R+L=J v.18

[Top Notch Balanter]

I dont think R+L=J as i just dont see (or want) GRRM to throw another candidate in for the claim to kingship and also i think it would slightly ruin the whole Jon is AA reborn whereas N+A=J is better as then Jon would have a link to the north and the first men and also he would have a link to Lightbringer or the Sword of Morning which he will use to kill the Great Other.

[Tree Warg]

I dont think R+L=J as i just dont see (or want) GRRM to throw another candidate in for the claim to kingship and also i think it would slightly ruin the whole Jon is AA reborn whereas N+A=J is better as then Jon would have a link to the north and the first men and also he would have a link to Lightbringer or the Sword of Morning which he will use to kill the Great Other.

Well, I am pretty famous around for thinking and wanting a lot of things of this story but the reality is there is NO evidence to suggest that Jon is anyone's kid but R + L.

Lightbringer is not made of Valyrian steel. Sword of the Morning is but Jon would have to be a Dane to wield it (and at this point that is not looking very likely).

As to whom or what the Great Other is? Hard to say GRRM has not given us much about the Others. And, for good reason. I think that is what Bloodraven is for. For those that think that Bloodraven is the Great Other think again, The Children of the Forest did not get on well with the Others. Which is whom Bloodraven resides with.

[sunworshipper]

Lightbringer is not made of Valyrian steel. Sword of the Morning is but Jon would have to be a Dane to wield it (and at this point that is not looking very likely).

The Dayne's sword Dawn is not Valyrian steel but made from a meteorite.

[Top Notch Balanter]

I know my opinion is an unpopular one and at not very probable one but ill stand by it and if Jon is a Ned and Ashara bastard then he does have the right to wield Dawn which as a meteoric sword will have the same affect on an other now all we have to hope for is for Dawn to somehow appear

[WhiteWolf26]

I know my opinion is an unpopular one and at not very probable one but ill stand by it and if Jon is a Ned and Ashara bastard then he does have the right to wield Dawn which as a meteoric sword will have the same affect on an other now all we have to hope for is for Dawn to somehow appear

Will it have the same affect? How do you know that?

[corbon]

Then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, but I might add you are in no position to admonish others for their speculations when your own statements are just that- speculation.

Sorry, I thought I was clear that I was arguing an option (that a marriage probably would not cause the issues you claimed), though IMO a more probable one. You appeared to me to have made a definitive statement (that a marriage would cause problems).

There is no more "textual evidence" that the inhabitants of Westeros would be accepting of an institution such as polygamy than of putting a woman from another subculture who they could also care less about, aside, because she can no longer fulfill her child-bearing duties.

Err, the context was how Dhorne would feel about it, not the rest of westeros?

But anyway, there is textual evidence that that the rest of Westeros would accept polygamy - they had before. Therefore there is legal and social precedent for a Targaryen to marry into more than one house. Thats evidence that they would (probably) accept it again.

Whereas clearly Dhorne would not be happy about Elia being 'set aside' - especially when polygamy is a legal option.

Just what conversation do you think he was having with her when he tells her after knowing of her condition that there must be one more?

Well, I think "If you can't have another child then I will need to revive the old institution of polygamy in order to get the third head of the dragon to fulfill the prophecy and save the word" rates a bit higher than "If you can't have another child then you have to be set aside so that I may get the third head of the dragon to fulfill the prophecy and save the word".

If Rhaegar puts Elias aside in favor of another woman from a more powerful House who first time out of the starting gates, produces a strong and healthy son, what are the consequences other than Dorne is pissed?

Nobody else cares about Dorne anymore than they may care about the North, and may see the Dornish as just as arrogant and over the top as the Targaryens.

If Rhaegar simply takes another wife, then there is no need even for Dhorne to be pissed.

There is historical precedent for multiple wives, so the base assumption should be that taking multiple wives isn't going to piss off anybody as much as dumping Elia is going to piss of Dhorne. And as I already pointed out, there are advantages in doing so for the other houses as well.

How he deals with possibly putting Elia aside has as much to do with the manner in which he does it, not why he does it.

He doesn't need to put Elia aside though, that is the point. He has another solutuon that won't piss Dhorne off nearly as much (or probably at all) and has historical and legal precedent as well as political advantages.

