Jump to content

The Book of Swords - The Sons of the Dragon SPOILERS


Lord Varys

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

On the Faith's abhorrence at Aegon's polygamy...

Aegon I, TWOIAF

So, Aegon's second queen (at least I presume Rhaenys was Aegon's second queen) had already died, leaving Aegon with one queen... And the Faith raised a grand sept--a sept mind you--as a memorial to Aegon's second, polygamous queen. 

Rhaenys had been immensely popular. And the people instigating all that would have been the Kingslanders even if the High Septon also sent money to support this.

They were not celebrating Rhaenys the Abominable Whore, they were celebrating Rhaenys the Queen. And you can make that difference. You do it all the time.

Just look how fundamentalists can make compromises and deals with people who have the money and power. You only attack when you sense a weakness, and Aegon, Visenya, and Rhaenys were never weak. Aenys was.

17 hours ago, RumHam said:

Yeah, we've had a SSM saying this for years that people tend to ignore when arguing that Rhaegar's polygamy would not have been an issue.

I know ;-).

Quote

My recollection is that Rhaenyra just wasn't willing to risk her children's lives, especially after Lucerys died. But I could be wrong it's been a while.

She is also afraid for her sons, of course, but even Daemon argues for caution. He says something along the lines that he is not going to risk (one of) their dragons unless he has to.

And we see during the Dance that risking the life of the king/pretender - Aegon II - can backfire rather spectacularly.

Basically, TSotD feels like sloppy writing at that point. George knows that Maegor died in 48 AC, and he knows that he never fought a dragon battle against Jaehaerys and company. But in a realistic setting this danger would have been there. And it would have been a real issue for all the people involved.

Quote

Maybe not, but then the First Night was made illegal by Rhaenys, not the faith. Plus we know incest is considered a crime, Cersei is charged with it. So I don't see why polygamy wouldn't be too. 

The First Night was abolished by Jaehaerys I, following the advice/pressure of Alysanne.

However, I'd be very surprised if this was a 'religious law/custom'. My point above was that marriage in general is a religious ritual/institution - like it was in the middle ages - and I really don't think the First Night was ever part of the Faith's concept of marriage. In fact, it is adultery, plain and simple.

This thing seems to be some sort of ancient and quite barbaric First Men thing dating back to the days of the petty kings and thralldom. Considering the power (and fun) a lord or king could enjoy with that kind of custom it is hardly surprising that it survived as long as it did.

Quote

Aerys II seemed to think he could have Joanna Lannister on her wedding night if the First Night hadn't been abolished. Though I guess that could have been a really creepy joke that wasn't totally based in fact. 

I think that was just a bad joke. We never get a hint that a king could actually force the bride of a lord to share the bed with him. This seems to be some thing that really shows the power the lords and petty kings have (or had) over the smallfolk.

17 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Gyldayn suggests they went to Tyrosh or Volantis. But nothing suggests that they might have gone to Pentos.

Which explains why Tyanna couldn't find them. Although she might still have connections in Pentos, we have no reason to assume that she had any connections in any of the other Free Cities, including Tyrosh and Volantis.

They were away for four years. The rumors that they had fled to Tyrosh or Volantis would have been verified or falsified by then.

Tyanna seems to have been a greater wonder than the cockless wonder that came later. She was really great at her job. Even if Alyssa and her children dyed her hair and disguised as commoners, etc., they could not possibly hide their Westerosi origins. They could not possibly disappear without a trace. And a trace is all a woman like Tyanna would need. Assuming she doesn't use magic to find people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The First Night was abolished by Jaehaerys I, following the advice/pressure of Alysanne.

Right, my bad I confused it with the "rule of six" thing mentioned in the worldbook. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, an example of what really a sizable and prepared army can do against a wounded, near-flightless dragon:

Quote

Lord Walys Mooton led a hundred knights out of Maidenpool to join with the half-wild Crabbs and Brunes of Crackclaw Point and the Celtigars of Claw Isle. Through piney woods and mist-shrouded hills they hastened, to Rook’s Rest, where their sudden appearance took the garrison by surprise. After retaking the castle, Lord Mooton led his bravest men to the field of ashes west of the castle, to put an end to the dragon Sunfyre.

