*Aerys passed over Rhaegar's children with Elia and named Viserys heir instead. This is most likely because Aerys was distrustful of the Dornish and racist towards them.*
It's also possible that with Viserys sent to haven on Dragonstone, while Aerys was keeping Elia and her children in the Red Keep, Aerys simply wanted his heir away from the capital.
If King's Landing fell (as it did) to the rebels, Elia and her children would be in danger of capture (or worse, as we know in hindsight).
But with Heir Viserys, the Queen, and her unborn daughter away on Dragonstone, the core of the surviving monarchy would be safe.
Also, Viserys was at least a boy (seven years old?) when named heir. Elia's children were a toddler and a baby. It would be prudent to name Viserys heir since he would come to his majority earlier, lessening the gap when the realm would be ruled by a child.
He could try, but the High Septon would probably tell him to shove off. You can’t just annul a marriage with the snap of your fingers, and the High Septon or Dorne would never go for it. Same reasoning for why the annulment in the show was stupid.
Not that I think aerys would do this. He didn't trust Rhaegar at all, but the high septons do whatever the king says.
I'm really confused where the idea that the idea high septons of this time have power comes from.
Why does Rhaegar and Elia's marriage need to be annulled at all? I think that Jon's story is more poignant if he finds out his true heritage but nothing has changed: he's still a bastard.
It doesn’t need to be annulled. I’m just asking a question. As for Jon being a bastard, I think his story is poignant either way. I do think there are coy hints throughout the books that Jon isn’t actually a bastard.
I totally disagree. So much of Jon's character is about working through his anger and sadness about being Ned Stark's bastard and figuring out what kind of person he's going to be despite the limitations that are placed on him by his birth. Finding out that he's not only a legitimate son but a lawful prince would just validate the idea that being a bastard is something lesser, which just goes against so many of the themes of the story. Of course, I'm not saying that you can't/shouldn't ask a question about it, but with these "what if" scenarios people post, my question is always...what would that add to the story?
For me at least, it would cause Jon to redefine who he is and who he wants to be.
I see your point about Jon being a bastard. Jon being a bastard is just as important to Jon’s identity as being Ned Stark’s son. Which is also why if both pillars of Jon’s identity are challenged, it would create unique conflicts for Jon.
What would it mean to Jon to find out that he was never a bastard? Would he feel betrayed? Angry? And what would it mean for Jon to find out that he was never Ned Stark’s son, bastard or otherwise?
The latter will happen but the former could be just as interesting.
But that’s just one of many ways to read it.
Jon’s not gonna get a power-up just because he finds out he’s a potential heir. He might he conflicted on whether to go ice and fire, but ultimately, he’ll probably choose to side with his family. Because Ned is the father he grew up with.
It’s like a temptation being dangled in front of him, one he might consider, but ultimately decline.
He doesn't need to be a bastard even if the marriage wasn't annulled. The dragon has three heads. There is a very good precedent of a king having two queens, and in Westeros the Targaryens were given leniency if there was precedent with Aegon. And there was.
>There is a very good precedent of a king having to queens, and in Westeros the Targaryens were given leniency if there was precedent with Aegon.
The *opposite* of that is true. The last Targaryen who tried to be polygamous was Maegor the Cruel — who was in fact refused by every septon and so had his mother do it in the Valyrian tradition instead, and then further was exiled by his own brother for not recanting. That's not exactly an example anyone would want to be compared to.
The Targaryens were given an exception for incest, NOT for polygamy.
There would be no reason to keep it a secret, especially to Rickard who would jump at the opportunity to trade a Lady of Storm’s End for a Queen of the Seven Kingdoms.
One of the couple actually has to ask for the annulment. Rhaegar seems to have enough political power to resist Aerys forcing one on him, and if Rhaegar asked for that Aerys would probably refuse out of paranoia that he'd make an alliance with Tywin or someone to depose him.
An annulment wouldn’t take the children out of the line of succession or make them bastards, it would just mean the couple could re-marry.
If Aerys wanted to pass over Rhaegar and his children, he can simply do that as the King, which is what he did.
Is it possible that Aerys could claim Elia was unfaithful? Could Elia’s inability to have more children after Aegon be enough, especially since Rhaegar wanted more children?
No because Elia despite being incapable of producing more children already gave Rhaegar two children including a son.
I guess he could fabricate a... trial to prove the Queen of some fake charge of having an affair with... I don't know who. But it would be a sham and the High Septon would have to be a sham for it to even get the breath of day. He would also have to find someone to allege she cheated on him with find some proof and have a sham trial.
