R+L=J v.35

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Which no one has ever done in the history of ever? I forget, what was the Kingslayer's day job?

I don't think Jaime was touting his own Kingsguard credentials right after killing Aerys. These guys are still saying that they're fulfilling the Kingsguard vow.

[The Idiots Lantern]

I don't think Jaime was touting his own Kingsguard credentials right after killing Aerys. These guys are still saying that they're fulfilling the Kingsguard vow.

If you extend the vow to protect the king to also protecting the king's blood, then this is more proof that R+L=J then proof that Rheagar was a polygamist.

[Black Wolf Smith]

Unless Rheagar ordered them otherwise¹.

Rheagar would have had no REASON to marry Lyanna, unless he was planning to throw away Elia². Granted, he didn't like Elia much, but he probably DID like his children, and since both of them were older then the new baby he was expecting who knows what he would have had to do to clear the way for his NEW son to be the heir ahead of them....

It's one thing to run away with the beautiful warrior of your dreams to a secluded tower and make a baby. It's another to then marry your lover³ and put them in a position to usurp your previous family. Either this theory is wrong or Rheagar had an entire oil-tanker of pain waiting for Elia....

1.there are 14K post about this subject, and at least 10% tell why that is wrong.

2. Well he have no reason if he did not care about her. To sleep with her, and not marry her would be a very bad thing in a place like Westeros. With you line of thinking, why even bothering to take her somewhere? He could have just bedded her, and been done with it.

3. Well even today, people marry those that that they love. IMO they weren't "lovers" they were in love. She did not run off to have an affair, she ran off to be with the man she loved.

[Dragonfish]

Which no one has ever done in the history of ever? I forget, what was the Kingslayer's day job?

Are you kidding? Jaime Lannister broke his vow with his actions. The Kingsguard at the ToJ explicitly state that they are upholding their vow, and curse Jaime for what he did. That's why you can't possibly claim that the Kingsguard would've acted in a similar manner to Jaime. This is a completely asinine argument.

How? If they weren't married and yet Kingsguard's protected the Tower of Joy anyway because Rheagar asked them to...why does that prove Elia was safe?

Huh?

The fact that he's called "The Cruel" might hint about how fondly he's remembered by his people. Is that a GOOD precedent to invoke?

He's not the only precedent, though.

Also, that was several hundred years ago.

So? The Trial of Seven hadn't been used in over a hundred years by the time of The Hedge Knight, but it was still legal. As far as we know, polygamy is still legal, too, it just hasn't been practiced in a while.

Somehow I can't see Rheagar revealing he's taken another wife going over well with the lords he's supposed to rule someday

Rhaegar had already shown that he wasn't that concerned with the opinion of other lords when he ran off with Lyanna in the first place. Why do you assume he'd be so concerned with their opinion in this case?

[Dragonfish]

If you extend the vow to protect the king to also protecting the king's blood, then this is more proof that R+L=J then proof that Rheagar was a polygamist.

This doesn't follow. Protecting the king does not automatically require protecting his blood. In fact, we know from Barristan's thoughts that the Kingsguard were, strictly speaking, only required to guard the king himself (indeed, he explicitly calls this their "first duty"), and that it was up to the king whether to extend that protection to his family. Now combine this with the rule that at least one member of the Kingsguard must be with the king at all times, and it becomes pretty clear that as soon as the three Kingsguard at the ToJ found out about Viserys' situation, they ought to have been duty-bound to send at least one of their number to Dragonstone.

[The Idiots Lantern]

Rhaegar had already shown that he wasn't that concerned with the opinion of other lords when he ran off with Lyanna in the first place. Why do you assume he'd be so concerned with their opinion in this case?

Because the alternative is that Rheagar was stupid, cruel, short-sighted or just shaping up to be a laughably bad king. His running away with Lyanna started a war that killed thousands and tore the kingdom he was supposed to inherit right down to it's core. It gambled with the legitimacy of the children he already had and disgraced Elia as a person as well as her family. Rest assured did NOT agree to be part of a polygamous marriage when they signed up for this.

