Targs and polygamy

[Roxy]

I keep reading on here that Targaryens practiced polygamy, that it was common, and that some of the kings had multiple wives. These statements are mainly used to support the wish that Jon be Rhaegar's son so that, true to stereotypical storytelling conventions, the ill-treated and lowly boy can be revealed to be the rightful heir to the kingdom.

But what evidence is there of this? We know Aegon I had two wives who were his sisters. Who else is there?

[Janicia]

You might want to check out the ASOIAF wiki. There are numerous examples of Targaryen polygamy. I suspect the Dunk and Egg books also go into that, but I haven't read them.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

I suspect the Dunk and Egg books also go into that, but I haven't read them.

They haven't so far.

[Hear Us Roar]

In cases where there were less men in the family sure.

[Roxy]

You might want to check out the ASOIAF wiki. There are numerous examples of Targaryen polygamy. I suspect the Dunk and Egg books also go into that, but I haven't read them.

Can someone please point these examples out to me? I've been looking at the Targ family tree and haven't found any except for Aegon I so far.

[King Euron Swagjoy]

Can someone please point these examples out to me? I've been looking at the Targ family tree and haven't found any except for Aegon I so far.

I know that Maegor had multiple wives, but I can't think of any others (other than Aegon, obviously) that had multiple wives).

[Dr. Pepper]

Can someone please point these examples out to me? I've been looking at the Targ family tree and haven't found any except for Aegon I so far.

Aegon I and Maegor I are the only ones we know of for sure. There are several Targs listed with more than one wife, but it's not always clear if they were polygamous marriages or just second wives after the first one died. The House tree isn't complete so it's possible there may be more unknown examples. The most recent World of Ice and Fire reading revealed that polygamy was unusual for the Targs before Aegon I.

[the Three Leopards]

I'm pretty sure Baelor the Blessed was married to two of his sisters, but then locked them away lest they tempt him.

[Dr. Pepper]

I'm pretty sure Baelor the Blessed was married to two of his sisters, but then locked them away lest they tempt him.

He was only married to one - Daena. He locked her and his other two sisters in the Maidenvault. Eleana went on to marry a few times and Rhaena became a septa.

[kissdbyfire]

Martin mentions Aegon I and Maegor the Cruel specifically. Then he says:

"There might have been a few later instances as well. I'd need to look that up... (or make that up, as the case might be)."

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Targaryen_Polygamy/

[Roxy]

Thanks guys, this really helps. I totally missed Maegor because the family tree only mentions Jeyne Westerling (probably because the names of the others aren't known). So at least we know it happened at least more than once.

[corbon]

Thanks guys, this really helps. I totally missed Maegor because the family tree only mentions Jeyne Westerling (probably because the names of the others aren't known). So at least we know it happened at least more than once.

Right.

We know it happened at least twice - Aegon with his sisters, Maegor with assorted Westersi brides.

GRRM says that it may have happened more often, he isn't sure. That tells us that its not common, but also not notably significant, or he would surely know.

I did an exhaustive check on the Targe family tree since Aegon (wiki only though) for another discussion. IIRC what I found is that there are those two known instances, around 4-6 other Targs whose marital staus is a complete mystery (and in some cases they had legit kids, so must have been married). Virtually all of the Targs (other than Aegon and Maegor) with known multiple wives were definitely consecutive.

But that only covered Kings and sons of Kings. Anyone slightly out the side from that isn't mentioned at all.

For me, the definitive thing is this. GRRM said it might have happened more often than we know so far. And it definitely happened at least twice. And we have no hints or clues anywhere that indicate a legal change of status. Therefore, unless GRRM pulls a law change or similar out of his hat, if Rhaegar decided to re-use the old tradition he would be legally entitled.

Doubters (haters or whingers more often) claim that it was hundreds of years since it was used, or that it was only 'allowed' due to the dragons. But neither of those arguments hold up under scrutiny.

In terms of hundreds of years, look at when Edward VIII abdicated in '36. The last time an abdication had happened was either 1650ish (declared by parliament, disputed by absent king) or 1200ish (by king under duress) and it had never happened since the law had been changed around 1700. The law is the law, and doesn't care if it was last used 300 years ago, unless its been changed it is still the law.

In terms of dragons, dragons may have been the real reason behind the exception, but they were not the 'actual' reason. IIRC the chuch declared the Targs had an exemption because they were special - it can't come out and say 'because they have dragons and we are afraid of them', as that tells everyone that the dragons are more powerful than the Seven. So even after the dragons have gone, the Targ still have 'special' status and the church can't revoke that without a big theological debate or similar and coming up with a reason why they are changing doctrine, without mentioning the lack of dragons, which would be too transparent and send the same 'the dragons were stonger than our Gods' message.

[Ser Lepus]

Doubters (haters or whingers more often) claim that it was hundreds of years since it was used, or that it was only 'allowed' due to the dragons. But neither of those arguments hold up under scrutiny.

In terms of hundreds of years, look at when Edward VIII abdicated in '36. The last time an abdication had happened was either 1650ish (declared by parliament, disputed by absent king) or 1200ish (by king under duress) and it had never happened since the law had been changed around 1700. The law is the law, and doesn't care if it was last used 300 years ago, unless its been changed it is still the law.

In terms of dragons, dragons may have been the real reason behind the exception, but they were not the 'actual' reason. IIRC the chuch declared the Targs had an exemption because they were special - it can't come out and say 'because they have dragons and we are afraid of them', as that tells everyone that the dragons are more powerful than the Seven. So even after the dragons have gone, the Targ still have 'special' status and the church can't revoke that without a big theological debate or similar and coming up with a reason why they are changing doctrine, without mentioning the lack of dragons, which would be too transparent and send the same 'the dragons were stonger than our Gods' message.

