeros was concerned … so long as it remained secret. Until the union was consummated, it could still easily be set aside.

It seems non-consummation is merely the easiest prerequisite of annulment, not the only one:

Quote

To secure the prince, his lordship agreed that the Iron Throne would pay a ransom of one hundred thousand golden dragons, agree not to take up arms against House Rogare or its interests for a hundred years, entrust the Rogare Bank of Lys with such funds as were presently held by the Iron Bank of Braavos, grant lordships to three of Lysandro’s younger sons, and … above all … swear upon his honor that the marriage between Viserys Targaryen and Larra Rogare would not be set aside, for any cause. To all of this Lord Alyn Velaryon had agreed, and affixed his sign and seal.

'Any cause' up there confirms that there are more causes for setting aside/annulling a marriage than mere non-consummation.

It has also confirmed without the shadow of doubt to all you nay-sayers and doubters out there, that a marriage can be annulled/set aside against the will of one or both of the spouses involved, as this little tidbit shows:

Quote

Yet a day later, he discovered to his dismay that Baela had fled the castle by some secret means (later it was found she had climbed out a window, swapped clothes with a washerwoman, and walked out the front gate). By the time the hue and cry went up, she was halfway across Blackwater Bay, having hired a fisherman to carry her to Driftmark. There she sought out her cousin, the Lord of the Tides, and poured out her woes to him. A fortnight later, Alyn Velaryon and Baela Targaryen were married in the sept on Dragonstone. The bride was sixteen, the groom nearly seventeen.

Several of the regents, outraged, urged Ser Tyland to appeal to the High Septon for an annulment, but the Hand’s own response was one of bemused resignation.

This shows that even with two grown-up spouses, one of them a great lord in in his own right and the other the half-sister of the king himself, the people ruling the Realm in the king's name are seen as having the power to annul a marriage against the will of the married couple.

Down the toilet goes this idea that Aegon V and other kings had to accept the marriages of their children or other kin - they could have pushed the issue and pulled them apart against their will. King Aenys could have done this with Maegor, Viserys I could have done it with Daemon and Laena and Daemon and Rhaenyra, Aegon V with all his children ... but they chose not to because they didn't want to hurt their family or act over their heads.

Robar Baratheon didn't have such scruples - he really tried to set aside the Jaehaerys-Alysanne match, and he could have done it even if they had consummated their marriage. It would have just been more difficult.

In light of all that it is ridiculous that Prince Rhaegar could have taken a second wife against the will of his royal father and/or the Realm at large. The Baela-Alyn example shows that even the Mad King's Hand (Merryweather at this point) could have set aside the Lyanna match while/if the king had been incapacitated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Rhaegar should have brought Lyanna directly to the court when they eloped. Then he would tell Aerys that he is setting aside Elia and marrying Lyanna. Brilliant plan. Or maybe Rhaegar would prefer to set aside Elia after he returned from Tower of Joy to take the leadership of the royal army, which had Lewyn Martell and lots of Dornishmen in it. That too would be a brilliant moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, frenin said:

snip

Thanks for shooting yourself in the leg :D

- if examples from the ancient times of the Andal invasion count as valid, so does polygamy

- if examples of people wanting their marriages set aside count as valid, so do wishes for polygamy

- examples of people who did not consummate their marriage hardly count

- Cersei could easily have been set aside due to her incest, which Renly (and Pycelle) knew about. Show me that Robert would have been able to set her aside for no reason or that Tywin would be cool with it, just like you claim that Starks absolutely wouldn't approve of Lyanna's polygamy.

Either way, this is the last post I am adressing, I don't have time for disingenuous claims and double standards. /Ignore/.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mithras said:

Yeah, Rhaegar should have brought Lyanna directly to the court when they eloped. Then he would tell Aerys that he is setting aside Elia and marrying Lyanna. Brilliant plan. Or maybe Rhaegar would prefer to set aside Elia after he returned from Tower of Joy to take the leadership of the royal army, which had Lewyn Martell and lots of Dornishmen in it. That too would be a brilliant moment.

Or he should have told Elia he was setting her aside right after she nearly died birthing his son, that would have been some brilliant timing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2020 at 11:03 PM, Frey family reunion said:

If your argument is that Rhaegar believed that the Prince that was Promised/Azor Ahai had to be the legal inheritor of the title Prince of Dragonstone,

Yes, this!

According to the woodswitch's prophecy, the Promised Prince was supposed to be born from Jaehaerys' line. Though, does that mean that it could have been just anyone out of his descendants? Of course not.