It wouldn't be enough for Rheagar to just decree that he can marry as many people as he wants because who gives a crap what the peasants think. He'd have to enforce his will somehow and regain the trust of the people if he was ever, ever, going to hope to rule a united a peaceful kingdom. Polygamy may not, in the strickist sense, have been illegal... but nobody was going to LIKE that he'd envoked it. It'd be seen as an ugly display of Targaryan arrogance. And it'd put everyone he loves more in the crosshairs of a very angry population then they were already.

[Dragonfish]

Because the alternative is that Rheagar was stupid, cruel, short-sighted or just shaping up to be a laughably bad king.

His running away with Lyanna started a war that killed thousands and tore the kingdom he was supposed to inherit right down to it's core.

This...doesn't address my question at all. I'm asking how you can argue that Rhaegar would care about the opinions of the other lords when his actions say otherwise. You might judge his actions harshly, but that doesn't change the fact that your argument is inconsistent with Rhaegar's past behavior.

Also, if I may quibble, Rhaegar's actions did not start the war on their own. No armies were raised when word reached people about what happened to Lyanna. The war didn't begin until Aerys killed Brandon and Rickard and called for Ned and Robert's heads, and these actions were themselves the result of Brandon's ill-advised charge into King's Landing, which Rhaegar and Lyanna could not have predicted.

It gambled with the legitimacy of the children he already had and disgraced Elia as a person as well as her family.

1) His children's legitimacy is not in danger. The laws of succession are absolutely clear that the elder male child inherits first.

2) How exactly was Elia disgraced?

Rest assured did NOT agree to be part of a polygamous marriage when they signed up for this.

Well, if polygamy is still legal for Targaryens, then they did implicitly sign up for it when they willingly married into the Targaryen family.

It wouldn't be enough for Rheagar to just decree that he can marry as many people as he wants because who gives a crap what the peasants think.

Wait, what? Since when do the peasants' opinions figure into anyone's thought processes in a feudal system such as this one? I thought we were talking about the objections of the other lords?

He'd have to enforce his will somehow and regain the trust of the people if he was ever, ever, going to hope to rule a united a peaceful kingdom. Polygamy may not, in the strickist sense, have been illegal... but nobody was going to LIKE that he'd envoked it. It'd be seen as an ugly display of Targaryan arrogance. And it'd put everyone he loves more in the crosshairs of a very angry population then they were already.

Sure, it would probably have been difficult for Rhaegar to convince the other lords to go along with it, but I doubt the difficulty of the task would've deterred him. He certainly wasn't deterred from running off with Lyanna in the first place, so why should he feel deterred from marrying her, if he truly wanted to or thought it was necessary? Again, I don't think you've adequately reconciled your argument with the fact that Rhaegar clearly showed a willingness to flout societal conventions.

And with that said, it's time for me to go to bed. Talk to you tomorrow.

[Old-Growth]

Rhaegar did not hate or dislike Elia. According to Ser Barristan he was fond of her. Dany inferred from this that Rhaegar did not love her; probably a correct judgment, but he did care about her.

On the other hand, as we know, her brothers adored her and intended a terrible vengance on Lord Tywin in retribution for what he and his minions did to her and her babes.

Just how Rhaegar intended to reconcile Lyanna and Elia remains to be revealed, if indeed GRRM ever gets around to telling us. And the Gods only know what he planned to do to appease her brothers.

[Ygrain]

Which no one has ever done in the history of ever? I forget, what was the Kingslayer's day job?

You're seriously comparing the paragons of true knighthood with a man who has shit for honour? Especially when their emphasize their duty as Kingsguard and proclaim staying true to their vows?

How? If they weren't married and yet Kingsguard's protected the Tower of Joy anyway because Rheagar asked them to...why does that prove Elia was safe?

