Jump to content

lojzelote

Members
  • Content count

    2,204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About lojzelote

  • Rank
    I am but a young girl who knows nothing

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Europe

Recent Profile Visitors

5,962 profile views
  1. lojzelote

    First Men Kings in the North

    Personally, I´m not sure to what extent skichanging has to do with "special bloodlines". It may be that some peoples are more prone to produce skinchangers than others, but it may be something that is natural to all the humanoid species on Planetos, but to homo sapiens to a much lesser degree than to the Children of the Forest. Bloodraven, for one, does not specify that is has anything to do with the Starks or the Blackwoods or or the First Men in general. He includes in his statistcs all humans, it seems: Another good source is Varamyr, and he informs us that in spite of impregnating several women, he has yet not been able to sire a single skinchanger child, albeit he´s a very strong and skilled skinchanger himself and the children in question seem to have inherired his other traits: It seems strange, because the skinchangers we know have connection to the First Men to a stronger or lesser degree, but it is also truth that pretty much everybody in Westeros is descended from the First Men in some fashion, so it may not be the important criterion, and it´s not like if there is a great many skinchangers between the wildlings. There are a lot of them in comparison to other peoples, but I think that the 1:1000 ratio holds up comfortably. It may be that they seem exceptional only because they have been able to built a sort of a community. Anyway, neither Ned or Catelyn show any suspicious closeness to animals in their POV, and all of their five children are skinchangers (and one is a greenseer), and so is Jon. Lyanna was suppposed to be "half a horse" in regards to her being a good rider, but I think it is merely another clue for her as the knight of the Laughing Tree rather than for skinchanging running in the family. Especially as it is added in the same breath that Domeric Bolton was an even better rider than her. Crackpot time: mentally time-travelling greenseer Bran is the only original skinchanger in his family, but he travelled through time and via magical shenanigans stole the inborn magic of Varamyr´s children and gave it to his siblings. As for the Dustins and co, I think there is a chance that certain kinds of magic can be learned or mastered in certain circumstances, although the performing person is not otherwise in possession of magical gifts. People like the pyromancers, Thoros, Qyburn, maegis... were they born with a talent for magic or were they taught it? It is one of the reasons why I am enthusiatic about Melisandre´s POV, because she may actually shed some light on how red temples select their priests and priestesses. If just any child will do or if they have to search for the few that had been born with magical talents ala the Force-sensitive from the Star Wars universe. Its seems clear that something of that kind is going on with skinchanging, but is it true of all the magic? Getting access to lore may enough to become a maegi or a pyromancer and it may be even enough for whatever stuff the Hightowers or the Barrow Kings practise(d). Alternatively, it may some kind of combination: anyone can lears bits of magic, but only those with a strong magical potential can become truly powerful through it. Should we put trust into the ancient accounts in TWoIaF, that could explain how the ancient Starks managed to beat the Barrow Kings despite of all those curses etc: there was a magically weak(er) heir that was not able to preserve the curse or some piece of the important knowledge was not passed down due to an early death in the family or something of that kind. It may also happen that as the magic grows ever stronger, more and more people will discover their latent magical gifts such as skinchanging or clairvoyance that they had been able to supress or not to notice at all until now.
  2. lojzelote

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    I've always thought that they mean by that bastards mature faster psychically. Not that it makes it any less BS. If bastards mature faster, then it's because society treats them with disdain since birth, not because they are inherently quicker to learn. Pretty disgusting, particularly coming from an alleged champion of reason. Apparently this fourteen-year-old should bear the same burden as adults, because bastards grow faster. Let's not even get into the fact the fruit of the hard sacrifice of these adults includes becoming the in-laws of the royals, leading a comfortable life, and great prestige. What the fourteen-year-old will get out of his hard sacrifice is "life of honor" in the prison colony in Siberia without a possibility leave. The adults made their decision themselves after a careful consideration, the fourteen-year-old brought his intention up when he was drunk and afterwards his father made the decision of how spends the rest of his life for him based on third-hand information he had had no idea of until then. I'd puke. Westeros is a truly disgusting society.
  3. lojzelote