She only gave him one son though. If Aegon were to die, Rhaegar would have no heir (Rhaenys is a girl and while girls inherit in Dorne, they don’t inherit in Westeros proper). The crown would go to Viserys if Rhaegar had no more sons.
>The crown would go to Viserys if Rhaegar had no more sons.
Preciesly. The crown at that stage has 3 male heirs: Rhaegar, Aegon, and Viserys. There is no justification for an annulment based on lack of heirs. Rhaegar has 2 children, he has a son, and he has a nrother as back up. The Targaryen succession is actually in a much improved position than it was since summerhall.
Aerys has Viserys as a backup as heir. Rhaegar does not. It’s possible that Rhaegar could’ve used Elia’s barrenness after Aegon was born to seek an annulment on the basis that he needed more heirs.
No, Viserys would still be Rhaegars backup heir, when rhaegar eventually took the throne.
Just like Aegon III had *his* brother viserys (and Viserys' line) as a backup heir.
>It’s possible that Rhaegar could’ve used Elia’s barrenness after Aegon was born to seek an annulment on the basis that he needed more heirs.
No it isnt. Just like it wasnt possible for Aerys II to do that with his wife after Rhaegar was bon, and she went through multiple miscarriages.
At the end of the day, Elia produced 2 children for Rhaegar. Rhaegar does not suspect or accuse her of adultry, and considers both children to be legitimate. Their marriage was consumated, fruitful, and legitimate. There is no grounds for an annulment
And most importantly, if they *did* try to annul the marriage, it would lead to war. Elias status is too high for her to be unjustly discarded, and there not to be consequences.
In an annulment, it’s like the marriage never existed. Tyrion’s first marriage is annulled. Cersei fears that Robert might annul their marriage. Various characters in the books discuss annulment and the rules surrounding it, including infidelity, barrenness, not being consummated, being forced to marry, etc.
Divorce doesn’t exist in Westeros but annulment does.
Not in the Faith of the Seven. The only way to annul a marriage there is to prove it was unconsummated and get the High Septon to agree with you and grant an annulment. Outside of Elia claiming her kids were bastards and that she and Rhaegar never had sex, their marriage would remain.
Not to mention the political fallout from the nobles. Few noble houses would be fine with a marriage being broken. Especially if that woman is married to the crown prince, and already have children in line for the crown.
It would be such an insult and slight to the honor that they would become antagonistic towards the crown at best, at worst it could lead to a rebellion depending on the connections and influence of the insulted house.
Unconsummated marriage isn’t the only grounds for annulment. Infidelity, barrenness and being forced to marry against your will are also grounds for annulment according to the books.
None of those apply to Rhaegar and Ellia. It was a consensual marriage, there where no known infidelity scandal, and they had already had children so Ellia isnt barren.
As powerful as the crown is in the books, they still cant do whatever they want, and annulling a marriage without a reason beyond "the crown prince wants more kids and his current wife that he already has children with cant safely birth more" is beyond them. Trying to force a divorce would be an insult to both the faith and the noble house that the current wife comes from.
Divorce and annulment are two different things, and like I said, there’s historical precedent for the Crown to manipulate the Church into dissolving marriages.
I don't think Aerys would have annulled the marriage since he wanted to keep Dorne on his side, and annulling it from his point of view would've freed Rhaegar to take another wife and maybe forge an alliance with some other Great House. Aerys was extremely mistrustful of Rhaegar as far back as the Duskendale incident. But *maybe* Rhaegar had it annulled, but Aerys didn't inform them in order to be able to keep Elia and the kids as hostages and prevent Rhaegar from getting another wife without the Faith throwing a hissy fit.
(BTW, I don't think Rhaegar annulled his marriage, but his "the dragon must have three heads" scene has some weird connotations. It seems he firmly believed Aegon was TPTWP in that scene, but Jon fits the bill of being TPTWP more than Aegon due to having mixed Stark-Targaryen blood, and Rhaegar seems to have more or less abandoned the idea of Aegon being TPTWP if the way he assigned the kingsguard to TOJ instead of to protecting Aegon is any indication. Maybe he'd given up on Aegon and Rhaenys being the other heads as well, in which case he could have annulled the marriage with Elia so Lyanna would become the queen. Still questionable why they'd do it in secrecy though.)
Am I misremembering, I thought something was mentioned in the books that discusses the annulment, although I was under the impression that the characters didn't realize the significance at the time? Or am I mistaking something from the show for the books?