If I'm reading this correctly, there's a little comprehension failure on your part. You said that Rhaegar would have had to set Elia aside to marry Lyanna. The counterargument was that Rhaegar could have dusted the practice of polygamy, in which case he could marry Lyanna while changing nothing about Elia's status. We know that Rhaegar never divorced Elia and that the Kingsguard were staying somewhere they shouldn't have been if they were guarding just a mistress and a bastard while the heir to the throne had no KG with him, therefore him making use of the polygamy precedent is the only solution that unifies these contradictions (mind you, it makes no sense if the three knights refer to themselves as Kingsguard after every sentence yet stay loyal to a vow which has lower priority than their primary duty to protect the king).

The fact that he's called "The Cruel" might hint about how fondly he's remembered by his people. Is that a GOOD precedent to invoke? Also, that was several hundred years ago. Somehow I can't see Rheagar revealing he's taken another wife going over well with the lords he's supposed to rule someday, especially if he justifies it with "Aegon the Conquerer and The Cruel got more then one wife so why not me?" and follows it with "and here's another heir to the throne. I'm sure this child won't compete with my first wife's children at all when it comes to who gets the throne first. We're going to be such a big happy family!"

"Several" here equals "two", and, as has been stated, there were probably other, less prominent examples. Either way, criticising your king's forefather is never a good idea, especially if another, way more shocking Targaryen habit of incestuous marriages is still accepted. As for the issue of the children from different mothers competing, it is highly overrated - Stannis and Renly, as well as quite a couple of RL kings and princes, were born of the same mother and look how that worked out.

Because the alternative is that Rheagar was stupid, cruel, short-sighted or just shaping up to be a laughably bad king. His running away with Lyanna started a war that killed thousands and tore the kingdom he was supposed to inherit right down to it's core. It gambled with the legitimacy of the children he already had and disgraced Elia as a person as well as her family. Rest assured did NOT agree to be part of a polygamous marriage when they signed up for this.

First and foremost, as Dragonfish has stated, this is not what really started the war. Second, I really love this argument how Rhaegar (or alternately Lyanna, depending who is being bashed at the moment), should have consulted their crystal sphere to see what is going to happen.

And, even if Elia never expected a polygamous marriage, this is still no basis why she shouldn't agree later. Since there is zero information about what Elia herself thought about the whole matter, both options are still open.

It wouldn't be enough for Rheagar to just decree that he can marry as many people as he wants because who gives a crap what the peasants think. He'd have to enforce his will somehow and regain the trust of the people if he was ever, ever, going to hope to rule a united a peaceful kingdom. Polygamy may not, in the strickist sense, have been illegal... but nobody was going to LIKE that he'd envoked it. It'd be seen as an ugly display of Targaryan arrogance. And it'd put everyone he loves more in the crosshairs of a very angry population then they were already.

He ever lost it? And what angry population are you talking about here?

[The Idiots Lantern]

This...doesn't address my question at all. I'm asking how you can argue that Rhaegar would care about the opinions of the other lords when his actions say otherwise.

I'm saying if Rheagar is really as uncaring and dismissive of "the opinions of the other lords" as you say, then at best he's a tyrant in the making and at worst he's a fool. Rheagar, by all accounts, was honorable, considerate, and thoughtful almost to a fault. I can't see how the negative effects of resurecting an archaic concept like polygamy (and for such transparently selfish reasons) would escape him. Nor how'd he dismiss them on any grounds other then "I'm the blood of the dragon and if you don't like it, tough."

Also, if I may quibble, Rhaegar's actions did not start the war on their own. No armies were raised when word reached people about what happened to Lyanna. The war didn't begin until Aerys killed Brandon and Rickard and called for Ned and Robert's heads, and these actions were themselves the result of Brandon's ill-advised charge into King's Landing, which Rhaegar and Lyanna could not have predicted.

Lyanna could have predicted it. She knows her family. Those wolves fight to the death to protect their pack. I suspect she may have told Rheagar this, and he didn't believe it. And either way, both of them were too in love to care anyway.

1) His children's legitimacy is not in danger. The laws of succession are absolutely clear that the elder male child inherits first.