The would-be dragonslayers easily drove off the cordon of guards who had been left to feed, serve, and protect the dragon, but Sunfyre himself proved more formidable than expected. Dragons are awkward creatures on the ground, and his torn wing left the great golden wyrm unable to take to the air. The attackers expected to find the beast near death. Instead they found him sleeping, but the clash of swords and thunder of horses soon roused him, and the first spear to strike him provoked him to fury. Slimy with mud, twisting amongst the bones of countless sheep, Sunfyre writhed and coiled like a serpent, his tail lashing, sending blasts of golden flame at his attackers as he struggled to fly. Thrice he rose, and thrice fell back to earth. Mooton’s men swarmed him with swords and spears and axes, dealing him many grievous wounds … yet each blow only seemed to enrage him further. The number of the dead reached three score before the survivors fled. Amongst the slain was Walys Mooton, Lord of Maidenpool. When his body was found a fortnight later by his brother Manfyrd, nought remained but charred flesh in melted armor, crawling with maggots. Yet nowhere on that field of ashes, littered with the bodies of brave men and the burned and bloated carcasses of a hundred horses, did Lord Manfyrd find King Aegon’s dragon. Sunfyre was gone. Nor were there tracks, as surely there would have been had the dragon dragged himself away. Sunfyre the Golden had taken wing again, it seemed … but to where, no living man could say.

OK, but consider a healthy dragon, even if one smaller than Sunfyre? Two toddlers sleeping strapped to their saddle anyway, and one mother in her nervous sleep. Killing 60 attackers or burning their village is optional... All they want is notice an attack (whether with swords or pitchforks), and wake up enough to take flight. And then it´s their choice whether to flee a hundred leagues away immediately or also punish a bad surprise. Well, if there are a few attackers, killing all present may make sense - even if traces of dragon attack remain, it may be useful if it is unclear whether it was a ridden or a riderless dragon.

If, as a small landed knight like ser Eustace, you hear a tall tale of a dragon having landed in Wat´s Wood, what are you going to do? Take your three knights and rush to the spot? Summon your eight smallfolk with their pitchforks? Send a messenger to Coldmoat? Can even Lady Webber mobilize her 33 men in the few hours before Rhaena takes flight again, and what are they going to achieve against Dreamfyre ready to fly that Mooton´s hundred knights could not achieve against Sunfyre unable to fly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The First Night was abolished by Jaehaerys I, following the advice/pressure of Alysanne.

However, I'd be very surprised if this was a 'religious law/custom'. My point above was that marriage in general is a religious ritual/institution - like it was in the middle ages - and I really don't think the First Night was ever part of the Faith's concept of marriage. In fact, it is adultery, plain and simple.

This thing seems to be some sort of ancient and quite barbaric First Men thing dating back to the days of the petty kings and thralldom. Considering the power (and fun) a lord or king could enjoy with that kind of custom it is hardly surprising that it survived as long as it did.

 

Actually First Night could have been a fertility rite of the First Men since they do practice a nature religion, this could explain why Roose Bolton is confidently saying that he is not the only one who still practises it in the North. But i agree that in they eyes of the Faith it should have been an abomination equal to adultery, and it is strange they never seemed to have condemed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

Actually First Night could have been a fertility rite of the First Men since they do practice a nature religion, this could explain why Roose Bolton is confidently saying that he is not the only one who still practises it in the North. But i agree that in they eyes of the Faith it should have been an abomination equal to adultery, and it is strange they never seemed to have condemed it.

Whatever it is, it clearly means that the women living on the lands of a lord or petty king are his property. It is also rather reminiscent of the aspect of marriage where the groom essentially buys the bride from her father. It is just that the bride does not really belong to her father but to the lord/petty king, and while he agrees to part with that treasure of his he demands one (final?) fuck with the woman he agrees to let go.

It is disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Whatever it is, it clearly means that the women living on the lands of a lord or petty king are his property. It is also rather reminiscent of the aspect of marriage where the groom essentially buys the bride from her father. It is just that the bride does not really belong to her father but to the lord/petty king, and while he agrees to part with that treasure of his he demands one (final?) fuck with the woman he agrees to let go.

It is disgusting.

It is disgusting. But it doesn't mean the Lord "owns" the lass. He is only entitled to that one act. As you say, though, it is disgusting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Whatever it is, it clearly means that the women living on the lands of a lord or petty king are his property. It is also rather reminiscent of the aspect of marriage where the groom essentially buys the bride from her father. It is just that the bride does not really belong to her father but to the lord/petty king, and while he agrees to part with that treasure of his he demands one (final?) fuck with the woman he agrees to let go.

It is disgusting.