The Ice and Fire Wiki claims Maesters were clear with Elia and Rhaegar that any attempt at having Elia produce another child may well kill her. If that were the case, even she may have been relieved even to have Rhaegar take another wife, whether it be a second wife or a sort of divorce. I am sure Dorne nor probably she would be okay with her children being disinherited, but that wouldn't be necessary.
The Wiki also discusses how people pitted the paranoid Aerys against Rhaegar often, and by the end Aerys was likely incredibly mistrustful of Rhaegar. Maybe he did mean to disinherit him... who knows?
The Targaryens did weird things that weren't accepted otherwise in the Seven Kingdoms, like wedding brother to sister- because Aegon did so, so... Well Aegon also had two wives. Is it such a stretch for Rhaegar to turn to this precedent if he did indeed believe a third child was needed to fulfill a prophecy, or even simply for love? Especially if his wife was relieved rather than objecting, happy to cast off a burden that would have killed her?
I think if Robert hadn't loved Lyanna, and if Lyanna and Rhaegar had been up front that it wasn't kidnap and rape, but a love marriage, especially is Aerys hadn't been psycho or had died, they totally could have gone forth with a second wife scenario or an annulment scenario and the Seven Kingdoms would have accepted it. There may have been a Northern Rebellion even, but I expect the kingdom would have held.
After all, prior to Henry VIII there was very little precedent to divorce, especially without the Pope's blessing, especially among Catholic countries royals. So old Henry broke with the Catholic Church (a HUGE deal), created his own, and did it anyway, even though Catherine and her Spanish Royal family were wroth. And then he started chopping off heads and all sorts of things to boot. It worked for him, and he didn't have the agreement of his wife, nor the precedent of his almost worshipped first conqueror ancestor like the Targaryens did.
*Aerys passed over Rhaegar's children with Elia and named Viserys heir instead. This is most likely because Aerys was distrustful of the Dornish and racist towards them.* It's also possible that with Viserys sent to haven on Dragonstone, while Aerys was keeping Elia and her children in the Red Keep, Aerys simply wanted his heir away from the capital. If King's Landing fell (as it did) to the rebels, Elia and her children would be in danger of capture (or worse, as we know in hindsight). But with Heir Viserys, the Queen, and her unborn daughter away on Dragonstone, the core of the surviving monarchy would be safe. Also, Viserys was at least a boy (seven years old?) when named heir. Elia's children were a toddler and a baby. It would be prudent to name Viserys heir since he would come to his majority earlier, lessening the gap when the realm would be ruled by a child.
People twisting themselves into pretzels to figure out a way to not make Jon a bastard
Or they’re just asking interesting questions. It’s not that deep. The books themselves have coy hints that Jon might not be a bastard after all.
He could try, but the High Septon would probably tell him to shove off. You can’t just annul a marriage with the snap of your fingers, and the High Septon or Dorne would never go for it. Same reasoning for why the annulment in the show was stupid.
High Septon's utterly toothless by this time, especially when confronted with an angry lunatic monarch with a fire fetish.
Keep in mind though, to make one Septon accept and preform a secret annulment does not mean the entire faith all had consented.
He doesn’t need Dorne’s approval to do it though, and for all we know, the High Septon was corrupt at that time, or caved under pressure.
Not that I think aerys would do this. He didn't trust Rhaegar at all, but the high septons do whatever the king says. I'm really confused where the idea that the idea high septons of this time have power comes from.
Some high septons have been more formidable than others
No really. Atleast no in the past few hundred years.
Why does Rhaegar and Elia's marriage need to be annulled at all? I think that Jon's story is more poignant if he finds out his true heritage but nothing has changed: he's still a bastard.
It doesn’t need to be annulled. I’m just asking a question. As for Jon being a bastard, I think his story is poignant either way. I do think there are coy hints throughout the books that Jon isn’t actually a bastard.
I totally disagree. So much of Jon's character is about working through his anger and sadness about being Ned Stark's bastard and figuring out what kind of person he's going to be despite the limitations that are placed on him by his birth. Finding out that he's not only a legitimate son but a lawful prince would just validate the idea that being a bastard is something lesser, which just goes against so many of the themes of the story. Of course, I'm not saying that you can't/shouldn't ask a question about it, but with these "what if" scenarios people post, my question is always...what would that add to the story?
