theblackdragonI

Tywin not remarrying makes no sense

133 posts in this topic

21 hours ago, Tianzi said:

 

I think that as mind-boggling as it is, Tywin could be just blindly stubborn/willful, when it came to his descendants. I mean, he underestimated Tyrion, he was blind to the twincest, he misjudged Cersei and Jaime as well... He basically put all his Lannister eggs in one basket, and this basket was in KG. The last Tywin could have realistically thought he could have Jaime out of KG was thirteen years ago, when Robert ascended the throne, but he had no way of predicting Joff ascending the throne in time and crreating the precedent to fire a Kingsguard (Tywin cities it as a reason for Jaime to abandon his post). I mean, what was he counting for? Without Jaime he was stuck with Cersei, Tyrion, maybe Tommen (nominally a Baratheon, though ironically with the most Lannister blood inside around) and Kevan (competent, but not his branch).

This is the crux of it and why I started this thread. It just seems out of character for such a calculating man to not put more thought into his succession.

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I don't understand why people think that Jamie being in the Kingsguard will prevent him from inheriting. Jamie was totally cool with attacking Eddard in the streets over a family issue and then lead a Lannister army into the Riverlands while being a Kingsguard, so why would the Kingsguard oath would prevent him from taking Casterly Rock after Tywin died? Its rather clear, at least to me, that untill Jamie met Brienne he didn't care on whiff for his position as a Kingsguard and would happily trample those oaths into the mud.

Well, the fact that Jaime didn't leave the KG after Robert died and before he met Brienne might mean that he didn't want to leave ever. I'm sure he could have left straight away. The only reason I could think of would be that Joffrey wanted a representative of the throne leading their troops against the rebels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Your later facts are a little mixed up. Harold Godwinson was the legal son of Godwin, Earl of Wessex and Gryna something-or-other, daughter of the King of Denmark. When Edward the Confessor died with no heir, they raised Harold up to king, supposedly after EC made it his dying wish. What's interesting is that William immediately begins planning his invasion upon hearing the that the new king of England was appointed by men, not bestowed through the divine right of heredity. And if Harold hadn't pissed off so many of his fellow nobles with all the murdering and skullduggery that put EC on the crown, he just might have had enough support to repel the Normans.

Well, we appear to have read different histories. Everybody loved Harold, and William wasn't concerned about divine right: Edward the Confessor had promised him the crown twenty years earlier. (Or so he said.) Harold didn't lose for lack of numbers, he lost because that's just how things go sometimes. Battles can go either way; he actually had the superior position at Hastings, and didn't look set to lose until, all of a sudden, he did.

I didn't say Harold was a bastard; the point was he wasn't a relative of Edward's, or at least not a close one. I forgot if there was some connection to Edward's wife.

Edited by Illyrio Mo'Parties

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, theblackdragonI said:

.Well, the fact that Jaime didn't leave the KG after Robert died and before he met Brienne might mean that he didn't want to leave ever. I'm sure he could have left straight away. The only reason I could think of would be that Joffrey wanted a representative of the throne leading their troops against the rebels.

But thing is that Jamie leads the Lannister army while Robert is still king and before Cersei makes her move against Eddard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

All true, but I think there was a more practical consideration as well.

When a great warrior compiles enough holdings to declare a kingdom, it was believed his kingly virtues were passed from father to son just like hair color, eye color, etc. Since there is no doubt about the maternity of a child but plenty of room for doubt as to paternity, medieval society had to go to extreme steps to ensure that the child born of the queen was the king's and no others. So when the king was away, or even when he wasn't, they trussed up the queen's parts like a knight heading into battle, making it impossible for her to accept any other man. And they had nuns, ladies in waiting and female relatives with her 24-7 -- just like Margaery has with her brood -- so there would be plenty of witnesses to deny any accusation that might arise.

They certainly wanted to avoid God's wrath, to be sure, but they also had to guard against insurrection of the mortal variety, which tended to gather steam whenever there was even the slightest hint that the queen might be carrying another man's child.

Exactly.

It was a society build around superstition and fanatism on one side and the Lords/Kings using such ignorance on their favour. Weapons were pretty mainstream (bows, arrows, axes etc) and any powerful nobleman with enough support could raise an army if he wanted to. 

Women weren't trusted. Some criticize Henry Tudor for going into extremes in a bid to have a male son. What most forget is, that Henry Tudor was heir of a flegling dynasty who had usurped the crown. Also till that time, no English queen (as leader not as a baby generator) was able to keep the darn crown over her head. His concerns were justified. His daughter Mary struggled to keep the house in order and ended up being known as bloody mary. His other daughter Elisabeth had to face a full blown crusade against her. 