Taking away a Lords right to broker a marriage contract is dangerous and who is to say that the Starks, as well as the North would even recognize Lyannas marriage if it's a polygamous one?

Yes, taking away the Lord's right to broker a marriage contract is a problem, and I think that is why he and Lyanna go into hiding initially. They need the marriage to last long enough that it can't be set side by angry families (on both sides) and also to not actually be around so angry families can't do anything stupid (well, I guess that should be can't do as much stupid damage).

As to who is to say the Starks would accept a polygamous marriage? Well, it has been done before. Clearly there is a legal precedent for it. It might not sit entirely comfortably, but legally there shouldn't be any problem, given that we haven't seen any changes to the law since a time when it wasn't a problem.

On the matter of Elias death, that had as much to do with Aerys actions as the Lannisters, but nonetheless, the Martels have no issue with still marrying into the family that killed Elia for the sake of political relevance.

I believe this is a misrepresentation. Or I am misunderstanding you.

Elia's death has everything to do with the Lannisters and nothing to do with Aerys. Yes, he supposedly kept them nearby in order to ensure Martell loyalty, but how much of that was just Aerys' own mad paranoia? All he did was keep them in their own home, protected by the same forces judged strong enough to keep him safe. What more should anyone do?

Since the Targaryens did not kill Elia, I don't understand your last sentence there. They were interested in marrying into the Lannisters at one stage, but that was before everything happened. There is no Martell/Lannister marriage hinted at since then (unless you count Myrcella Baratheon as a Lannister, which we might, but the Martells do not).

Martell hatred is reserved for the Lannisters, not the Targaryens. That should tell you something about who they blame.

[Ghost714]

I dont think R+L=J as i just dont see (or want) GRRM to throw another candidate in for the claim to kingship and also i think it would slightly ruin the whole Jon is AA reborn whereas N+A=J is better as then Jon would have a link to the north and the first men and also he would have a link to Lightbringer or the Sword of Morning which he will use to kill the Great Other.

In the matter of R+L=J.

Jon has a "link" to the north without Ned. Are you forgetting that Lyanna had just as much blood of the First Men flowing in her veins as Ned???

Lyanna worshipped the Old gods just as much as Ned.

And there is absolutely no indication that the Dayne family sword Dawn = Lightbringer. Unless I have had a recent brain injury, but I really do not remember Dawn being described as Lightbringer. I don't remember there being any one saying it was alive with fire, or that it radiated heat.

You could just as easily say Longclaw is going to become Lightbringer. Who knows maybe Melisandre or Morqurro use magic to literally bind the sword with Dragon flame, using one of Danaerys's dragons??? Maybe it takes Melisandre and Morqorro both to do it together?? I don't know, but what I do know is I will buy that before I buy Dawn being Lightbringer.

We know that Ned and Ashara can't work, the time line would be off, Jon would have been way noticeably older than Robb. Ned wouldn't have been able to say he Jon was younger. And if Jon was noticeably older than Robb, then why would Ned lie about it? It would be so blindingly obvious he was lieng. And we know Ashara Dayne had a still born girl. There wouldn't have been enough time to get pregnant again and have Jon the second time around. So there is no way that was the case.

If Jon's parents are Rhaegar and Lyanna, then he is literally the Song of Ice and Fire.

How would that not make more sense for AA???

[Ygrain]

We know that Ned and Ashara can't work, the time line would be off, Jon would have been way noticeably older than Robb. Ned wouldn't have been able to say he Jon was younger. And if Jon was noticeably older than Robb, then why would Ned lie about it? It would be so blindingly obvious he was lieng. And we know Ashara Dayne had a still born girl. There wouldn't have been enough time to get pregnant again and have Jon the second time around. So there is no way that was the case.

While I agree that N+A much less possible than R+L, we still should not take all the facts as given. We do not know where Ashara spent the whole civil war; there could have been a chance for her and Ned to be together - the gossip about her being Jon's mother may have had some real basis. Also, unless Barristan was right there during Ashara's delivery, he knows only what he was told. If Ashara gave a birth to a boy who would need to be taken away for safety, claiming that the child was a stillborn girl would make an enxcellent coverup.

