When it was first proposed that Jon might be Rhaegar and Lyanna’s son Targaryen, the objection was made that Jon would be a bastard since Rhaegar was still married to Elia and she was still alive. (Rhaegar was killed at the Battle of the Trident before Elia and the children were killed during the sack of King’s Landing.) They’ve basically just handwaved that away by saying there was an annulment without providing any reason.
I think this season has been brilliant…but i guess ive split off from most redditirs and people here. Reaction guys on YT still seem into it. And usual grumps on YT don’t.
I disagree. I can’t see her crying and begging. Rather swallow her sorrow.
We’ve never even seen a divorce in Westeros, and I don’t think it technically exists in the Faith of the Seven. I believe the only other annulment we’ve heard of is of Tyrion’s first marriage, which Tywin had annulled. It’s very rare from anything we’ve seen or heard.
You can believe whatever you want, but basically Rhaegar’s annulment is pulled out of a hat so that Jon will be the legitimate heir. There’s not much more to it than that.
Rhaegar was an apparently happily married man with two children who ran off with another man’s betrothed without informing his wife he was leaving her, or anyone else that he and Lyanna were in love and Lyanna was with him willingly. His deceitfulness provoked a war that left thousands dead including almost his entire family. “Cheater” is too mild an insult for his actions.
here is an interesting but not likely fan theory:
when the dragon went missing in season 4 she got pregnant and now those baby dragons will show up
However:
I don’t know if we’ve been told in the show how dragons reproduce. For all we know, they could be parthenogenetic. 
“There was an annulment” is part of the revelation. It’s not handwaving. You’re making the assumption that Rhaegar shouldn’t have been able to get an annulment if he wanted one. The show isn’t burdened by that assumption.
What we learn from that episode is not “annulments are hard to obtain.” It’s “annulments exist.” For the purposes of the story, we don’t really need to know anything more than that.
It’s no more pulled out of a hat than any other plot revelation.
I rather think it had more to do with the Mad King torturing and murdering people, such as Brandon and Rickard Stark. Without that and other acts of misrule by Aerys Targaryen I doubt anyone would have gone to war over Rhaegar and Lyanna’s running off together. I’d be surprised to hear that anyone believes that Ned would have supported Robert’s Rebellion solely on that basis.
What is Sansa and Tyrion’s legal status? Divorced? Annulled? She done run off?
Technically they are still married. She would have grounds for annulment based on non-consummation or coercion but they would have to apply to a septon.
Her marriage to Ramsay was technically invalid on grounds of bigamy, but that was the least of her problems with that one.
No, most revelations actually have some foreshadowing or basis established in previous episodes. This one had nothing.
I’m not going to argue with you. Like I said, you can believe whatever you believe but this was just “legitimization ex machina.”
I notice that you avoided responding to this part of my post:
Are you seriously saying that this doesn’t constitute cheating (which is what you originally disputed), under virtually any ethical system? If so, I’m sure you’re in a tiny minority.
I thought that was odd too. I think they chose desert purly as a callback to all those scenes in Essos where Daenerys confronted the rulers of a city from outside it’s gates.
If Westeros is anything like premodern Europe then if Rhaegar was cheating it was because Lyanna was betrothed to another man, not because he was married to another woman.
Well the only thing for certain we know about Sevenist matrimonial law is that polygamy & sibling marriage are prohibited (presumably most of the Targaryens married under Valyrian rites), but I get the impression that dissolving or annulling a marriage is an extraordinary process that only the High Septon can do (& Rhaegar forced the High Septon’s hand).
I’ve heard theories that the dragons are actually hermaphroditic; if they can self-fertilize then Drogon could reproduce on his own. Same deal if she’s female and can reproduce via parthenogenesis. Granted either scenario means that future generations of dragons will be clones of Drogon; that’s extreme inbreeding even by Targaryen standards.
Powerful nobles in real history have found shakey grounds under which to have an annulment done in our own history, haven’t they? It wouldn’t be implausible if he didn’t really qualify for an annulment (not that we know their rules) but the Crown Prince gets what he wants.
Married men weren’t allowed to commit adultery, even if it was commonly overlooked.
It was the High Septon who did it, and they brought him to Dorne to carry it out.
Sure, but the whole premise of bringing up the annulment is to make Jon be the legitimate heir to the throne. If the grounds were shaky, his position as the heir could be challenged. (Of course, Henry VIII’s annulment of his first marriage on shaky grounds led to the legitimacy of both Mary I and Elizabeth I being questioned.)
Maybe the grounds were shaky, and instead of Dany trying to blast Jon with dragonfire in the next episode we’ll see her bring a case in religious court to have the annulment made invalid and him back to being a bastard again. A happier ending for everyone!
Yes. The general rule, practically speaking, is that if you have command of the biggest army and the funds to pay for them you can get the marriage laws to be whatever you like.
Things get a bit dicey if, for example, you manage to piss off two of the four wardens responsible for sustaining your army, and a third warden - who is also the richest - decides to sit out the battle and side with whoever wins at the eleventh hour. And all the while you are trying to hide the whole situation from Dorne because you have basically trashed the politically strategic alliance made to keep them in the allied kingdoms.
Things can also get dicey if generations down the line, your descendants and their peers come to have different views on the legality of the annulment well after the fact. But following the general rule, that situation will ultimately be resolved when the descendant with the bigger and better funded army is discovered to also have the correct and undisputed legal theory.
Here’s a picture of King’s Landing as we’ve seen it before and a shot from this episode:
So there were no deserts there before. I like the comment that Euron chopped down all the trees to build ships and scorpions.
also it seemed like a desert near Kings landing when the dragon burned up the Tarly father and other son.
Is it okay to talk about this week episode preview here? I noticed something that I want to ask.
From the OP:
That is correct. I never had HBO in the past. I didn’t watch any episodes until 3 or 4 weeks ago (or whenever it was. Maybe 2 weeks, I can’t remember)
Sam Stone, your elaborate, well thought out suggestion is as good an indication as any that it would be impossible to please all kinds of Thrones fans in this short a time. Your scenario sounds great for people who love zombie movies and TWD episodes focused on mass zombie-fighting. I prefer the “Thrones” that primarily involves people talking in rooms. So I wish they had cut that “Long Night” battle down to just half the length, then included the coda we saw in Winterfell to begin this episode as the end of that episode, and then this past episode would have had more time to develop other storylines.
Even if we set aside all the issues with pacing and major plot developments, it’s irritating for them to be so contemptuously heedless of established canon regarding a major setting of the show in all eight seasons.
I’m one of those who assiduously avoids previews and would prefer you keep discussion of them inside spoiler boxes. Thanks!