2) How exactly was Elia disgraced?

1. They're in danger because we can only infer, rather then know for sure, the status of polygamy in Westerosi law. It may be the case that someone could argue that taking a second spouse invalidates your marriage to the first one. Which would mean the oldest son would have no claim to the throne. Successions have been invalidated over less.

2. ....you're seriously asking that? "Hi Honey, I'm home, I brought another wife to join our happy family, now call out the kids so they can meet their new baby brother!" It's not going to go over well, no matter who the woman is. She signed up to be queen of the seven kingdoms, the faithful and gracious wife of the crown prince and mother of his trueborn heirs.... and he rewarded her by starting a harem. You don't see the disgrace of this? The deep insult? Honestly?

Well, if polygamy is still legal for Targaryens, then they did implicitly sign up for it when they willingly married into the Targaryen family.

Again, the only examples we have of polygamy being practiced by anyone happened hundreds of years ago. There is no evidence it's in wide practice (or ANY practice for that matter) more recently, and while I can't prove that it's strictly illegal, I CAN maintain that trying to participate in it is going to cause all kinds of problems for Rheagar, his family, and the kingdom as a whole.

Wait, what? Since when do the peasants' opinions figure into anyone's thought processes in a feudal system such as this one? I thought we were talking about the objections of the other lords?

I don't mean LITERAL peasants. I mean Rheagar's attitude in this case would be read, by the other lords, as being so insultingly dismissive he might as well be calling THEM peasants. He may answer to neither Gods nor Men, but he's going to have to deal with men at some point if he plans to rule.

If Rheagar had a 100% legal marriage to Lyanna Stark and no cause to think it'd challenge the legitimacy of his other marriage and who cares what those not-targ peasant lords think anyway, he could have REVEALED that marriage, said "see, your houses and mine are allies, lets overthrow my crazy dad, avenge your dead father and brother, put me on the throne, and everybody can go home and live in peace" Ned would have been in a very difficult position. Robert would have never stopped fighting, but if Ned was convinced his sister WASN'T kidnapped and was, instead, in love and happy with the prince and that more killing wasn't going to change that.... then what is NED fighting for? What is he killing for? What is he asking his men to die for?

Sure, it would probably have been difficult for Rhaegar to convince the other lords to go along with it, but I doubt the difficulty of the task would've deterred him. He certainly wasn't deterred from running off with Lyanna in the first place, so why should he feel deterred from marrying her, if he truly wanted to or thought it was necessary? Again, I don't think you've adequately reconciled your argument with the fact that Rhaegar clearly showed a willingness to flout societal conventions.

What societal conventions do we have record of him actually flouting? We have the blue rose wreath and the "kiddnapping" itself, but I can't help but think that if he really cared as little for societal convention as you say it wouldn't have been a "kidnapping" it would have been, "HEY UNIVERSE GUESS WHO I JUST ELOPED WITH! SAY HELLO TO WIFE NUMBER 2! Oh, she was engaged? Too bad, SHE'S PREGNANT NOW AND SHE'S ALL MINE!"

[Black Wolf Smith]

@ Idiots Lantern, You are making an assumption that Rhaegar did not talk to and tell Elia what he was doing with Lyanna. With Elia not able to have another child, it is possible that she knew and blessed his actions with Lyanna. It is highly unlikely that he just "sprang" it on her, that would be dishonorable.

[The Idiots Lantern]

@ Idiots Lantern, You are making an assumption that Rhaegar did not talk to and tell Elia what he was doing with Lyanna. With Elia not able to have another child, it is possible that she knew and blessed his actions with Lyanna. It is highly unlikely that he just "sprang" it on her, that would be dishonorable.

I acknowledge it is possible, in the sense that I cannot prove it didn't happen.

However, I do not think it is very likely.

I'll agree it's possible, maybe even probable, she knew what was going on with Lyanna. However I can see no reason whatsoever for her to have blessed or condoned it. Elia had already born Rheagar two healthy children: he didn't need any more and the idea she should want to yield to a more fertile female doesn't make any sense to me, even going from the assumption that she's suddenly barren now, which is in itself a presumption.