The problem is, if Rhaegar takes a second wife, he is insulting the families of both his first and second wife, regardless of any old law. Technically Aerys had the right to execute Brandon and Rickon Stark, and also to ask for the heads of Ned and Robert, but you see what happened when he tried to exert his right to do so.

[corbon]

The problem is, if Rhaegar takes a second wife, he is insulting the families of both his first and second wife, regardless of any old law. Technically Aerys had the right to execute Brandon and Rickon Stark, and also to ask for the heads of Ned and Robert, but you see what happened when he tried to exert his right to do so.

The problem is, you just made that up out of nowhere (no insult intended to you by that statement). Lots of people claim this, but that is entirely due to 'modern' thinking. Historically, and as best we can see within the series, there is no insult at all in a ruler having multiple wives, and a position as a wife is greatly desired even when there are other wives already, and heirs already.

What we 'know' (which actually we dn;t know) about the way he did it appears to be insulting, but the mere fact of polygamy is not an insultat all.

[Ser Lepus]

The problem is, you just made that up out of nowhere (no insult intended to you by that statement). Lots of people claim this, but that is entirely due to 'modern' thinking. Historically, and as best we can see within the series, there is no insult at all in a ruler having multiple wives, and a position as a wife is greatly desired even when there are other wives already, and heirs already.

What we 'know' (which actually we dn;t know) about the way he did it appears to be insulting, but the mere fact of polygamy is not an insultat all.

We know how the westerosi feel about marriage, concubines, heirs, bastards and such. They don't think a man can have more than one wife. Nobody takes more than one wife. Even in Dorne the concubine or mistress is called "paramour", and not "second wife", and in the rest of Westeros mistresses and concubines are seen as no different from common whores and their offspring has no rights. Even in Dorne, where they are a lot more tolerant, bastards receive the Sand surname instead of their parent's. Everything points to them thinking that a man can have only one legitimate wife.

The Targayren were allowed to break a lot of taboos and social customs, yeah, but the westerosi didn't adopt their valyrian customs: They didn't adopt incestuous marriage or polygamy, and we know their feelings towards those didn't change. The westerosi's general stance seem to be something like: "If the Targayren want to marry their sisters, fine, that's their thing, but we aren't doing it".

We don't know of a single case of a Targayren king marrying several ladies from great houses. They offered their daughters to Aegon the Conqueror, but he had three dragons the size of houses; they were terrified of him.

I honestly don't think the Targayren would be able to impose the great houses the valyrian practise of polygamy, the same way they wouldn't be able to impose incest, at least without dragons.

[Dr. Pepper]

@Ser Lupus, the recent World of Ice and Fire reading tells us that polygamy was not a Valyrian practice. It was unusual that Aegon I took two wives. We don't actually know how Westeros in general feels about polygamy or even if it was in practice there before or after the Targaryens came around. There are certainly no harsh moral laws against it. When Westerosi see polygamous families north of the wall, there have been no negative comments made about the polygamy itself (apart from japes about it being unfair). They were offended that Craster practiced incest, which was deemed a crime against morality.

Mistresses and bastards aren't in the same category as second or third wives and their legitimate children. The paramours we see in Dorne come mostly from Oberyn, who never married anyway. Nothing about that points towards people thinking a man can only have one legitimate wife. It's impossible to assume from the text that Westerosi in general have strong negative feelings about polygamy, especially when we see that many were interested in marrying their daughters to Aegon I and later did marry their daughters to Maegor I. The fearsome dragons might have made them accept that the Targaryens could do as they wished when it came to incest, but it's not like we see houses all over the realm deciding that incest works for them.

[master]

considering dornish custom, elia may have encouraged rhaegor with lyanna, but I doubt jon could be in any way considered legitimate.

[Lonin]

We don't actually know how Westeros in general feels about polygamy or even if it was in practice there before or after the Targaryens came around. There are certainly no harsh moral laws against it.

I dont totally agree. We know that a few Targaryens practiced polygamy. We dont know of any other cases in the seven kingdoms. It would seem that if there were "no harsh moral laws against" that we would see more cases of polygamy. That we know of no other cases in the seven kingdoms outside of the Targaryens strongly suggests there were mores prohibiting polygamy.

[Dr. Pepper]

I dont totally agree. We know that a few Targaryens practiced polygamy. We dont know of any other cases in the seven kingdoms. It would seem that if there were "no harsh moral laws against" that we would see more cases of polygamy. That we know of no other cases in the seven kingdoms outside of the Targaryens strongly suggests there were mores prohibiting polygamy.

I agree that the absence of polygamous marriages amongst the noble elite suggests that it wasn't a practice they partook in. Still, there are polygamous marriages north of the wall. There's Craster and also one of those people that came in with Tormund (the Great Walrus? Can't remember name right now). That no one specifically discussed a social or moral prohibition about these marriages seems telling (disgust towards Craster was about the incestuous nature of the marriages, not the fact that he practice polygamy). Absence of evidence amongst the noble elite south of the wall does not necessarily indicate a moral or social prohibition against polygamy. There were, after all, several families very eager to marry their daughters to Targaryens who were already married. Plus there's the whole fact that Renly plotted to marry Margaery to Robert while he was already married to Cersei. There was the comment he made about hoping Robert would set Cersei aside, but not really any mention that he meant divorce or annulment, which we know is very difficult to do once a marriage had been consummated and heirs produced.

[franko99]

There was the comment he made about hoping Robert would set Cersei aside, but not really any mention that he meant divorce or annulment, which we know is very difficult to do once a marriage had been consummated and heirs produced.

I think the Tyrells and Renly where ploting to kill Cersei too (which I'm completely fine if it ever happen by the way :rofl:)