Can a Jon Snow + Daenerys romance work in the final book? Part 2

[nastydream]

I think that the allegations of kinslaying and murder *will* be hard for Dany to live down. We know that there's nothing more she could or should have done, at the time, to save Viserys. But, to an outsider, her behaviour looks dreadful. Most people would jump to the same conclusion as Arianne. Later on, she killed her husband. We know it's because he was left as a vegetable. A third party could readily conclude that she murdered him out of ambition, after he'd murdered her brother, because she didn't want to spend the rest of her life in a tent, smelling like a horse. Then, she resorted to human sacrifice to hatch the dragons.

Any anti-Daenery propagandist in Westeros would have no difficulty in depicting her as a monster, worse than her father.

Let's just hope they won't fall for "feeding kids to dragons and bathing on virgins blood" like some essosi did :P

[WSmith84]

I think that the allegations of kinslaying and murder *will* be hard for Dany to live down. We know that there's nothing more she could or should have done, at the time, to save Viserys. But, to an outsider, her behaviour looks dreadful. Most people would jump to the same conclusion as Arianne. Later on, she killed her husband. We know it's because he was left as a vegetable. A third party could readily conclude that she murdered him out of ambition, after he'd murdered her brother, because she didn't want to spend the rest of her life in a tent, smelling like a horse. Then, she resorted to human sacrifice to hatch the dragons.

Any anti-Daenery propagandist in Westeros would have no difficulty in depicting her as a monster, worse than her father.

This. Now if Jon and Dany get the chance to sit down and Dany explains everything, then sure, Jon will likely change his mind completely. But there's no way for Jon to know about Dany's life details before that and to any outsider it might well look like Dany was making a power grab. Of course, accepting that if they sat down and discussed it leads to other questions. Assuming they meet, will Jon make his contempt for her due to her crimes (in his eyes) known so that she'll explain it? Will Daenerys feel the need to justify herself to Jon? Will they even get the chance to sit down and talk it over? Will Jon believe her? Their relationship could be so fraught with misconception and misunderstanding, at least early on.

Personally, I'm hoping that they don't end up together. Mainly because I would like to not see an incest-y dynasty on the IT at the end, even if aunt-nephew marriages aren't really considered incest in Westeros.

[PatrickStormborn]

I think that the allegations of kinslaying and murder *will* be hard for Dany to live down. We know that there's nothing more she could or should have done, at the time, to save Viserys. But, to an outsider, her behaviour looks dreadful. Most people would jump to the same conclusion as Arianne. Later on, she killed her husband. We know it's because he was left as a vegetable. A third party could readily conclude that she murdered him out of ambition, after he'd murdered her brother, because she didn't want to spend the rest of her life in a tent, smelling like a horse. Then, she resorted to human sacrifice to hatch the dragons.

Any anti-Daenery propagandist in Westeros would have no difficulty in depicting her as a monster, worse than her father.

"Her khal killed her brother to make her queen. Then she killed her khal to make herself khaleesi."

I can easily imagine that being spread in Westeros, just as Quentyn heard it in Essos. But readers know the truth, and thus we must disagree with any character who draws this conclusion about Daenerys.

[WSmith84]

"Her khal killed her brother to make her queen. Then she killed her khal to make herself khaleesi."

I can easily imagine that being spread in Westeros, just as Quentyn heard it in Essos. But readers know the truth, and thus we must disagree with any character who draws this conclusion about Daenerys.

Well, we can disagree with their interpretation of events, because we know it's false. But I won't hold it against any character who does draw that conclusion, because that is the most obvious conclusion to draw from those very basic details. Dany's husband killed her brother, then Dany killed her husband. To any outsider it looks like a power grab. I'll only judge a character if they find out the details and still believe that interpretation.

It's like with Jaime killing Aerys. Do I hold it against Ned Stark because of how he interpreted that act? No. It looked like a shameful, sneaky way of switching allegiances at the last minute. Now, we as readers know differently, but no-one else does (minus Brienne) so how can we judge them for their conclusions about Jaime considering that they don't know this incredibly vital piece of information that Jaime refuses to share?

[Ellfoy]

I think that the allegations of kinslaying and murder *will* be hard for Dany to live down. We know that there's nothing more she could or should have done, at the time, to save Viserys. But, to an outsider, her behaviour looks dreadful. Most people would jump to the same conclusion as Arianne. Later on, she killed her husband. We know it's because he was left as a vegetable. A third party could readily conclude that she murdered him out of ambition, after he'd murdered her brother, because she didn't want to spend the rest of her life in a tent, smelling like a horse. Then, she resorted to human sacrifice to hatch the dragons.

Any anti-Daenery propagandist in Westeros would have no difficulty in depicting her as a monster, worse than her father.

Well good thing that Jon is able to forge his own opinion and not one to listen to gossip and absorbs it as it was the true. Don't you think he will not hear about her slaves liberation cruisade ? Tyrion was able to get his own conclusions, why not Jon ?

[OldGimletEye]

Well good thing that Jon is able to forge his own opinion and not one to listen to gossip and absorbs it as it was the true. Don't you think he will not hear about her slaves liberation cruisade ? Tyrion was able to get his own conclusions, why not Jon ?

Actually, I think Jon is reasonable enough to hear her out. He isn't the sort to rush to judgement, unlike some other people I might mention.

[SeanF]

Well good thing that Jon is able to forge his own opinion and not one to listen to gossip and absorbs it as it was the true. Don't you think he will not hear about her slaves liberation cruisade ? Tyrion was able to get his own conclusions, why not Jon ?

I'm sure that a discerning person would realise that stories about bathing in virgins' blood, seducing men women and animals etc. are so much nonsense. Kinslaying, however, looks plausible, particularly in view of the Targaryens' record. The best lies always have some truth in them.