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    Do you also believe that Jon adopted from Ygritte the belief that kidnapping and raping a woman is okay and that it's the fault of the woman in question because she's not capable of defending herself? Or that the entire feudal system of the Seven Kingdoms is some "kneeler" nonsense and only pure strength matters? Stealing the fruit of the hard work of the defenceless is okay for him now too, I assume? And he agrees with Val that "unclean" little girls like Shireen ought to be killed? That's all the sort of stuff wildlings believe and Jon was exposed to it. If he's supposed to believe any of that any in future, he certainly does not believe it now. Anyway, your argument that the mariagge customs of the Westerosi are driven by some rational breeding programme lacks basis in text. We never see anyone reject a marriage between cousins on the pretext that they are already related. Anyway, GRRM has been pretty clear about what the Westerosi believe: Say what you will of Ramsay, he's not to blame for his own conception. It's his own choices that make him evil, not the inherent quality of his blood. And then we get stuff like this: Here we see what the Westerosi believe that "harms" blood. Bastards' blood supposedly aquires a malevolent quality due to the unauthorized manner of their conception. Marrying commoners erodes the quality of the "superior" noble blood, and therefore it is undesirable. Am I truly supposezed to believe that these people take some kind of rational, empirically supported stance to inbreeding? If they say things like this then it is driven by superstition, not by empirical evidence. It reminds me eerily of the following: If they really cared about empirical evidence, they would have been aware that bastards aren't any worse than other children, marrying commoners does not corrode worthiness of one's bloodline, and with it their entire ideology based on the superioty of royalty and nobility would have gone to hell ages ago. They would have also noticed that children born with birth defects are not evil and not a proof of their parents' bad nature. It is very hard for me to believe that the Westerosi incest taboo is based on science. They talk of quality of blood all the time, but it doesn't mean they understand alleles or homozygozyty or any of that stuff. For them having sexual relations with a parent or a sibling is a monstrous sin, because gods said so. OTOH gods said nothing of marrying one's cousins, therefore it's okay. Since they don't actually understand the mechanism of why marriage between close relatives may lead to bad ends, they can't understand why successive cousin marriage may be harmful either. Overall, GRRM has spoonfed us about what the Westerosi consider bad in all other cases, so I don't see why he would be hesitant to make it crystal clear to us that they consider cousin marriages or a succession of them harmful taboo as well.
  4. lojzelote

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    @Lord Varys Well, I've read some speculation that D&E The Village Hero could be set in Raventree Hall with Egg meeting Betha for the first time. If it's true it's possible that the deal between the Starks and the Blackwoods have already been made and that it concerned Melantha and Donnor. Maybe the Starks are hoping that if one of them marries Bloodraven's kinswoman, they will get a bit of nepotism from him and he finally marshalls the royal army to get them rid off of the Ironborn. The chance is that D&E may join the bridal party going north. Anyhow, the boring option is that Donnor tried to avenge his dying father and wound up dead himself, and Melantha and Willam inherited each other after Donnor and Lyanne Glover died. The idea of Donnor being incapable of succeeding his father is interesting tho. Anyhoo, seems like I've steered away from the topic. But discussing all these possibilities of what might have gone down, it amuses me that people are so eager to jump to the conclusion that it is all about demonstrating that avuncular marriage is an evil practice lol.
  5. lojzelote