Returning to GOT, Tyrion was heir to CR and he was also a dwarf. That's a big problem. As a dwarf he wouldn't be able to actively participate in wars, which means that he'll have to rely on others (usually competition) to fight the wars for him. He would have found it difficult to find a prestigeous bride to marry which would weaken the Lannister influence in Westeros and he'l be despised and feared from the smallfolk who'll see him as cursed from God. There was also a chance that his own children would be dwarfs which would further weaken the dynasty. 

Therefore if Tywin had even the hint of his son being Aerys then rest assured that he'll end up suffering an accident.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jaime wasn't dismissed/didn't leave after effing KILLING THE KING, that means he just wasn't gonna. You don't get a better chance than that one. Also Tywin might have counted on Joff to give him Jaime back, but not on Robert. Let's remember, that fat drunkard he was, Robert Baratheon was 25 years younger than Tywin Lannister. That waiting gamble was just stupid on Tywin's part.

I gave it a thought and I have a theory: Tywin had an incest thing just like his children. He just didn't have a suitable LANNISTER bride in sight and he couldn't get it up for any woman outside this circle. So he hired the whore used by his son (yes, I think it also requires an explanation), because he hoped that would give him a shade of the feeling that could make him work. You know, everything stays in the famila. Ta-daa.

Honestly, tho, if Martin didn't include the Shae scene for dramatic purposes, Tywin's character would've stayed more consistent. We could've just agreed that he was impotent and we would've been spared the extra weird aspect of him taking his dwarf son's leftovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but you two are talking shite. Chastity belts are about as real as the droit du seigneur. Although I will grant that, despite all his supposed historical research, GRRM either (a) thinks the latter is real or (b) used it anyway, so maybe we can apply that to other contentious historical practices.

There's a modern, post-feminist, and may I say ignorant way of looking at history, which is to believe that prior to the suffragettes and "I have a dream" the whole world was unstoppably, irredeemably awful and stupid, and it's only thanks to the wisdom and bravery of recent generations that we have climbed out of the mire. The fact that it's those recent generations telling this story ought to give us pause.

And no, I'm not saying that the medieval world was an egalitarian paradise either, but the notion that lords could rape and kill whomever they liked without consequence or that women had no agency at all is simply wrong.

What's also wrong is your thoughts on bastards and the important of kingly virtues passing straight from father to son. Bastards and people outside the family would take or inherit lordships and thrones all the time. William the Conqueror used to be called William the Bastard, and nobody gave three shits about it. And the king he fought was Harold Godwinson - was Godwin the previous king of England? No, the Edward the Confessor was. He named Harold his heir because he and the earls thought he'd be the best man for the job; Edward himself was celibate.

Alright, maybe this is middle ages rather than medieval, and the customs re: inheritance firmed up a bit over time. But still.

William the conqueror early life as duke consisted of the premature death of his true born brother (writers would write that William killed him), an anarchy that lasted for around a decade and a number of custodians dying like flies. That despite the boy having support of both the King of France and the Bishop


Harold was the son of a powerful earl and the sister in law of King Cnut. He inherited his crown directly from the king himself and his reign lasted around a year were he was crushed by a pretender to the crown (William) after previously crushing two pretenders of the crown (including his own brother) few days before. I can see how you can possibly use those two people as an example of nobody giving three shits about it. 


In medieval times women had power. However it was different to what we know now.  A typical medieval king would have absolute power in a society which insisted in being restrictive and highly moral. That in itself was an oxymoron a king would face every day. A king, could, on one hand do whatever he wanted with his realm and yet, most of the time he couldn’t even decide whom to marry. 


Women who could seduce the king while showing discretion where well sought by powerful men. I recently visited a palace that is now worth around 2m euros, which is a beauty to behold. This palace was built by a nobleman to house his lover and her offspring.  The more noble blood it had the higher up that person could go and the more chances it had to seduce the king and get what she and most importantly what her family wanted. The Boleyn, the Seymour and the Woodvilles had all witnessed a change in fortune when their women became linked to the king. 


However power in the modern way of thought was rare and most of the time it meant a life in turmoil, instability and war. From Queen Elizabeth who faced assassination plots and a crusade to Matilda of Tuscany who fought the Holy Roman Emperor for most of her life. From Joan of Arc who ended burnt to the stake to Eleanor of Acquitaine right to Anne Boleyn and Isabella of France.  Direct Power was a rarity for women and it often ended in misery. No wonder why Henry was so much against leaving his dynasty to women. Till that time no female English queen was able to keep her crown

Edited by devilish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, devilish said:

...most of the time it meant a life in turmoil, instability and war.