It's much easier to assume that Elia knew she couldn't stop him from doing what he wanted to do, and just kept her thoughts to herself. What was she going to do anyway?

[FrozenFire3]

There must be one more...the dragon has three heads...and Elia couldn't give him that.

As a matter of fact we don't know how and why Rhaegar did what he did. The range and the depth of his motivations. We struggle with clues, wild interpretations, crackpot theories. We guess. But we do not know. Was the kidnapping/elopement planned? Was it a reckless act or integral to a bigger political and prophetical design? Was Lyanna involved in the planning? What role did third parties play? Did Elia knew? Did Elia encourage her husband to implement the scheme/fulfill the prophecies/follow his heart? Did her heart belong to another? Did she share her husband's obsession with prophecies? Was the possible/probable polygamous marriage an act of love? An act of respect? A political move to assuage Lyanna's family's outrage and present them with the fait accompli? All of the above and more? Did Brandon's unpredictable folly eventually disrupt these designs? Last but not least, what part had in the story the bittersweet madness of love?

It is for posterity to judge LOL

[Bear Island Bruiser]

But in that case they would be neglecting their primary vow to protect the king, which would be odd, given their insistence that they are upholding their vow as Kingsguard. How can they possibly proclaim themselves to be honorable Kingsguard knights when they are leaving their king unprotected?

Which king is this? Viserys? What's he King of at this point? A King isn't a king without a kingdom. If they've sworn themselves to the throne of Westeros then it's gone/

Yes. According to George, Maegor the Cruel had eight or nine wives, some of whom were from lines outside of his own. He also noted that there may have been some later cases, though he has yet to specify who.

Partly because it became more difficult when the Targs lost their dragons. But "difficult" does not mean "impossible." And while it is certainly true that polygamy fell into disuse in later years, that doesn't mean it was explicitly outlawed, which leaves it open to being exploited by Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Hmm true but Maegar the Cruel was quite a long time ago wasn't it? As you said not impossible but it's a bit of a blast from the past.

[Dragonfish]

I'm saying if Rheagar is really as uncaring and dismissive of "the opinions of the other lords" as you say, then at best he's a tyrant in the making and at worst he's a fool. Rheagar, by all accounts, was honorable, considerate, and thoughtful almost to a fault.

So he was "honorable, considerate, and thoughtful almost to a fault," yet according to you, "[h]is running away with Lyanna started a war that killed thousands and tore the kingdom he was supposed to inherit right down to it's core." So in one breath you describe his actions in a manner that suggests he was not thoughtful enough, then in the next breath insist that he wouldn't revive polygamy because he was thoughtful. These are contradictory arguments. The issue here is not how dumb or tyrannical it would've been for Rhaegar to revive polygamy. The issue is that your insistence that Rhaegar would not do so due to the opinion of the other lords is inconsistent with his established behavior. Nothing you've said so far addresses this issue.

I can't see how the negative effects of resurecting an archaic concept like polygamy (and for such transparently selfish reasons) would escape him. Nor how'd he dismiss them on any grounds other then "I'm the blood of the dragon and if you don't like it, tough."

Well, I'm perhaps being flippant when I say that Rhaegar didn't care about the opinions of the other lords. I think he probably did care, but figured he had enough clout to bring them to his side. This was Rhaegar, after all.

Lyanna could have predicted it.

She could have predicted that Brandon would've been angry, but could she have predicted that he'd barge into the Red Keep and demand that Rhaegar come out and die? That's a mighty big assumption on your part, and one that has basically no support in the text.

1. They're in danger because we can only infer, rather then know for sure, the status of polygamy in Westerosi law. It may be the case that someone could argue that taking a second spouse invalidates your marriage to the first one. Which would mean the oldest son would have no claim to the throne. Successions have been invalidated over less.