[Alia of the knife]

Sorry, I thought I was clear that I was arguing an option (that a marriage probably would not cause the issues you claimed), though IMO a more probable one. You appeared to me to have made a definitive statement (that a marriage would cause problems).

Err, the context was how Dhorne would feel about it, not the rest of westeros?

But anyway, there is textual evidence that that the rest of Westeros would accept polygamy - they had before. Therefore there is legal and social precedent for a Targaryen to marry into more than one house. Thats evidence that they would (probably) accept it again.

Whereas clearly Dhorne would not be happy about Elia being 'set aside' - especially when polygamy is a legal option.

Well, I think "If you can't have another child then I will need to revive the old institution of polygamy in order to get the third head of the dragon to fulfill the prophecy and save the word" rates a bit higher than "If you can't have another child then you have to be set aside so that I may get the third head of the dragon to fulfill the prophecy and save the word".

If Rhaegar simply takes another wife, then there is no need even for Dhorne to be pissed.

There is historical precedent for multiple wives, so the base assumption should be that taking multiple wives isn't going to piss off anybody as much as dumping Elia is going to piss of Dhorne. And as I already pointed out, there are advantages in doing so for the other houses as well.

He doesn't need to put Elia aside though, that is the point. He has another solutuon that won't piss Dhorne off nearly as much (or probably at all) and has historical and legal precedent as well as political advantages.

Yes, taking away the Lord's right to broker a marriage contract is a problem, and I think that is why he and Lyanna go into hiding initially. They need the marriage to last long enough that it can't be set side by angry families (on both sides) and also to not actually be around so angry families can't do anything stupid (well, I guess that should be can't do as much stupid damage).

As to who is to say the Starks would accept a polygamous marriage? Well, it has been done before. Clearly there is a legal precedent for it. It might not sit entirely comfortably, but legally there shouldn't be any problem, given that we haven't seen any changes to the law since a time when it wasn't a problem.

I believe this is a misrepresentation. Or I am misunderstanding you.

Elia's death has everything to do with the Lannisters and nothing to do with Aerys. Yes, he supposedly kept them nearby in order to ensure Martell loyalty, but how much of that was just Aerys' own mad paranoia? All he did was keep them in their own home, protected by the same forces judged strong enough to keep him safe. What more should anyone do?

Since the Targaryens did not kill Elia, I don't understand your last sentence there. They were interested in marrying into the Lannisters at one stage, but that was before everything happened. There is no Martell/Lannister marriage hinted at since then (unless you count Myrcella Baratheon as a Lannister, which we might, but the Martells do not).

Martell hatred is reserved for the Lannisters, not the Targaryens. That should tell you something about who they blame.

Corbon,

The Targaryens practiced incest and polygamy because they could, and they had dragons, not necessarily because it was accepted, or even "legal," as they basically did whatever they wanted.

The incest did not intimately touch the other Houses, therefore as long as the other House's were left to most of their traditions, they were content to look the other way, but we really have no evidence that the people of Westeros thought that this was a good thing, and in fact, we get hints that they feel opposite.

And the practitioners of polygamy were not looked upon as positive, therefore there is evidence to suggest that while the Houses didn't protest, it doesn't mean they were happy about it. And the fact that only the Martels seemed to consistently be mated to the Targaryens despite a few Houses here and there, points to the fact that these Houses did not benefit from the practice.

And given the fact that the Targaryens who did engage in this practice were not positive characters suggests that the practice may actually have been used in a negative manner.

And, what are the benefits?

Were all of these wives Queens?, or was there just one?

If Elia dies, does Rhaegar take another wife, I mean what would he be doing here?

Is he trying to emulate Aegon the Conquerer, or does he mean that for his son?

On Dorne, I think we cannot presume too much on their openess.

While some evidence suggests more autonomy for females, that may only apply to the Martel females, but be that as it may, Elia being from a more "open" culture does not automatically translate into her accepting her husband marrying another woman, especially if it's a love match.

I don't think we can presume Elia was indifferent to Rhaegar.

Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, but it still doesn't bode well for her power to influence, or the Martels. It also can pit their children against one another, and the extended families of those children.

And on who Dorne blames, while they did not openly challenge Rhaegar, they were NOT happy with Elias treatment, and when the request came for help, that help came very unenthusiastically, which should tell you how they feel.

