Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lady_Qohor

  1. I know many other characters have suffered fates far worse but I always feel sorry for the captain's daughter whom Theon sleeps with in ACOK. She keeps throwing herself at him publicly in the Iron Islands and he keeps rejecting her, its almost painful to read.

    She's not pretty, she's not smart, she's probably pregnant with a bastard, who knows how her father punished her after they left the Iron Islands, Theon 'ruined' her and he can't even be bothered to remember her name.

  2. Intro - Every now and then I come across the same argument on ASOIAF forums - that royal/noble women in Westeros are marry and/or give birth at unrealistically young ages.


    This statement is then  countered by someone saying this just reflects the young marriage/pregnancy ages that were present in real life middle ages. Weirdly the example almost always given for this Margaret Beaufort who famously gave birth to Henry VII, despite contemporaries at the time registering shock that she had given birth so young.


    Because I had too much time on my hands this weekend, I decided to conduct some very rough research on Westerosi and European medieval queens to see if statistics could provide any further insight into this debate.


    Method - I didn't want to spend months researching marital and pregnancy ages across all of medieval European nobility, so I restricted myself to only looking at the women who had been named Queens of England, Scotland and France between the 11th mid century to the mid 16th century as these seem to be the settings and time period that inspire GRRM the most.


    I used that famously accurate research source Wikipedia, to determine these the ages these women were when they were first married and their first known childbirth (including known stillbirths).


    I then compared this data with the ages that Queens of Westeros were first married as well as their first known pregnancy, which I got from A Wiki of Ice and Fire. My Westerosi queens included disputed queens Daenerys, Rhaenrya and Selyse because I needed more data points (there are loads of French Queens during this period)


    Caveat  - As with anything on this forum, obviously this is not to be taken too seriously. My sample for Westeros isn't huge and this comparison is just the best I can do using wikipedia. In some cases it uses estimated ages while in others it doesn't include the real or fictional queens for whom even estimates are much harder to establish e.g. Aelinor Penrose, Myriah Martell, Ethelreda of Northumbria. For some earlier queens, its also possible that there were first childbirths that were not well recorded (e.g. in the case of stillbirth or where the child did not live long)



    When you look at average ages for first marriages & childbirth, Westeros performs fairly well next to medieval Europe with real and fictional queens marrying around the age of 15/16 and giving birth for the first time around 20/21







    Average age for first marriage

    14.9 years

    16.6 years

    15.8 years

    16 years

    Average age for first known childbirth

    19.6 years

    21.9 years

    21.3 years

    20.1 years


    However, the results for childbirth are somewhat skewed by a few late first time mothers such Visenya, Rhaenys, Adeliza of Louvain and Catherine Parr. As such I compared the % of Queens going through these life events when they were under 16.


    This showed a very different picture:







    % of first marriages made under the age of 16





    % of first known childbirths under the age of 16






     Conclusions (aka TLDR)

    • While medieval European queens do have a few very young childbirths among them (e.g. Eleanor of Castille aged 13.5 years), Westeros has a much higher proportion of queens/future queens giving birth very young (e.g. Aemma Arryn, Rhaella, Daenerys)
    • It should also be noted that in cases of real life Queens giving birth at a very young age, the child did not often survive
    • Westerosi Queens are also more likely to get married at a younger age when compared to their European counterparts (although the difference is less stark)
    • However there are still cases in medieval Europe of royal women marrying ridiculously young (e.g. Isabella of Valois, Joan of the Tower, Charlotte of Savoy) as there is in Westeros (e.g. Jaehaera Targaryen, Daenaera Velaryon)
  3. 20 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

    I doubt Sunak likes Braverman either, she is really only there as a signal to the right of the party that he’s not going to take the open borders policy of Truss as an option. 

    Im sure she will be gone as soon as things calm down a bit. Which is a good thing, she is a total moron, everything she says is a complete performance, and a bad one. She is a worthless climber.