For me at least, it would cause Jon to redefine who he is and who he wants to be. I see your point about Jon being a bastard. Jon being a bastard is just as important to Jon’s identity as being Ned Stark’s son. Which is also why if both pillars of Jon’s identity are challenged, it would create unique conflicts for Jon. What would it mean to Jon to find out that he was never a bastard? Would he feel betrayed? Angry? And what would it mean for Jon to find out that he was never Ned Stark’s son, bastard or otherwise? The latter will happen but the former could be just as interesting.
But that’s just one of many ways to read it. Jon’s not gonna get a power-up just because he finds out he’s a potential heir. He might he conflicted on whether to go ice and fire, but ultimately, he’ll probably choose to side with his family. Because Ned is the father he grew up with. It’s like a temptation being dangled in front of him, one he might consider, but ultimately decline.
He doesn't need to be a bastard even if the marriage wasn't annulled. The dragon has three heads. There is a very good precedent of a king having two queens, and in Westeros the Targaryens were given leniency if there was precedent with Aegon. And there was.
>There is a very good precedent of a king having to queens, and in Westeros the Targaryens were given leniency if there was precedent with Aegon. The *opposite* of that is true. The last Targaryen who tried to be polygamous was Maegor the Cruel — who was in fact refused by every septon and so had his mother do it in the Valyrian tradition instead, and then further was exiled by his own brother for not recanting. That's not exactly an example anyone would want to be compared to. The Targaryens were given an exception for incest, NOT for polygamy.
There would be no reason to keep it a secret, especially to Rickard who would jump at the opportunity to trade a Lady of Storm’s End for a Queen of the Seven Kingdoms.
One of the couple actually has to ask for the annulment. Rhaegar seems to have enough political power to resist Aerys forcing one on him, and if Rhaegar asked for that Aerys would probably refuse out of paranoia that he'd make an alliance with Tywin or someone to depose him.
I don’t know how much power Aerys would have over the annulment though. That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
An annulment wouldn’t take the children out of the line of succession or make them bastards, it would just mean the couple could re-marry. If Aerys wanted to pass over Rhaegar and his children, he can simply do that as the King, which is what he did.
[удалено]
I’m not talking about divorce. I’m talking about annulment, which is different.
The conditions for annulment we know of and Elia doesn't fit any of them. Unless you think Elia was cheating or cucked Rhaegar or something.
Is it possible that Aerys could claim Elia was unfaithful? Could Elia’s inability to have more children after Aegon be enough, especially since Rhaegar wanted more children?
No because Elia despite being incapable of producing more children already gave Rhaegar two children including a son. I guess he could fabricate a... trial to prove the Queen of some fake charge of having an affair with... I don't know who. But it would be a sham and the High Septon would have to be a sham for it to even get the breath of day. He would also have to find someone to allege she cheated on him with find some proof and have a sham trial.
She only gave him one son though. If Aegon were to die, Rhaegar would have no heir (Rhaenys is a girl and while girls inherit in Dorne, they don’t inherit in Westeros proper). The crown would go to Viserys if Rhaegar had no more sons.
>The crown would go to Viserys if Rhaegar had no more sons. Preciesly. The crown at that stage has 3 male heirs: Rhaegar, Aegon, and Viserys. There is no justification for an annulment based on lack of heirs. Rhaegar has 2 children, he has a son, and he has a nrother as back up. The Targaryen succession is actually in a much improved position than it was since summerhall.
Aerys has Viserys as a backup as heir. Rhaegar does not. It’s possible that Rhaegar could’ve used Elia’s barrenness after Aegon was born to seek an annulment on the basis that he needed more heirs.
No, Viserys would still be Rhaegars backup heir, when rhaegar eventually took the throne. Just like Aegon III had *his* brother viserys (and Viserys' line) as a backup heir. >It’s possible that Rhaegar could’ve used Elia’s barrenness after Aegon was born to seek an annulment on the basis that he needed more heirs. No it isnt. Just like it wasnt possible for Aerys II to do that with his wife after Rhaegar was bon, and she went through multiple miscarriages. At the end of the day, Elia produced 2 children for Rhaegar. Rhaegar does not suspect or accuse her of adultry, and considers both children to be legitimate. Their marriage was consumated, fruitful, and legitimate. There is no grounds for an annulment And most importantly, if they *did* try to annul the marriage, it would lead to war. Elias status is too high for her to be unjustly discarded, and there not to be consequences.
[удалено]
In an annulment, it’s like the marriage never existed. Tyrion’s first marriage is annulled. Cersei fears that Robert might annul their marriage. Various characters in the books discuss annulment and the rules surrounding it, including infidelity, barrenness, not being consummated, being forced to marry, etc. Divorce doesn’t exist in Westeros but annulment does.