I happen to be a cynic when it comes to the Martels, because I think they will do anything and marry anyone to stay in power, and while they might consider Myrcella to be a Berantheon, it's very clear who is in charge-and it's Tywin.

We also cannot assume that Lyanna just loved Rhaegar so much, she would consent to being number two.

Especially when she herself is from a vastly different culture.

It's one thing to grow up in the traditions of a culture to accept certain practices because that is what you know.

It's quite another to be put into a situation that you don't understand and be expected to adapt.

It actually might be emotionally better, if not socially better, to be the mistress because then, you know your place. But as a junior wife, you are no better than a bound concubine, a pretty bird with clipped wings.

I come at this series differently, and have read it differently, but just because I have a different opinion does not negate others, nor do I think other peoples views or interpretations of the works "rediculous."

Were I to dare predict what direction Martin might go in, I might choose to look at what informs him, and it' history.

Some have even said this work is a re-telling of "War of the Roses," and Plantaganet politics.

While Henry VIII is the most notorious for setting aside, (and killing), his wives, he's not the first as King John set aside his English wife for the French Kings niece.

But, we hope that Rhaegar is not like either of these men, and if he makes that decision to put Elia aside, it's because he doesn't want to live a lie, and on some level, it's more honest for both women.

I think this story is getting waaay too complicated, and I think it simply comes down to two people who loved one another, and were trying to be together but could not, and they paid a price for it, as well as their families.

As Martin said, Rhaegar and Lyanna still cast long shadows over the events of Westeros.

I think in the vision of the House of the Undying he is essentially telling Elia he's leaving her, and he goes.

I think it's easier to come back and tell your Lords that you want to put aside your wife because she cannot provide another heir, as they can relate to that, rather than come back and say you've married another woman, and you will now be expected to not only put up with one powerful family and their hangers-on, but now you'll have to suffer TWO families, not to mention the rivalry that will come between those two families over the placement of the children.

If Aegon the Unworthy created a bad situation, this really is no better, just because it's "legal."

And that is just my opinion.

[Tree Warg]

The Dayne's sword Dawn is not Valyrian steel but made from a meteorite.

Absolutely correct! That point had slipped my mind. But, my point was that you have to be a Dayne to wield it and not even every Dayne can do that.

Still a little confused as to how anyone can hold out hope that Jon is N + A as opposed to R + L? It is strange that NO ONE will even consider that Lyanna kills herself? Weird.

[Val the Wildling Princess]

I dont think R+L=J as i just dont see (or want) GRRM to throw another candidate in for the claim to kingship and also i think it would slightly ruin the whole Jon is AA reborn whereas N+A=J is better as then Jon would have a link to the north and the first men and also he would have a link to Lightbringer or the Sword of Morning which he will use to kill the Great Other.

Jon still has a link to the north, since Lyanna was as northerner as Ned. I dont see the problem in Jon being R+L=J, I have the impression that some people think that Jon is gonna find he is a Targ and then he is gonna gave up his Stark side and become a full Targ, coupling with Daenerys a la Targaryen and so on. No, Jon is a Stark cause he was raised as a Stark no matter who his real parents are. It's not that easy. He might find he is a Targ, even a legitimized one, and maybe, he doesn't want to know anything about the iron throne. Also, I don't think Dawn is Ligthbringer, since I don't think Lightbringer will be a real sword at all.

[Ghost714]

While I agree that N+A much less possible than R+L, we still should not take all the facts as given. We do not know where Ashara spent the whole civil war; there could have been a chance for her and Ned to be together - the gossip about her being Jon's mother may have had some real basis. Also, unless Barristan was right there during Ashara's delivery, he knows only what he was told. If Ashara gave a birth to a boy who would need to be taken away for safety, claiming that the child was a stillborn girl would make an enxcellent coverup.

Ok I'm going to forget the timeline issue I stated in my last post, and argue this a different way, because obviously you can't see all the flaws in N+A=J

The gossip of Ashara as Jon's mother does have some basis, because Ned and Ashara did have a thing at the Tourny of Harrenhall the year of the false Spring. Thats why people assume Ashara was Jons mother, people like Cersei and Ned Dayne for example. But ask yourself this, if Ashara really was Jon's mother, why would Ned say he cheated on Cat to Robert, "with Jon's mother"??? Because Ned was with Ashara before Brandon even died, before he even knew he would be Married to Cat. So how would that be cheating? If that's the truth then why does Ned lie about it at all???