    It looks like Sunak has basically said to to the right of the party that they can have all the culture stuff, he doesn’t care about it, just let him get on with the economic bit, the bit he’s really interested in

    The problem is that the two things are linked. More open immigration would improve the growth and has economic benefits, that's why Truss wanted it.

    Sunak presents himself as a very sound economist (and in some ways he is) but he's also against a load of stuff that would bring economic benefits (e.g. immigration, the EU, onshore wind) in order to appease the right wing culture warriors and further his own career.

  4. 31 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

    What's the point in giving us the tale if it isn't accurate though?

    I think things like Meera's story, Ned's dreams etc. are all there like puzzle pieces. Small parts that can help people figure out the big mystery. I don't think there would be a point in including them if they were all wrong. We have already been given likely red herrings such as Wylla and possibly Ashara. Having every single account be wrong or missing parts seems pointless to me. If they are all inaccurate then they might as well not be there. Nothing is added.

    I tend to think its a bit more complicated than that and that these stories have elements of both truth and misdirection, like stories that are passed on in real life.

    To be clear, I'm not saying that Meera is lying or mistaken. She probably is giving an fully accurate picture of what happened at Harrenhall but I just wanted to point out that we can't know that for certain.

  5. 4 hours ago, Tyrosh Lannister said:

    Valyrians have dragons. They are like nuclear weapons. Hundreds of nukes. Easy to conquer Ghis. What did Ghis have ? You don't really need soldiers. Just fly your dragons over the ghiscari and burnt them all.easily kill tens of thousands of people. Conquering Ghis would be a piece of cake like conquering the rhoynar. We don't know if Ghis used any magics. If they did use, what was it ? Rhoynar used water magic and failed. Ghis used strong harpy magics ? Magically enhanced scorpion bolts ? 

    Maybe the Valyrians were reluctant to damage the city and put off using dragons or only used them very sparingly. After all what is the point of being kings of the ashes when with a bit more patience you could potentially gain a great city with all its art, architecture, wealth, technology, knowledge and labour force.

    The Westerosi lords were at a disadvantage in this regard, with the exception of the Hightowers, they lived often lived apart from the bulk of their people and infrastructure, making them more vulnerable to dragon attack.

    Also the Ghiscari could have had scorpions.

  6. 35 minutes ago, mormont said:

    This is a choice example of our government's economic literacy:


    Someon does the maths a little down thread. Our first time buyer on £30K pa has indeed saved £12,700, but they'll need it, because their mortgage is £35K pa.

    Seriously who wrote this? The Treasury is full of young people who live in London and don't get paid much (at least in comparison to other government departments).

    They should know exactly how stupid this is.

    Are they trolling Kwarteng or was this written by a etonion spad from a stupidly wealthy family, who's parents pay for everything? 

  7. 3 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

    ^^^^^Well that post was deleted faster than it could be quoted.

    Just going to point out it seems uncontroversial to elevate her referance to Elizabeth the Great in light of the sheer endurance of her rein which was over twice the length of Albert the Great.

    As histories longest reining royal of the UK monarchy, the title Elizabeth the Great, doesnt seem strange at all, not sure I get the concern over it?

    I deleted it because I wasn't sure that it was in keeping with the tone of the thread and I didn't want to offend anyone who might be legitimately grieving. Apologies if that was the case to anyone who saw it.

    But...yeah, I think that calling her "the great" is somewhat an example of recency bias/losing perspective. Having a long reign wasn't an achievement; it was a combination of her father dying too young and having access to amazing healthcare.

  8. 6 hours ago, john said:

    Did feel a bit of a twinge of something like sadness, even as a lifelong republican. Mind you, I felt the same kind of thing when Scott Mills left Radio 1 a couple of weeks ago, so probably doesn’t mean much.

    I think weirdly Scott Mills leaving Radio 1 actually had an even bigger impact on me, even if that impact was still quite small. I didn't even listen to him that regularly (especially since they moved his time slot) but its weird that I feel like a radio DJ had a bigger impact on my life than the Head of State. I guess that just shows how useless the monarchy actually is.