Uh, no, second marriages have never invalidated first ones in the history of anything, whether in the real world or in Westeros. If either marriage were to be considered invalid, it would be the second one. There is literally no basis for your claim, here.

2. ....you're seriously asking that? "Hi Honey, I'm home, I brought another wife to join our happy family, now call out the kids so they can meet their new baby brother!" It's not going to go over well, no matter who the woman is. She signed up to be queen of the seven kingdoms, the faithful and gracious wife of the crown prince and mother of his trueborn heirs.... and he rewarded her by starting a harem. You don't see the disgrace of this? The deep insult? Honestly?

First of all, Elia is Dornish, and the Dornish are much more permissive when it comes to having other sexual partners. Second of all, we have absolutely no idea that Elia ever really loved Rhaegar or wished to be his wife. For all we know, she had her own paramour, and was perfectly fine with Rhaegar casting his eye elsewhere once she'd done her duty and given him two children.

If Rheagar had a 100% legal marriage to Lyanna Stark and no cause to think it'd challenge the legitimacy of his other marriage and who cares what those not-targ peasant lords think anyway, he could have REVEALED that marriage, said "see, your houses and mine are allies, lets overthrow my crazy dad, avenge your dead father and brother, put me on the throne, and everybody can go home and live in peace"

This is naive. First of all, there's little reason for anyone among the rebel camp to believe him simply because he proclaims it so. Second of all, you're forgetting that Aerys would probably take exception to Rhaegar conspiring with rebels to take away his throne. He'd likely be thrown in the dungeons or worse, and then where would the loyalist side be? No, it is clear that Rhaegar had to put down the rebellion firmly before turning to his father. Trying to curry favor with the rebels while his father is still on the throne is stupid, because there is little reason to expect the rebels would go for it, and every reason to expect that his father would react before he could do anything constructive.

What societal conventions do we have record of him actually flouting?

Are you kidding me? He broke a fucking betrothal and got the only daughter of a major northern lord pregnant. That is a big deal. It sparked a war, remember? Or at least that's how you've described it.

We have the blue rose wreath and the "kiddnapping" itself, but I can't help but think that if he really cared as little for societal convention as you say it wouldn't have been a "kidnapping" it would have been, "HEY UNIVERSE GUESS WHO I JUST ELOPED WITH! SAY HELLO TO WIFE NUMBER 2! Oh, she was engaged? Too bad, SHE'S PREGNANT NOW AND SHE'S ALL MINE!"

The bold portion is something he did do, albeit without the colorful proclamation.

You know, you have a very strange line of argument here. You keep insisting that it would be dumb or tyrannical of Rhaegar to revive polygamy, yet as evidence of how dumb it would be, you keep using the things Rhaegar actually did. Do you see the absurdity of this?

[Dragonfish]

Which king is this? Viserys? What's he King of at this point? A King isn't a king without a kingdom.

Have you seriously never heard of a king in exile?

If they've sworn themselves to the throne of Westeros then it's gone/

The throne isn't gone, it's just being occupied by Robert. Yet the three Kingsguard at the ToJ are still loyal to its previous occupant. The reason for this is that they swear to guard a person and his descendants, not a throne.

[Erudain]

Again....the "Rhaegar and Lyanna caused the war and the death of thousands" only works in hindsight.

Lyanna could predict his big bro would be angry but not doing something so stupid as going to the Targaryen stronghold and ask for the head of the crown prince, and Rhaegar knows his dad is a bit wacko but not to the level of starting a civil war....

- If Brandon presents himself at the Red Keep formally presenting a complain about his missing sister and trying to settle things peacefully? there would be no detention and execution. If there was, then it's all Aerys fault and the kingdom is right to revolt...but the revolt would be because of what Aerys did....not Rhaegar.

- Even if Brandon runs in and ask for Rhaegar to "come out and die"...cool, you can detain him on charges of treason, then if you have a "proper" trial by combat not that charade Aerys pulled off, again no one would complain....perhaps the North but certainly not the Vale or the Stormlands.