Not so much property as owing service which is not the same thing, albeit the result is the same. (and revolting)

I agree that from our modern standpoint it is disgusting (because we fortunatly know beter then to believe in something like that) , but in a lot of nature religions such acts where blessings of fertility, the village chieftain (the Lord) as the spoksesman of the gods blesses the marriage this way and it is thought in those religions that it ensures that the new couple will be blessed with many children.

personnaly i condem such practises but the do persist even in our own world today with isolated tribes in afrika and the amazon rainforest. We should be glad that these practises are slowly dying out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Not so much property as owing service which is not the same thing, albeit the result is the same. (and revolting)

I agree that from our modern standpoint it is disgusting (because we fortunatly know beter then to believe in something like that) , but in a lot of nature religions such acts where blessings of fertility, the village chieftain (the Lord) as the spoksesman of the gods blesses the marriage this way and it is thought in those religions that it ensures that the new couple will be blessed with many children.

personnaly i condem such practises but the do persist even in our own world today with isolated tribes in afrika and the amazon rainforest. We should be glad that these practises are slowly dying out.

Nobles in Meereen send their daughters off to the graces for a year-long... um, internship in the pleasure gardens...

Quote

Galazza Galare arrived at the Great Pyramid attended by a dozen White Graces, girls of noble birth who were still too young to have served their year in the temple's pleasure gardens.

Daenerys IV, Dance 23

Quote

"I could not sleep."

"Are burns a cure for that? Some warm milk and a lullaby might serve you well. Or better still, I could take you to the Temple of the Graces and find a girl for you."

"A whore, you mean."

"They call them Graces. They come in different colors. The red ones are the only ones who fuck." Gerris seated himself across the table. "The septas back home should take up the custom, if you ask me. Have you noticed that old septas always look like prunes? That's what a life of chastity will do to you."

Quentyn glanced out at the terrace, where night's shadows lay thick amongst the trees. He could hear the soft sound of falling water. "Is that rain? Your whores will be gone."

"Not all of them. There are little snuggeries in the pleasure gardens, and they wait there every night until a man chooses them. Those who are not chosen must remain until the sun comes up, feeling lonely and neglected. We could console them."

"They could console me, is what you mean."

"That too."

"That is not the sort of consolation I require."

"I disagree. Daenerys Targaryen is not the only woman in the world. Do you want to die a man-maid?"

Quentyn did not want to die at all. I want to go back to Yronwood and kiss both of your sisters, marry Gwyneth Yronwood, watch her flower into beauty, have a child by her. I want to ride in tourneys, hawk and hunt, visit with my mother in Norvos, read some of those books my father sends me. I want Cletus and Will and Maester Kedry to be alive again. "Do you think Daenerys would be pleased to hear that I had bedded some whore?"

"She might be. Men may be fond of maidens, but women like a man who knows what he's about in the bedchamber. It's another sort of sword-play. Takes training to be good at it."

The Dragontamer, Dance 68

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

It is disgusting. But it doesn't mean the Lord "owns" the lass. He is only entitled to that one act. As you say, though, it is disgusting. 

Sure, that's how things stood during the Conquest. But ask yourself how a society where a thing like the First Night was actually widely practiced actually views (common) women. If you say they considered them 'human beings' or 'equal to men' in the sense that they are 'people', too, allowed to make their own choices in life, etc. then you would be wrong.

And we can really only guess at the status women had back in the days when this custom of the First Night developed. In the form as we know it it was highly ritualized and connected to the marriage of a subject or levy, yet back in the glorious days of the Hundred Kingdoms things may have been much more 'down to earth' - meaning that a lord or petty king could pretty much have any woman he wanted to.

And it is not that kings and lords don't really have this power during the series. They get what they want.

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

I agree that from our modern standpoint it is disgusting (because we fortunatly know beter then to believe in something like that) , but in a lot of nature religions such acts where blessings of fertility, the village chieftain (the Lord) as the spoksesman of the gods blesses the marriage this way and it is thought in those religions that it ensures that the new couple will be blessed with many children.

I don't think the First Night originates with something like that. We have that kind of thing with the duties of the Prince of Pentos who has to ritually deflower two maids who fulfill certain religious functions/roles.

Very ancient First Men culture seems to have been somewhat more egalitarian if the wildlings and Bran's vision of the woman (a priestess?) with the bronze sickle are any indication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, that's how things stood during the Conquest. But ask yourself how a society where a thing like the First Night was actually widely practiced actually views (common) women. If you say they considered them 'human beings' or 'equal to men' in the sense that they are 'people', too, allowed to make their own choices in life, etc. then you would be wrong.

And we can really only guess at the status women had back in the days when this custom of the First Night developed. In the form as we know it it was highly ritualized and connected to the marriage of a subject or levy, yet back in the glorious days of the Hundred Kingdoms things may have been much more 'down to earth' - meaning that a lord or petty king could pretty much have any woman he wanted to.

And it is not that kings and lords don't really have this power during the series. They get what they want.