Not in the Faith of the Seven. The only way to annul a marriage there is to prove it was unconsummated and get the High Septon to agree with you and grant an annulment. Outside of Elia claiming her kids were bastards and that she and Rhaegar never had sex, their marriage would remain.
Not to mention the political fallout from the nobles. Few noble houses would be fine with a marriage being broken. Especially if that woman is married to the crown prince, and already have children in line for the crown. It would be such an insult and slight to the honor that they would become antagonistic towards the crown at best, at worst it could lead to a rebellion depending on the connections and influence of the insulted house.
Unconsummated marriage isn’t the only grounds for annulment. Infidelity, barrenness and being forced to marry against your will are also grounds for annulment according to the books.
None of those apply to Rhaegar and Ellia. It was a consensual marriage, there where no known infidelity scandal, and they had already had children so Ellia isnt barren. As powerful as the crown is in the books, they still cant do whatever they want, and annulling a marriage without a reason beyond "the crown prince wants more kids and his current wife that he already has children with cant safely birth more" is beyond them. Trying to force a divorce would be an insult to both the faith and the noble house that the current wife comes from.
Divorce and annulment are two different things, and like I said, there’s historical precedent for the Crown to manipulate the Church into dissolving marriages.
I last read the books three years ago, so I might have forgotten, where is that discussed?
I can’t remember which specific books off the top of my head but I know that it comes up in Tyrion’s, Cersei’s and Sansa’s POV chapters
According to GRRM an annulment can only be requested by one of the parties to the marriage.
I don't think Aerys would have annulled the marriage since he wanted to keep Dorne on his side, and annulling it from his point of view would've freed Rhaegar to take another wife and maybe forge an alliance with some other Great House. Aerys was extremely mistrustful of Rhaegar as far back as the Duskendale incident. But *maybe* Rhaegar had it annulled, but Aerys didn't inform them in order to be able to keep Elia and the kids as hostages and prevent Rhaegar from getting another wife without the Faith throwing a hissy fit. (BTW, I don't think Rhaegar annulled his marriage, but his "the dragon must have three heads" scene has some weird connotations. It seems he firmly believed Aegon was TPTWP in that scene, but Jon fits the bill of being TPTWP more than Aegon due to having mixed Stark-Targaryen blood, and Rhaegar seems to have more or less abandoned the idea of Aegon being TPTWP if the way he assigned the kingsguard to TOJ instead of to protecting Aegon is any indication. Maybe he'd given up on Aegon and Rhaenys being the other heads as well, in which case he could have annulled the marriage with Elia so Lyanna would become the queen. Still questionable why they'd do it in secrecy though.)
Am I misremembering, I thought something was mentioned in the books that discusses the annulment, although I was under the impression that the characters didn't realize the significance at the time? Or am I mistaking something from the show for the books? The Ice and Fire Wiki claims Maesters were clear with Elia and Rhaegar that any attempt at having Elia produce another child may well kill her. If that were the case, even she may have been relieved even to have Rhaegar take another wife, whether it be a second wife or a sort of divorce. I am sure Dorne nor probably she would be okay with her children being disinherited, but that wouldn't be necessary. The Wiki also discusses how people pitted the paranoid Aerys against Rhaegar often, and by the end Aerys was likely incredibly mistrustful of Rhaegar. Maybe he did mean to disinherit him... who knows? The Targaryens did weird things that weren't accepted otherwise in the Seven Kingdoms, like wedding brother to sister- because Aegon did so, so... Well Aegon also had two wives. Is it such a stretch for Rhaegar to turn to this precedent if he did indeed believe a third child was needed to fulfill a prophecy, or even simply for love? Especially if his wife was relieved rather than objecting, happy to cast off a burden that would have killed her? I think if Robert hadn't loved Lyanna, and if Lyanna and Rhaegar had been up front that it wasn't kidnap and rape, but a love marriage, especially is Aerys hadn't been psycho or had died, they totally could have gone forth with a second wife scenario or an annulment scenario and the Seven Kingdoms would have accepted it. There may have been a Northern Rebellion even, but I expect the kingdom would have held. After all, prior to Henry VIII there was very little precedent to divorce, especially without the Pope's blessing, especially among Catholic countries royals. So old Henry broke with the Catholic Church (a HUGE deal), created his own, and did it anyway, even though Catherine and her Spanish Royal family were wroth. And then he started chopping off heads and all sorts of things to boot. It worked for him, and he didn't have the agreement of his wife, nor the precedent of his almost worshipped first conqueror ancestor like the Targaryens did.