Why did Rhaegar thought that it's definitely Aegon, who is the Promised Prince? Why before that he thought that it was him (Rhaegar), who was the Promised Prince?

Why he never considered as candidates his younger brother, prince Viserys, or his unborn yet third sibling, or his daughter Rhaenys, or his third, unborn yet child, that could have been a son or a daughter)? -> That's because out of Jaehaerys' descendants, after Aerys and Rhaella's union, only Rhaegar was the Prince of Dragonstone, and after him the next Prince of Dragonstone was Rhaegar's oldest son - Aegon.

The only logical conclusion is that, based on whatever Rhaegar found in Targaryen archives about the prophecy, one of the Promised Prince's signs was that he is not just any prince, he is specifically the Prince of Dragonstone.

On 7/1/2020 at 11:03 PM, Frey family reunion said:

Here Aemon is specifically equating the requirement of being born/reborn amidst Salt and Smoke, not with the title of Prince of Dragonstone that Rhaegar would ultimately inherit but with the actual tears and smoke present at Summerhall.  A belief that for a time Rhaegar seemed to share.

It was the location of Dany’s birth, not necessarily her status as Princess of Dragonstone that led Aemon to change his mind:

Quote

Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke.  The dragons prove it.

So here we have the physical location of her birthplace, Dragonstone as the deciding factor for Aemon.  

Unless Aemon was wrong, and born amidst salt and smoke, is how Jon is going to be resurrected, not about Dany's birth.

So part of the prophecy with the bleeding stars is about Rhaego (and Jon, because of Lyanna's "bed of blood" at Starfall), and the part with smoke and salt is about Jon, while the part with the stone dragons is about Dany.

Rhaegar/Aemon was going about "tears and smoke", while in the prophecy it was about "salt and smoke". So, maybe, it is about literal salt, and not about tears.

On 7/1/2020 at 11:03 PM, Frey family reunion said:

And nowhere does it state in the prophecy that you have to be the legal inheritor of the title of the Prince of Dragonstone does it?  I mean can’t some peasant born of on Dragonstone technically fit the bill as well?  I mean Jesus was titled the King of Kings despite never having the legal title of King.

No, he/she can't. Some peasant born on Dragonstone, won't be Jaehaerys' descendant. Neither is Stannis. Though Melisandre didn't knew about the prophecy given by woodswitch to Targaryens.

There are three separate prophecies about the same event:

5000 years old prophecy from Asshai (Mel's source):

"There will come a day after a long summer when the stars bleed and the cold breath of darkness falls heavy on the world. In this dread hour a warrior shall draw from the fire a burning sword. And that sword shall be Lightbringer, the Red Sword of Heroes, and he who clasps it shall be Azor Ahai come again, and the darkness shall flee before him."

"When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone."

"She talks of prophecies ... a hero reborn in the sea, living dragons hatched from dead stone ... she speaks of signs and swears they point to me." - Stannis, ASOS.

- the prophecy by the Ghost of High Heart:

- the Promised Prince will be born from Aerys's and Rhaella's line.

- "Signs and Portents" a book written by Daenys the Dreamer (Rhaegar's source, also Aemon's and Marwyn's):

- "Marwyn claims to have found three pages of Signs and Portents, visions written down by the maiden daughter of Aenar Targaryen before the Doom came to Valyria." - Asha, AFFC;

- "Someday the dragons will return. My brother Daeron's dreamed of it, and King Aerys read it in a prophecy." - Egg, The Mystery Knight;

- "Born amidst salt and smoke, beneath a bleeding star. I know the prophecy" - Marwyn, AFFC;

- "Until one day Prince Rhaegar found something in his scrolls ... 'I will require sword and armor. It seems I must be a warrior.'";

("Jon was armored in black ice, but his blade burned red in his fist." - Jon, ADWD.

"That night she dreamt that she was Rhaegar, riding to the Trident. But she was mounted on a dragon, not a horse. When she saw the Usurper's rebel host across the river they were armored all in ice, but she bathed them in dragonfire and they melted away like dew and turned the Trident into a torrent. Some small part of her knew that she was dreaming, but another part exulted. This is how it was meant to be. The other was a nightmare, and I have only now awakened." - Dany, ASOS.