Although the political structure of the Seven Kingdoms most closely resembles an absolute monarchy, the power of lords and kings does not appear to be absolute. We see examples of rebellion left and right. And imagine the following scenario... A man at arms from a village in the territory of a lessor lord is raised to knighthood, and earns a position in the household guard of that lessor lord's liege. Then, let's say that knight's sister is raped by the lessor lord. Wouldn't the knight be able to seek some redress from the liege lord? And wasn't Robert's Rebellion motivated by the injustices of King Aerys II? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Although the political structure of the Seven Kingdoms most closely resembles an absolute monarchy, the power of lords and kings does not appear to be absolute. We see examples of rebellion left and right. And imagine the following scenario... A man at arms from a village in the territory of a lessor lord is raised to knighthood, and earns a position in the household guard of that lessor lord's liege. Then, let's say that knight's sister is raped by the lessor lord. Wouldn't the knight be able to seek some redress from the liege lord? And wasn't Robert's Rebellion motivated by the injustices of King Aerys II? 

Sure, and we see how popular Gargon the Guest was with his people because he really, really liked this First Night thing.

However, TSotD has this paragraph where Gyldayn talks about the people who dreamed about breaking the chains of the Dragon. There are strong hints there that things were much more savage back in the good old days of the Seven Kingdoms - and presumably even more so during the days of the Hundred Kingdoms.

A lord would be stupid to antagonize the men who who are the foundation of his power. But back in the good old days those would essentially have been just a core group of people - his sworn swords, the garrison of his castle, perhaps a few other men. They were the steel and clubs who kept the commoners in line.

If a lord insisted to humiliate/antagonize one (or too many) of these men he does this at his own risk. But fucking all the beautiful daughters of your peasants, craftsmen, servants, etc. should be perfectly fine. It also very effectively reinforces the gap in rank between common men and the nobility.

By the way - the status of bastards in this society also seems to indicate that the First Night had no foundation in religion. Bastards are essentially villified and demonized in this culture. It wouldn't make a lot of sense if the First Night - which must have led to the conception of a lot of bastards throughout the history of the Seven Kingdoms - was a custom that was supported by doctrines of the Faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Whatever it is, it clearly means that the women living on the lands of a lord or petty king are his property. It is also rather reminiscent of the aspect of marriage where the groom essentially buys the bride from her father. It is just that the bride does not really belong to her father but to the lord/petty king, and while he agrees to part with that treasure of his he demands one (final?) fuck with the woman he agrees to let go.

Are we ever clearly told which lord gets the right of first night?

If a nobleman marries a commoner, which could never be really rare, like Podrick´s parents, is First Night owed or not?

About bastardy: consider the heavy curse on a kinslayer, and the fate of Bael´s son. He was a bastard who honestly had no idea that Bael was his father, yet the curse operated by the fact of kinship.

And now just imagine having a truculent vassal... who being the heir and eldest son of his "father" is possibly your bastard son from First Night. The risk of kinslaying is increased by uncertainty of paternity - your eldest son and heir loses a certain father, but gains a possible one, and one whose kinship may matter a lot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Are we ever clearly told which lord gets the right of first night?

If a nobleman marries a commoner, which could never be really rare, like Podrick´s parents, is First Night owed or not?

Somebody upthread noted the example of Aerys's comments at Tywin's wedding, suggesting that the right of first night applied to any level of nobility, but as the discussion above suggests, a liege lord might be extremely unwise to take advantage of the men with the muscle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Somebody upthread noted the example of Aerys's comments at Tywin's wedding, suggesting that the right of first night applied to any level of nobility, but as the discussion above suggests, a liege lord might be extremely unwise to take advantage of the men with the muscle. 

Or not:

Quote

Though it had always been their custom to wed brother to sister and cousin to cousin, young blood runs hot, and it was not unknown for men of the House to seek their pleasures amongst the daughters (and even the wives) of their subjects, the smallfolk who lived in the villages below the Dragonmont, tillers of the land and fishers of the sea. Indeed, until the reign of King Jaehaerys and Good Queen Alysanne, the ancient law of the first night had prevailed on Dragonstone, as it did throughout Westeros, whereby it was the right of a lord to bed any maiden in his domain upon her wedding night.

Though this custom was greatly resented elsewhere in the Seven Kingdoms, by men of a jealous temperament who did not grasp the honor being conferred upon them, such feelings were muted upon Dragonstone, where Targaryens were rightly regarded as being closer to gods than the common run of men. Here, brides thus blessed upon their wedding nights were envied, and the children born of such unions were esteemed above all others, for the Lords of Dragonstone oft celebrated the birth of such with lavish gifts of gold and silk and land to the mother. These happy bastards were said to have been “born of dragonseed,” and in time became known simply as “seeds.” Even after the end of the right of the first night, certain Targaryens continued to dally with the daughters of innkeeps and the wives of fishermen, so seeds and the sons of seeds were plentiful on Dragonstone.