  9. 9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

    I very much doubt she did hold us in contempt.  Andrew does, but thankfully, he will never sit the throne.

    We have no idea how she thought of us, that was the secret of her success. She barely spoke, let alone expressed opinions. As a result, people project what they want onto her. For all we know she could have been a die hard socialist, elitest facist or anything in between.

  10. 4 hours ago, Raksha 2014 said:

    I have the impression that Daemon likes Rhaenyra both as his niece and as a potential future wife (he's definitely hoping that his current wife dies) - he's both fond of her as an uncle and more and more as a man who goes for any attractive female and also as a man lured by power.  This is not as icky as it sounds because in this culture, older men marry young women/girls all the time; and Targaryens marry their close relatives, i.e. sisters, first cousins, so an uncle is not much of a stretch. 

    I mean...just because something happens all the time, does not mean its not icky.

  11. 12 hours ago, Sothoryosdragon said:

    They brought up the threat to the north in the episode and they also brought it up multiple times in the look ahead teaser. I feel like they're going to try and fix the end of game of thrones somehow and maybe redo it. Is anyone else getting the same feeling?

    I don't see how they can and for it to fit into the rest of the story, but I can't think of a reason why they would bring up this prophecy if it wasn't going to play a bigger part later on. 

    One thought I did have,  that I hope doesn't come true is that Rhaenrya spends the start of the war, stuck on Dragonstone, recovering from childbirth. That may not make for great TV, so the writers might decide to send her North to tackle a new Wight walker threat. The implication being that Rhaenrya damages her chances of getting the Throne (and maybe her sanity) in order to save the realm, drawing a parralell with Daenerys. 

    I hope that's not what happens, its lazy writing and I prefer my targaryens (and other fictional Lords) to be selfish rather than noble

  12. I wouldn't at all be surprised if Ramsay isn't killed by his dogs (probably the closest to things he loves), as in the show. Were this an ordinary story, I would predict that Theon or Jeyne would be the one to 'pull the trigger' but you never know with GRRM, and it could easily be someone like Roose or Mance.

    I'd actually kind of love it if Fat Walda kills him in defence of her baby but I think that's unlikely

  13. 31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

    I don't really care about the 'HBO universe'. This is an adaptation of a book, so it should cling to the concepts, plots, stories, names, characters, etc. from that book.

    Surely its ok to change a few minor things from the book if it results in a better viewing experience. Does a minor bit of lore really matter as much as ensuring that a significant portion of the audience feel as though they too are part of the Game of Thrones world?

    I also think we have to be careful here. It feels like some of the people criticising black Velaryons didn't quibble nearly so much that Daenerys wasn't played by a 13 year old actress, that Bran & Rickon didn't have red hair, that Jon Snow's hair was black rather than brown, that Olenna Tyrell wasn't as tiny as described in the book or that Charles Dance didn't have side burns.

  14. I assumed it was just an expression, maybe a hangover from times when more people in the south worshiped the old gods and as a result there were more mixed faith families.

    Or it could just be people being extra, like 'I take this vow so seriously that I'm swearing it before all the gods that might possible exist, even if I don't believe in them'

  15. 1 hour ago, SeanF said:

    I’d say a much bigger issue for royal/noble women in medieval Europe was the fact that their husbands frequently usurped them, rather than they were denied the right to inherit land, and the political authority that came with it.

    No one disputed in Acquitaine that Eleanor was the reigning Duchess, at at time when the Duchy was a lot more powerful than the Kingdom of France.  But, both her husbands, King Louis and Henry II tried to usurp her authority in Acquitaine.  Likewise, no one disputed that Joanna was Queen of Naples, but she had a constant battle with her husbands to defend her power.  

    I wouldn't say so. There are a lot of women who were denied the right to inherit power and land because of male preference primogeniture during the Middle Ages.