Rhaegar's armor was black. He asked to make for him a black armor, because that was one of TPTWP's signs. Eventually he realised that he is not TPTWP, maybe, because the Prince was supposed to have two companions, that were dragonseeds like him, and Rhaegar had only one relative - Viserys; or, maybe, because TPTWP was supposed to have a gift of dragondreams. He was supposed to see in a dream his battle against the Others (like Dany and Jon did). But Rhaegar never had any prophetic dreams, even though he tried - when he visited the ruins of Summerhall. Could be that eventually he met there the Ghost of High Heart, and she told him that it isn't him, who is TPTWP, it's going to be his son. He thought that it was Aegon, while actually it was Jon.)

- "The dragon must have three heads" - Aemon, AFFC;

- ""He has a song," the man replied. "He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire." He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany's, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. "There must be one more,"" - Dany, ACOK.

Based on all that, TPTWP (he/she/they) supposed to match this parameters (not all of them together, but some of them):

- descendant of Aerys and Rhaella, the Prince of Dragonstone, warrior, dragondreamer, black armor, burning sword/Lightbringer, will awake dragons from stone, will be born under the bleeding stars (Jon's birth at Starfall), the Bleeding Star will herald his birth (Rhaego), born again amidst smoke and salt (Jon's resurrection, or circumstances of Rhaego's reunion with Dany (he's not dead), or Dany at Drogo's funeral), his song is the song of ice and fire; he's supposed to have two bloodrelated to him dragonseeds, who are also descendants of Aerys/Rhaella.

So it's not about the place of birth, it's about multiple parameters. And some peasant, born on Dragonstone, won't match even half of them. Even if King Aerys impregnated some unknown woman. Because, to be TPTWP, the child (Dany)/grandchildren (Jon and Rhaego) supposed to be from both of them - Aerys and Rhaella.

Edited by Megorova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, frenin said:

The people that learned GRRM's secrets made several mistakes GRRM pointed out, while it's obvious that  Rhaegar and Lyanna fathered Jon and they did get that part right, the manner and the context is anything but unconfirmed.

 

Calling strawman the arguments you don't like is a really bad move.

 

It really isn't, polygamy was never made legal,  nor its status was ever regularized as incest was, its use was also always dependant of having dragons, so there you go.

I'm not giving quotes again, it has been done enough.

To the rest i do agree, they could have a sham of a marriage,knowing full well it was a sham of a marriage but still wanting that sham of a marriage. Crazier things happen everyday, but most of the time people marry to actually being legally married, not to feel themselves a married couple.Even in the show, he had his previous marriage annulled first.

 

 

Can you demonstrate this with canon text? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, frenin said:

Robert did because that's the name Ned had given him before.

Indeed. But we have no context on the first conversation. The only thing we know about the first conversation is that Ned said the name Wylla and Robert connected that name to his bastard's mother (and that Robert never met Wylla). Exactly as we saw in the second conversation. There is no evidence at all that Ned made the connection for Robert. What evidence we do have is contained in the example of the second conversation - Robert makes assumptions or statements, Ned answers precisely the question asked and only that, not confirming or denying anything else, and thus Robert continues with his false assumptions.

12 hours ago, frenin said:

Ned did say a woman named Wylla was the mother of his bastard.

No, you just assumed that. We don't know how that first conversation went at all. You literally use the exact same sloppy thinking as Robert uses to make a statement of fact out of an unknown..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Lady Anna said:

My question is, if you don't believe it's a mystery, and you don't subscribe to any theory regarding Jon's parentage (I presume), why.......be here in this thread? After all this is a thread specifically made to discuss RLJ. Quoting people's posts just to say they're wrong because *you* specifically don't like theories on this subject - when you don't have anything to add to RLJ because you *don't* subscribe to it - then why do it? Let people theorize about RLJ in a thread specifically made for it.

They are liars and their lies should be pointed out. 

RLJ bots that accuse others of fan fiction are nothing more than scum of the Earth and they deserve zero respect from anybody. 

To hold the position that RLJ with Jon as the Targ heir through a secret polygamous marriage while accusing other people of fanfiction is about the intelligence level you'd expect from someone that's addicted to getting hit in the head with Robert's warhammer. 

To accuse someone of acting like a flat earther while lying that George said Lyanna is Jon's book mother is to be absolutely worthless scum. 

To accuse someone else of dishonesty while lying that Ned never called Jon his son is to be absolutely worthless scum. 

There used to be plenty of people pointing out their BS but they keep banning them all. And who is the worst offender of them all? The "My house, my rules" uber overinflated ego High Sparrow himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...