So again why does Ned lie???

Now if Ned is trying to sell the story of him being Jon's father, he obviously had to say he cheated on Cat to sell that story. Ned had to say he cheated because it must have been obvious that Jon was of an age with Robb, meaning Jon and Robb as baby's were very similar in age.

If Ashara is Jon's mother, Why would Ned want to cause his wife pain all these years by making her think he had a bastard with another woman, right after they were married??? Unless Ned had to make up that lie, for a cover story. That makes sense.

Because again if Ashara is Jon's mother, then it would not have been cheating because Ned and Ashara were together before Ned and Cat.

It just does not add up for N+A=J

If Ashara is Jon's mother why does Ned lie, why won't he talk about her to anyone at all? Now it makes sense if Ned doesn't want to talk about Jon's mom, if Lyanna is the mother. One example being Ned wouldn't want to lie to anyone unless he absolutely had to, that's why he never talks about it, that makes sense with R+L=J

If Ned is trying to hide the fact that Lyanna is Jon's mother then it all makes sense, the lieng, the not talking about it, etc.

Now as to the whole thing about Ser Barristan, and his POV memory in ADwD.

Ser Barristan is thinking to himself about old regrets, before he and the Brazen Beasts take

Hizdahr zo Loraq into custody.

Ser Barristan is remembering the tourny of Harrenhall, and he thinks to himself, if only I had beat Rhaegar in that last tilt, then I could have named Ashara Dayne the Queen of Love and Beauty, instead of Rhaegar naming the Stark girl. He then thinks to himself how different things could have been, about the war etc, but mainly he thinks to himself if I had won, then maybe Ashara could have been with me instead of Stark, and then maybe she would still be alive (I know this is all me paraphrasing, but you get the part I'm pointing out)

My point is that basically 20 years down the road Ser Barristan is still thinking to himself, "what if".

That to me is indicative of him really having feelings for Ashara Dayne. So basically my point is, I can't see Ser Barristan looking into the manner of Ashara's death half-assed. Same goes for Ashara's relationship with Ned, and the stillborn baby girl they had. Sure Ser Barristan wasnt there when the baby was born, but he would have investigated the matter to find out the truth, because he was basically in love with Ashara Dayne.

I just can't imagine Ser Barristan doing anything half-assed, especially the tragedy of Ashara Dayne. Meaning her death and what happened with her and Ned, and their baby.

So I am going to trust what we learn in ADwD from Ser Barristan's POV chapter, in regards to Ashara Dayne having a stillborn baby girl, and the manner of her death.

[Ygrain]

Ahem, you needn't argue with me, since I do believe that J=R+L, for exactly the reasons you list. What I claimed was that there are some things unclear about Ashara and that Ser Barristan's information need not be correct.

First, the Harenhall tourney. Ned was apparently struck with Ashara, but he was too shy to ask her for a dance - I can't see that attitude changed within a couple of days (I do not know how long the tourney lasted but probably no longer than a fortnight) to the point of actually bedding her. Note please that while Barristan mentions that Stark dishonoured her, he still considers Ned to be a honourable man, which IMHO suggests that if she had a sexual affair with Stark at Harrenhall, it was the macho Brandon, not Ned.

However: if she did lay, and conceive, with a Stark at Harrenhall, she gave birth long before Robert's rebellion was over and before Ned turned up to give her her brother's sword. These events must have been separated by at least several months, so she would have recovered from the blow, unless she suffered from really pathological depressions. Would it have been possible for her and Ned to meet during the rebellion and conceive later, so that all the bad came more or less at the same time? No idea, I don't think there is any clue in the books but so far it cannot be ruled out entirely.

As for Barristan's investigation - and why would he investigate if he got the information from a presumably reliable source, such as the Daynes or Ashara herself? Unless there was some blatant lie, there was no reason not to believe their version. Or, if Ashara did get pregnant at Harenhall, and had to leave the court because of that, and later Elia got a message from Ashara herself that the child was a stillborn daughter, would Barristan ever doubt it? We do not know the source of his knowledge. We do not know if he investigated or not - and if he didn't, it surely doesn't make him an ass. All I'm saying is that unless we get the information confirmed from another source, it should not be taken as 100% truth. - It's a similar situation as with R+L: first we are presented with the picture of abduction and rape, and then we learn the Targaryen version of Raeghar dying for the woman he loved.