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    @Lord Varys Well, to me Serena, Aregelle, Aranna, and their hypothetical children being dispossessed in favour of the male line offers enough turmoil. Most of all, it seems hard to imagine that an uncle would have been able to ascend to the lordship over his male line nephews, children or not. These children would have grown up in a couple of years into young men that would not have been pleased with losing their inheritance. What is a chance that the Northern houses that are feeling overlooked or slighted by the current Lord Stark or that are simply ambitious, offer their daughters in marriage to these Stark boys and support them in getting back their birthright? It would be like if Egg ascended to the throne without the Great Council, ignoring his nephew Maegor's claim. There might have been some kind of a royal decree, but the question is how that would have been supported. IMHO just the boys being young does not cut it. You can appoint a regent in such a case, in fact the Crown might have seen fit to send their own official to become some kind of Lord Protector (which the Northmen would not have welcomed, I imagine). Another issue is who was sitting on the Iron Throne at that time. I must say that exact years are foggy for me. We know that Cregan was a teen at the outbreak of the Dance and he came to be called "the Old Man in the North", so IMHO he must have died when he was at least seventy, with his oldest surviving son Jonnel succeeding him as the Lord of Winterfell. The problem is that around this time kings on the Iron Throne are changing quite rapidly with both Daeron and Baelor each going wild over his own area of interest, their uncle Viserys having his hands full of trying to manage the situation, followed by Aegon the Unworthy that simply couldn't give a fig. Somehow, I think that the Northern crisis (if there was any) might have gone relatively unnoticed as long as there wasn't an open civil war. If after the dust settled the Northmen announced to Aegon that they want Brandon Stark and his sons instead of Serena Stark and her daughters, Aegon's answer might have been in the vein of, "Well, whatever suits you, chaps." If only Serena's girls survived, then I think it is all the more likely that Viserys and Aegon would have ruled in favour of Brandon and his line as they themselves ascended to the throne discarding their three nieces/female cousins in the process. Regarding Serena's and Sansa's marriages, we don't know for sure iether way, but to me makes vastly more sense their having been married to their uncles first. Serena marrying Jon Umber first is Rhaenys, the Queen who Never Was, marrying Corlys Velaryon instead of Viserys all over again. I'd like to think that the Starks have learnt from the mistakes of the Targaryens in the previous generations, and Cregan and Rickon had not married off Serena to some guy before securing succession by getting a male heir (and spare) first. Other than that, a very hypothetical point: Serena was the daughter of Jeyne Manderly, a member of probably the wealthiest, most sophisticated family in the North. For her to be married off to an Umber from the cold shadow of the Wall seems quite like an unplesant cultural change. Imagine Sansa getting married to the Smalljon. Even Arya might not have been all that happy among Umbers, if the rumours of their secretly raping maidens on their wedding night are based on truth. The Umbers and the clans seem to be merely a step above the wildlings culture-wise. Of course, it is also possible that Serena had been much closer to her grandmother Arra Norrey than her mother Jeyne Manderly, and she was thrilled to marry Jon Umber, and after all the trouble she went through later, it became her heart's desire for her firstborn daughter to also marry an Umber and leave governance of the North to men. It is possible, but I find the other option more believable. It is also worthwhile to note that Brandon Stark's firstborn son was married to Myriame Manderly, which to me suggest that he may have tried to bring the Manderlys to his side from Serena's and her daughters'. Edit: I have just realized I forgot all about Barth Blacksword, who would have preceded Brandon. That said, it seems sort of unlikely he was Lord for long? He didn't even get around to marrying, although it may be that he didn't care for a marriage and was content to leave WF to his brother and nephews.
  6. lojzelote

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    The option that offers itself is that the boys predeceased their father. We know that the Stark family tree includes also children that died very young - such as Rickard's half-brother Brandon. After that it was down to girls, which the Northern houses might not have liked. The Umbers are prominent due to their boisterousness and skill at arms, but I don't get the impression they are powerful in the way the Karstarks or Manderly's are. My theory in regards to the double Umber marriage is that the Umbers in question were loyal followers of the new Lord Stark (much like the Greatjon adored Robb), and these marriages were a way of rewarding them as well as getting safely rid off of the dangerous female claimants. As to the Cerwyns, they seem to be the Northern version of the Stokeworths to me - the Starks have socialized with them due to the closeness of their lands, but they are not really all that important.
  7. lojzelote

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    I doubt that the Westerosi see much of a difference - they don't really make any as far as brother/sister or half-brother/half-sister marriage is concerned. And what of it being a political consolidation? 90 % of marriages between nobles is based on politicking. I doubt that a half-brother and half-sister would be allowed to marry for "political consolidation" in any case. If such unions were othewise considered abominable and unacceptable, these marriages wouldn't have taken place, because they wouldn't have helped the involved to keep them in power to begin with. Anyway, you keep repeating that cousin marriage isn't considered incestous while avuncular *is*. Where is it said exactly? It was recounted in this very thread what kind of union Westerosi define as incest; uncle/niece and nephew/aunt is not there. Unsurprisingly, they are less common, because of the usual generational age difference and because the closer the kinship the lesser the need for further maintaining the alliance. Much like in the real life history, where cousin marriage was also far more common - which doesn't negate that the uncle/niece thing was a feasible choice to make on the part of the ruling house as long as they got a dispensation by the Pope. For that matter, both "avuncular" and "avunculate" is possible.
  8. lojzelote

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    Oh, I understand very well. The point is, Jon may find out as well. Plus, there is no proof that avuncular marriage is included in their incest taboo. In fact, we have evidence that is not true. Please show me a passage where the Northmen condemn an avuncular marriage in particular. Then I will believe that those historical Starks were really weird and don't count.
  9. lojzelote