Here, it is listed as retail gifts, in the name of the mother.

If a rich enough landowner, like a Targaryen or, say, a Tytos Lannister, has enough land being disposable that he can make a gift equivalent of becoming a landed knight to another man´s wife, what does her title become? Not Ser, not Master, so Mistress of N? And since the gift is in her name, the cuckolded husband does not become a knight. (The shrew Mariya Darry did not become Lady of Darry, but if she had, this would not have made Merrett a knight).

Right of first night might possibly work if the lords are willing to pay through nose for it, in terms of gifts and favours. Or creating a long term family bond like that of fostering/wardship. In that case, fathers might pimp their daughters to lords, and even grooms their own brides. And the custom of First Night provides certain limits to what is being sold. The lord gets one night, the groom the whole rest of honeymoon and the rest of married life. Depending on custom, the social obligations might still apply even if the lord can easily count that it was eleven months wedding to the birth of first child, or extend to subsequent children who are certainly not lord´s.

 

That would be a kind of custom which could easily break down some time due to skimping and recriminations. Or break down in most places and stay extant in a few places blessed with a string of generous and honest lords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The excerpt posted above about the "happy bastards" might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read from Martin. It's at least up there with the Frey's version of what happened at the Red Wedding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2017 at 11:21 AM, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Text

Re the Vale: I think it would work best if Maegor visited the place, there was a civil war there between pro-Maegor and pro-Faith lords, or the Warrior's Sons attempted an attack by ship on KL, resulting in an epic defeat at sea.

Re the Dornish Poor Fellows: I second Lord Varys's idea.

Re Balerion: Even if Dreamfyre or Vermithor were fast-growing the problem remains Maegor rides the f****** Black Dread and Alyssa by that point was down to her last son. It just doesn't make any sense that any of them would risk a direct confrontation with Maegor or that Lord Robar could convince the Stormlords that such a scheme had a decent chance of succeeding. Maegor not being broken and depressed the way he is described to be in TWOIAF only further compounds this issue. Now, if Alyssa claimed Vhagar after Visenya's death, then you might be on to something...

Anyway, here are two more things I'd like to note:

1. Is it just me or does GRRM seem to have a predilection for keeping the Stormlands out of conflicts until the very last minute (Faith Militant Uprising + Dance of the Dragons)?

2. In AFFC it is said that the Faith Militant included "dragonslayers" amongst its ranks but that doesn't show up at all in TSOTD. Now, that tidbit could just be made-up but shouldn't we at least hear about a bunch of assassination attempts not just on Maegor but also the dragons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RumHam said:

The excerpt posted above about the "happy bastards" might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read from Martin. It's at least up there with the Frey's version of what happened at the Red Wedding. 

That or Gyldayn has a serious hard-on for the blood of the dragon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RumHam said:

The excerpt posted above about the "happy bastards" might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read from Martin. It's at least up there with the Frey's version of what happened at the Red Wedding. 

 

5 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

That or Gyldayn has a serious hard-on for the blood of the dragon.

Yes I was thinking along the lines of The Grey Wolf. I doubt that is something Martin would actually think plausible or in anyway right (I certainly hope he doesn't anyway). I assumed it was the bias of the author showing through. We know people in Westeros view the Targaryen's above the laws of mere men and Gyldayn seems a pretty big Targ supporter so I always assumed it was just his way of saying "these beings are more than mere men, of course it is a blessing that they want your daughter!" when the actual truth is that this is gross and the practice was hated just as much on Dragonstone as it was elsewhere. Though people may have been less vocal because of the massive dragons that could swoop down and torch their farm if they were too vocal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

That or Gyldayn has a serious hard-on for the blood of the dragon.

 

5 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

 

Yes I was thinking along the lines of The Grey Wolf. I doubt that is something Martin would actually think plausible or in anyway right (I certainly hope he doesn't anyway). I assumed it was the bias of the author showing through. We know people in Westeros view the Targaryen's above the laws of mere men and Gyldayn seems a pretty big Targ supporter so I always assumed it was just his way of saying "these beings are more than mere men, of course it is a blessing that they want your daughter!" when the actual truth is that this is gross and the practice was hated just as much on Dragonstone as it was elsewhere. Though people may have been less vocal because of the massive dragons that could swoop down and torch their farm if they were too vocal

Oh yeah, I agree. I wasn't criticizing Martin just saying that passage is ridiculous and I have to laugh every time I read it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...