[FanTasy]

As for Barristan's investigation - and why would he investigate if he got the information from a presumably reliable source, such as the Daynes or Ashara herself? Unless there was some blatant lie, there was no reason not to believe their version. Or, if Ashara did get pregnant at Harenhall, and had to leave the court because of that, and later Elia got a message from Ashara herself that the child was a stillborn daughter, would Barristan ever doubt it? We do not know the source of his knowledge.

GRRM is very careful in mentioning no gender when Cersei in AGOT taunts Ned with his supposed affair with Ashara.

Cersei lets Ned know that she is familiar with the tale of Lady Ashara who 'threw herself into the sea'.

Cersei: "Why was that? For the brother you slew, or for the child you stole?"

A very interesting remark by Cersei, which tells us:

- she knows that Ned slew Arthur Dayne

- she believes that Ned stole Ashara's child

- she doesn't mention the child is stillborn

(Edit) - she uses 'child', not 'daughter'

and she taunts Ned with this tale right after she says Ned has a bastard of his own, and she says "I've seen him."

Does Cersei believe Jon is the 'stolen child'?

[Ygrain]

Thanks for reminding that one! However, it can be a total red herring: making a seemingly logical connections between two disconnected events. It is known that Ned had a crush on Ashara and that she had a child. So, when Ned turns up with a baby whom he claims to be his bastard, people make the logical step assuming that it is the same baby.

- As I read it, the information regarding Ashara and her child is intentionally left unclear, exactly as with Lyanna. - Gosh, how I wish the next book was written sooner!

[FanTasy]

Thanks for reminding that one! However, it can be a total red herring: making a seemingly logical connections between two disconnected events. It is known that Ned had a crush on Ashara and that she had a child. So, when Ned turns up with a baby whom he claims to be his bastard, people make the logical step assuming that it is the same baby.

- As I read it, the information regarding Ashara and her child is intentionally left unclear, exactly as with Lyanna. - Gosh, how I wish the next book was written sooner!

Yep. But why does Cersei think the child was stolen?

[Ygrain]

The question is, does she mean it literally, or does it reflect her belief that a child belongs to the mother, and if the father takes it into his care, he inevitably harms the mother?

[FanTasy]

The question is, does she mean it literally, or does it reflect her belief that a child belongs to the mother, and if the father takes it into his care, he inevitably harms the mother?

Possibly.

It is odd that Selmy thinks the child of Ashara is stillborn and Cersei heard another story, the child stolen / taken away.

Makes you think who here is the 'unreliable narrator' GRRM uses to spin his web.

[corbon]

Yep. But why does Cersei think the child was stolen?

Everyone believed Ned had a thing for Ashara.

Ashara had a child while still not married.

The first place Jon, Neds public bastard, 'appears' (publicly) is Starfall.

Ned takes Jon from Starfall back to Winterfell.

Ashara supposedly kills herself.

What else would anyone make of it?

I believe that probably the only one of those data points that is actually accurate is Ned taking Jon back to Winterfell (though I think Ned probably did have a bit of a thing for Ashara, just not a thing he ever acted on, and it was really B+A). But nonetheless, its a pretty obvious conclusion on Cersei's part.

[Dragonfish]

And the practitioners of polygamy were not looked upon as positive, therefore there is evidence to suggest that while the Houses didn't protest, it doesn't mean they were happy about it.

I keep seeing this claim being made, but I honestly don't recall where in the books this is mentioned. As I recall, the only Targ practice that is ever explicitly regarded in a negative manner is incest, not polygamy. Is there a quote you know of where polygamy is shown to be regarded in a particularly negative manner?

Is he trying to emulate Aegon the Conquerer, or does he mean that for his son?

I think he meant it for his son, and expected to have a daughter with Lyanna, whom he'd name Visenya. It this is true, then he was most likely planning on reinstituting polygamy anyway, so that his son and daughters could marry. And of course, if he wanted Aegon to marry Visenya then she'd need to be born legitimate, as only a legitimate daughter would be allowed to marry the future king.