- How could anyone predict or what reason Aerys has to ask for Neds and Robert heads is beyond me :dunno:

[The Idiots Lantern]

There must be one more...the dragon has three heads...and Elia couldn't give him that.

Why do you say that? Do we know this for a fact? She was "ill" true, but she'd already bourne two healthy children anyway, and if number three was as important to both of them as you seem to think it was, then there was no reason to think she'd suddenly not be able to give it to him.

So he was "honorable, considerate, and thoughtful almost to a fault," yet according to you, "[h]is running away with Lyanna started a war that killed thousands and tore the kingdom he was supposed to inherit right down to it's core." So in one breath you describe his actions in a manner that suggests he was not thoughtful enough, then in the next breath insist that he wouldn't revive polygamy because he was thoughtful. These are contradictory arguments. The issue here is not how dumb or tyrannical it would've been for Rhaegar to revive polygamy. The issue is that your insistence that Rhaegar would not do so due to the opinion of the other lords is inconsistent with his established behavior. Nothing you've said so far addresses this issue.

You were the one who argued that neither of them could have foreseen the Red Keep executions and calling for Ned and Robert's heads, pushing the country to civil war. You say nothing I've said is consistant with his established behavior. It's well established, in black and white print (you don't have to even infer or guess, it's right there to be read) that Rheagar read a lot. Remember some thought he was "Baelor the Blessed come again" until he read something that made him call for arms and armor because "apparently I'm to be a warrior." This supports him being thoughtful.

I have difficulty reconciling that portrait with the one you paint of an arrogant, selfish callous prince who feels entitled to having EVERYTHING he wants, convention be damned. You could argue that kidnapping Lyanna proves he wasn't THAT thoughtful but maybe he surprised himself with that one.

Well, I'm perhaps being flippant when I say that Rhaegar didn't care about the opinions of the other lords. I think he probably did care, but figured he had enough clout to bring them to his side. This was Rhaegar, after all.

Considering the chaos the kingdom was in, the cruelty of his father, and the damage that'd been done to the Targ's system of allies and supporters, what kind of clout do you think he was going to swing in a kingdom immediately post rebellion? Is this really a good time to spring on them, "oh and by the way guys, I got married again. I don't care what you think. Now, Lord Tywin, about those shipments of gold I need..."

She could have predicted that Brandon would've been angry, but could she have predicted that he'd barge into the Red Keep and demand that Rhaegar come out and die? That's a mighty big assumption on your part, and one that has basically no support in the text.

No bigger then assuming the opposite, that Lyanna and Rheagar actually thought that this would go over with no negative repercussions at all. Rheagar had taken their sister and jeopardized a key alliance with house Baratheon.

Crazy Aemon's crazy is on him, but that the Starks would fight tooth and claw for the return of one of their own should have surprised nobody, Lyanna least of all.

Uh, no, second marriages have never invalidated first ones in the history of anything, whether in the real world or in Westeros. If either marriage were to be considered invalid, it would be the second one. There is literally no basis for your claim, here.

There's even less basis for the claim that Rheagar would brashly take a second wife but then tell no one except the Kingsguards who's job it is to protect his father. Especially if the marriage could have potentially ended the rebellion early.

First of all, Elia is Dornish, and the Dornish are much more permissive when it comes to having other sexual partners.

What the hell? When is THIS established?

Second of all, we have absolutely no idea that Elia ever really loved Rhaegar or wished to be his wife. For all we know, she had her own paramour, and was perfectly fine with Rhaegar casting his eye elsewhere once she'd done her duty and given him two children.

The psychologies men project unto women to make the atrocities committed against them "alright" just amaze me sometimes. Maybe Elia and Rheagar didn't really love each-other, but that does not roll over into her feeling just fine about him shacking up and making babies with someone else. .

This is Martin we're talking about. What do you think the chances are that he'd let Elia be a happy First Wife totally down for partner sharing and sure, she can be Queen too? The more the merrier?