For women and men both.

3 hours ago, devilish said:

Harold was the son of a powerful earl and the sister in law of King Cnut. He inherited his crown directly from the king himself and his reign lasted around a year were he was crushed by a pretender to the crown (William) after previously crushing two pretenders of the crown (including his own brother) few days before. I can see how you can possibly use those two people as an example of nobody giving three shits about it.

I didn't mean that nobody cared about the crown, but that direct patrilineal inheritance wasn't so important as you and JS made out above. No one in England was bothered that Harold wasn't related to Edward, nor William, nor Harald Hardrada, their objection to the last two being that they were foreign.

(Harold Godwinson fought off Harald Hardrada, who was supported by Harold's neer-do-well brother Tostig, at Stamford Bridge, before his fateful encounter with William at Hastings. Who was the third pretender you mentioned?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, devilish said:

King Cnut

Can someone report this foul language?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

For women and men both.

I didn't mean that nobody cared about the crown, but that direct patrilineal inheritance wasn't so important as you and JS made out above. No one in England was bothered that Harold wasn't related to Edward, nor William, nor Harald Hardrada, their objection to the last two being that they were foreign.

(Harold Godwinson fought off Harald Hardrada, who was supported by Harold's neer-do-well brother Tostig, at Stamford Bridge, before his fateful encounter with William at Hastings. Who was the third pretender you mentioned?)

Harold reign lasted a year in which he faced two external enemies one of which costed his crown. You cannot say if he would have faced any objections. There simply wasn't the time.

Also the confessor left no heirs which is a very rare occurrence indeed. Harold;s claim and William's claim were based on a promise made by the King. Hardrada's claim was the fact that his ancestor King cnut (its not an insult) once ruled England 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17 February 2017 at 9:12 AM, theblackdragonI said:

This is the crux of it and why I started this thread. It just seems out of character for such a calculating man to not put more thought into his succession.

He is calculating but driven by extreme irrational emotion. His whole personality was shaped by being the witness to his father's folly and humiliation and deciding to take action to save his family's overlord status and wipe out the humiliation. A man who actually never smiles is very psychologically unusual, I am guessing. His daughter has a major personality disorder and his dwarf son has become a potential serial killer of women. He does have absolute loyalty to his family not in the modern liberal sense of wanting his children to make therir  own choices blah blah blah but in expecting that they will each of them conform to their duty the family. I think experience and observation would also tell him that having two lots of children by different wives can reek havoc with a succession rather than fixing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Castellan said:

and his dwarf son has become a potential serial killer of women.

What?

I mean, what?

I mean, I have my issues with Tyrion's treatment of women (started a thread about it once, here:)

 but... WHAT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

For women and men both.

I didn't mean that nobody cared about the crown, but that direct patrilineal inheritance wasn't so important as you and JS made out above. No one in England was bothered that Harold wasn't related to Edward, nor William, nor Harald Hardrada, their objection to the last two being that they were foreign.

(Harold Godwinson fought off Harald Hardrada, who was supported by Harold's neer-do-well brother Tostig, at Stamford Bridge, before his fateful encounter with William at Hastings. Who was the third pretender you mentioned?)

I think the point is (well, mine anyway) was that trueborn heirs were always preferable than either appointments or bastards or some other solution because they tended to dampen thoughts of rebellion. So they had to make sure that not only was the heir the son of the king, but that they could prove it as best they could by ensuring the queen was always attended by her ladies, even at night, and would be subject to harsh penalties should she take a lover -- at least during her child-bearing years. It wasn't a sexism thing or a woman-oppression thing, it was to provide peace and stability in the realm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

What?

I mean, what?

I mean, I have my issues with Tyrion's treatment of women (started a thread about it once, here:)

 but... WHAT?

Since killing Shae, he has been rolling about in confusion and guilt in Essos which includes having the occasional dark enraged thought about Penny just being another woman making demands and trying to fool him. I think the hint that he could kill again (not necessarily will) comes in a Winds of Winter chapter where he has a momentary black out where he goes to a very dark place out of suspicion at her.

He refrained from having sex with Sansa but later enacts it with the terrified red-haired Essosi prostitute. 

Because Tyrion is a sympathetic character in many ways people tend to overlook just now messed up he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.