    Think about, if simple primogeniture existed half the monarchy and nobility of Europe would have been women instead of only rare examples such as Eleanor of Aquitaine and Joanna.

    Plus, if half the power in medieval Europe was held by women, its not a stretch to imagine that they might have made it so life was less restrictive for royal/noble women who didn't inherit/

  16. 14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

    What I loathe about the dialogue we got so far is this framing of the Westerosi as sexist zealots who would actually take up arms and fight to get rid of a female monarch. And that's just too much.

    Rhaenyra instead of her brother Aegon is a scandal because the son is treated kind of badly in that scenario ... but even that wasn't enough that the entire Realm rose up and unanimously crowned Aegon II. Meaning the Westerosi are not that bad as Rhaenys paints them in her lines there. If Viserys I had had only daughters, chances are very low that in 129 AC there would have been a rebellion to put Daemon or a son of Daemon's on the throne instead of Rhaenyra.

    It's not pleasant to think that there is deep rooted sexism in a world that we enjoy and often accepted by characters that we love and it's tempting to try to explain individual instances away.


    However, when you look at the picture as a whole, I think it is pretty clear that there is strong discrimination against women in Westeros (with the possible exception of Dorne)


    Examples of institutional sexism in Westeros include:

    1. Governance and Wealth
      • Male preference primogeniture - throughout the kingdom (with the exception of Dorne), older sisters are consistently and legally passed over for younger brothers. As such it is significantly more unlikely that a woman can own property or gain a position of leige lord or monarch
      • Small council - of the around 160 named members of the Small Council throughout history, only 6 have been women
    1. Academia
      • Women are forbidden from becoming Maesters
    1. Faith
      • Although women can become septas, they are not allowed to become septons which means that they can never lead worship or become High Septon
    1. Military
      • Women are forbidden from joining the Night's Watch
      • There are no known instances of women becoming knights, suggesting that they are banned from the profession
      • Of the over 100 Kingsguard members named, only 1 (Brienne) is female
    1. Domestic violence
      • Rule of thumb and Rule of Six - Men are allowed to beat their adulterous wives six times with a rod no wider than their thumb, aka domestic violence is legal
      • Marital rape - it's unclear if marital rape is legal but if this world is anything like the middle ages then it probably is. It certainly appears that powerful men can beat and rape their wives (e.g. Aerys II, Robert, Ramsey) in the full knowledge of those around them and get away with it.
  17. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

    This is a dynastic setting. Precedents are made by history, and the prospect of a king dying without a son or childless and thus the throne passing to a cadet branch is always there. It is part of the very concept of hereditary monarchy.

    Yes, okay, there being some friction between Daemon and Rhaenyra makes sense, but the real issue should come when Rhaenyra is the Heir Apparent and she has younger half-brothers. That's when tradition and custom are openly defied.

    But not when a daughter of a king without a son is favored over an unstable, unpopular brother.

    And, of course, the whole talk about a 'new order', etc. is also over-the-top and unworthy of a monarchy. Monarchies give royal women more power and access to power than other systems, meaning there wouldn't be this kind of fundamental sex/gender issue.

    Interestingly in the Anarchy (which the Dance of the Dragons is based on), the male claimant (Stephen of Blois) had a much weaker claim than Daemon. Daemon is the brother of a King and a direct descendant of Aegon the Conqueror through the male line. Meanwhile, Stephen was the nephew of the previous King and the third son of William the Conqueror's daughter (not direct male line).

    The English and Norman aristocracy were well aware of the concept of a Queen regnant, but that doesn't mean they weren't willing to go to war when the prospect of Matilda sitting on the throne actually became a reality.

  18. What are people's plans for the jubilee bank holiday weekend? I'm a bit quite annoyed as I feel like if I go out and have fun then I'm implicitly condoning an undemocratic system that I really don't support. As sad, as it is, I might just use the extra bank holidays for work stuff.

  • Create New...