You're right, I can't prove it didn't happen, but since the rest of the story has been so sad, I see no reason for Rheagar's betrayal of Elia to be the ONE thing that every party involved thinks is fine and dandy and sure not to end in disaster.

This is naive. First of all, there's little reason for anyone among the rebel camp to believe him simply because he proclaims it so.

The "Rebel Camp" in this case is Eddard Stark, new heir of Winterfell and Lyanna's older brother. He fights because his sister has been taken and he wants her returned. If you reveal her as a newly minted dragon princess and mother to a new royal heir, you put Eddard in a difficult spot. He can't fight his brother-in-law. Robert can't win without the Northmen.

Second of all, you're forgetting that Aerys would probably take exception to Rhaegar conspiring with rebels to take away his throne.

Only if he gets caught. But them's the stakes of the Game of Thrones. The Crown Prince should have his ways to get messages out under his father's nose.

He'd likely be thrown in the dungeons or worse, and then where would the loyalist side be? No, it is clear that Rhaegar had to put down the rebellion firmly before turning to his father. Trying to curry favor with the rebels while his father is still on the throne is stupid, because there is little reason to expect the rebels would go for it, and every reason to expect that his father would react before he could do anything constructive.

The rebels are rebelling for a reason, and since he'd have to deal with his crazy father one way or another, joining the rebellion against them by revealing his "alliance with the North" would gut Robert's forces, preserve the dynasty, and remove a tyrant from power.

Is it fool proof? No, but when is anything? It strikes me as a better plan then "kill all the Northmen (including my new wife's only brother) and then once the dust's settled take Dad aside and politely ask him to stop being to crazy."

Are you kidding me? He broke a fucking betrothal and got the only daughter of a major northern lord pregnant. That is a big deal. It sparked a war, remember? Or at least that's how you've described it.

....I forget sometimes how SURE of things people can be around here. I will point out, tentatively but truthfully, that as long as R+L+J has no direct evidence (lots of circumstantial evidence but no direct evidence), then you may NOT use it as an example of a thing "Rheagar actually did." Name something else.

You know, you have a very strange line of argument here. You keep insisting that it would be dumb or tyrannical of Rhaegar to revive polygamy, yet as evidence of how dumb it would be, you keep using the things Rhaegar actually did. Do you see the absurdity of this?

I see the absurdity in your insistence that polygamy was a perfectly logical solution to the problems posed by "R+L=J" and both women would have been fine and dandy with it and nobody would have seen anything wrong with a Targ having another wife because FUCK YOU PEASANTS FOR NOT BEING A DRAGON LIKE ME!

Marriage is very, very important in Westeros for stratigic and political reasons. I can think of at least one key area where being able to marry more then once might have saved someone's skin (cough Robb Stark cough). There was no love between The Mad King and his sister-wife, but that king still never married anyone else. Heck even in the Dunk and Egg stories, never does a Targ suggest marrying more then once is a good idea.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. Knowing Martin, we've both got it wrong and something totally crazier is afoot.

[TheMysteriousOne]

What the hell? When is THIS established?

Anyone who has the read the books properly knows that the Dornish are very open when it comes to sexuality. Oberyn is bisexual and he has Ellaria Sand, as his paramour, who by the way is also bisexual and had the 'hots' for Cersei.

There are many holes in your argument by the way. You have already been shown that there was a polygamy precedent for House Targaryen.

[TheMysteriousOne]

Marriage is very, very important in Westeros for stratigic and political reasons. I can think of at least one key area where being able to marry more then once might have saved someone's skin (cough Robb Stark cough). There was no love between The Mad King and his sister-wife, but that king still never married anyone else. Heck even in the Dunk and Egg stories, never does a Targ suggest marrying more then once is a good idea.

Robb wasn't a Targaryen , and if you have read the books probably you should know that the Westerosi, generally see the Taragaryens as more 'special' than other houses. Why do you think all the peasants in King's Landing insulted Cersei and Jaime for their incest yet House Taragryen practiced incest for centuries?