Yes, it's believable that the crown prince could strong-arm the pontiff into annulling his first marriage, even if there were children. That happened all the time in 14th-15th century Europe, Henry VIII was about the only monarch who couldn't get the pope to annul his marriage on request. Imperfect marriage contracts and pre-existing childhood betrothals could provide an out, it was also illegal to marry a close cousin but as all the crowned heads of Europe were related most marriages between royals were technically illegal, so anyone who wanted a divorce could bring up the degree of "Consanguinity".
However, just because a crown prince COULD get an annulment doesn't make it likely that he'd do it, and do it in secret! For one thing, aristocrats in Westeros just don't marry for love, doing so is considered shocking and self-indulgent and undutiful to the family, like when Robb broke his promise to the Freys to marry for love (or to assuage his conscience in the books). Do you think the Martells would have taken it any better than the Freys, if they found out their Elia had been dumped and their grandkids named as bastards? It'd have been war or the threat of war, if anyone had known. It WAS war, when Robert found out that Rheagar had taken his fiancée, you just can't do that sort of thing in a society like Westeros.
No, it'd make much more sense for Rheagar to revive the Targaryan custom of polygamous marriage, and hope everyone in Westeros was just grateful that the next generation of royals was less inbred than the last. But I don't suppose TV audiences would buy Jon as the legitimate heir if they worked the backstory that way.
reply
share