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    Guys, you should really stop with this "old gods forbid it" nonsense. The so-called 'old gods' are actually half-fossilized Children of the Forrest who don't give two fucks about how humans breed, which Jon may find out soon, since Bran is now among them and may try to talk to his siblings. For that matter, the old gods supposedly forbid sexual relations and marriage between parents and children and between siblings. Everything else is fair game. No matter how much you try to skim over it, historically Starks married uncles to nieces. That is a historical fact in this fictional universe. The only arguments against it are "it was long ago" (by ASoIaF standards, no, it really wasn't) or "these Starks were bad" for which there is zero evidence. I dare anyone to find me an actual quote from any of the books, in which the Northmen call an avuncular union an abomination. Where is it? Then I will reconsider my argument that avuncular marriage between historical Starks shows that the North is okay with it. As for GRRM "condoning incest"... do realize that these books are certain to end with a monarchy, right? People of Westeros know no other form of rule. Do you really believe that writing such ending means that GRRM "condones" hereditary rulership in our real world? Do you believe that GRRM condones that some guy (let's call him Ned Stark) sees an escaped prisoner and decides on the spot that this person that is not in any way threatening him deserves to die, and he becomes the said person's judge, jury, and executioner? @Ser Quork At one point in history, there had been at least a dozen fully grown dragons right there in Westeros. Had the Others invaded the Seven Kingdoms at that point? They had not. Is there any mention of the rumors of the Others reappearing around that time? There is not. Therefore I ask the question, if the Others were not roused by dragons breeding and growing in Westeros for generations, why would a trio of baby dragons somewhere in Essos light the proverbial fire under their asses just now?
  10. lojzelote

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    At the end of S6 D&D also said that S7 will see conflict between Jon and Sansa, because Sansa feels overlooked and dissatisfied with Jon becoming king... which ultimately instead of treason or rebellion translated into like three scenes of whinging. Also according to the behind the episodes comments, the Sansa-Arya beef this season was super serious. OMG, will Sansa kill Arya or will Arya kill her first? Tune up next episode to see what will happen. Stark blood will run! I'd be seriously willing to bet my five years' worth of pay that the great incest drama will go the same route as the above examples. But if you really still buy D&D hyperboling a faux conflict... at least you will be surprised by the development, I guess. Much like with the Lads leaks for this season, LOL.
  11. lojzelote

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    @BalerionTheCat As it happens, "the prince" is only a translation from "the dragon",... and the dragon is supposed to have three heads. We cannot take Rhaegar´s words as gospel, because Rhaegar had been wrong before. Would be ironic if Rhaegar´s attempt to get the third head ultimately led to the third head missing, because Rhaenys and Aegon had been killed in the Rebellion. OTOH maybe it could a good thing after all, since the third might have a third wheel much like Visenya, which hadn´t worked out all that well. Two’s company, three’s a crowd.
  12. lojzelote

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    I´m speaking of this phenomenon. It is supposed to come into play when family members that had been separated during childhood meet later in life. You can google it if you care.
  13. lojzelote

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    Oh really? I hate to break it to you, but the old gods are no true gods but a band of creepy Elven creatures that occasionally drink up blood from a human sacrifice. Plus Bloodraven that did incest personally. I doubt they care great deal about human marriage practises. To all these ancient Children, humans are most likely vermin that sadly infested their land and brought demise to all its original inhabitants. They won't care to send a divine punishment on some folks because they're uncle and niece or even brother and sister. They won't bother to curse their children. And surely as hell aren't able to make them suffer in afterlife (if there's any in the books; there's none in the show). Most humans and their believes are probably quite irrelevant to them.
  14. lojzelote

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    Well, this way it is actually more relatable to RL. In one of the many past threads on the topic, someone linked an article on the Genetic Sexual Attraction. It had interviews by people that unbeknownst to themselves fell in love with a close relative. Guess what, these people were repulsed at the idea of thinking romantically of their adoptive families, but they couldn't bring themselves to feel the same way about their incestous romantic partner. Also note that avuncular incest is conveniently acceptable in the ASoIaF universe. Frankly, I fail to see what the moral of the story is supposed to be according to you. Don't dare to fall in love without a DNA test? Can't say I find it a deep or useful moral lesson.
  15. lojzelote

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    Nay, it produced Jon Snow and Daenerys Targaryen, who will make another Targling together. You make it sound as if House Targaryen did not arrive at a population bottleneck ever before. No, but he's a follower of the old gods. Anyway, didn't you claim to be his #1 fan at one point? Besides, where's the fun in Jon and Dany doing only 100 % unproblematic stuff? I don't see what it has to do with anything.
×