[King of Winters]

No it can't, Jon's got Val. End thread.

[HexMachina]

No it can't, Jon's got Val. End thread.

You think Jon's got Val. But unless you have read the future books, no. Not "end thread"

[Ghost's Shadow]

No it can't, Jon's got Val. End thread.

Remember when Jon really didn't want a bastard? Perhaps he will have Val for a while, but not any more after that (duty calls?) and then he will have that bastard after all.

[Ellfoy]

No it can't, Jon's got Val. End thread.

I think Val is Jon's Daario. Another parallel between Jon and Dany. Another challenge. Dany gave in the tentation, Jon did not (until now). The Jon/Val is all about "what could have been" IMO;

[nastydream]

No it can't, Jon's got Val. End thread.

I got no problem with that either

Val is one of my favorites.

I think Val is Jon's Daario. Another parallel between Jon and Dany. Another challenge. Dany gave in the tentation, Jon did not (until now). The Jon/Val is all about "what could have been" IMO;

Interesting paralell.Although Val isn't as shallow as Daario.

[Carey Snow]

Regarding Dany and kinslaying. There were many witnesses to Viserys' death as it happened in Vaes Dothrak during a feast. Kahl Drogo killed her brother not Dany and this happened in front of many eye witnesses. The only argument to be made against Dany is if she could have done more to stop it, but she did not order it, and in fact tried to get her brother to leave or at least sit down and act natural (this also happened in front of witnesses though not as many). There are many dothraki witnesses, Jorah, and other people who would have been at the feast as it was market time in the city. To date there have been no accusations of kinslaying against Dany in regards to her brother.

As far as Drogo's death, Dany did everything she could to save him. There are not any witnesses to her actually suffocating Drogo as they were alone in her tent. In fact, most witnesses would have seen Kahl Drogo as nothing more than a walking zombie who could die at anytime before being led into that tent. So who is going to spread the rumor that Dany did it?

So unless the Dothraki or Jorah are going to start spreading rumors about kinslaying in relation to Drogo, I really do not see any basis for the rumors to start up as there were many witnesses that Drogo killed Viserys not Dany. This whole subject of kinslaying seems like a pipe dream for Dany haters. The folks in Westeros are going to be much more concerned about the dragons than her brother's or Drogo's deaths, which had many witnesses and no witnesses respectively.

That being said, I really do not think Jon and Dany will have a romantic interest. Maybe a political marriage, but Ygritte is Jon's love and I do not think he has gotten over her. Dany has moved on from Drogo but Jon really does not seem like her type.

[Julia H.]

Speaking of foreshadowing, again why is Jon strongly advised by the woman who initiates him into the secrets of love and marriage against incest?

"A true man steals a woman from afar t' strengthen the clan. Women who bed brothers or fathers or clan kin offend the gods, and are cursed with weak and sickly children. Even monsters."

It sounds very much like a statement about the Targaryens.

"Craster wed his daughters," Jon pointed out.

...

"Craster's blood is black, and he bears a heavy curse."

We know that to Jon, Craster seemed less than human "in half a hundred ways".

The Lannister incest does not seem to be a good thing in the books either. Just look at Joffrey.

Sansa: "Joffrey is a monster."

Do we really want that for Jon and Daenerys and the realm? I'd like them to form an alliance but no romance or marriage, please.

[King of Winters]

You think Jon's got Val. But unless you have read the future books, no. Not "end thread"

Unless you've read the theories about the two, no to your no.

Remember when Jon really didn't want a bastard? Perhaps he will have Val for a while, but not any more after that (duty calls?) and then he will have that bastard after all.

Over at Heresy, we've got this theory about the Jon being the next [good] Nights King, and possibly Val being his queen on the Wall.

I think Val is Jon's Daario. Another parallel between Jon and Dany. Another challenge. Dany gave in the tentation, Jon did not (until now). The Jon/Val is all about "what could have been" IMO;

Oh no. I'm nowhere near as annoyed by Jon and Val as I am with Dany and Darrio. Val isn't forcing herself on Jon, or forcing him on her. There's more to Val than it seems, she's there for Jon for a reason other then giving him temptation.

I got no problem with that either

Val is one of my favorites

Yay! :)

[Arya Targaryen]

The Lannister incest does not seem to be a good thing in the books either. Just look at Joffrey.

But you can look at Tommen or Mycella, they are perfectly normal.

The main problem with incest is that the chance of having two sets of lethal/harmful alleles of the same gene is very high, as the child has a chance to inherit it from both parents (as they both can have it, since they are related). The closer related the parents are, the higher is the chance the child might get a bad gene (which makes him sick/crazy/whatever). In case of sibling-parents, the chance the child gets the same bad gene from both parents is 6,25%. It is pretty high, if you only have a couple of children and not thousands (as some animals do - and in their case, incest is not forbidden, since there will be plenty healthy offsprings as well)

If you live your life in a limited area (or a limited social class!), the gene pool will become limited as well, no outside alleles come by, and even cousin - or second cousin - or clan-mate marriages would be considered unhealthy. That's the wildlings. But that's also the highborn part of Westeros - and they definitly don't have the "legal" chance to marry outside of their class. A legitimized lowborn bastard would definitely improve the gene-pool, or a bride from Essos - but there is only that many possible brides in Westeros when a highborn man wants to marry. And that is the reason why cousin marriage is allowed - practically everybody is related to everybody. First cousins share 6,25% of their genes, and the chance that they both give the same bad gene to an offspring is 1/4, that makes it about 1,5%.

IIRC third cousins share about the same amount of genes as two random person IRL, so genetically there is no difference between marrying a 3rd cousin or a random person. (or maybe it was 4th cousin?)

And obviously, there is a chance of a "good" gene instead of a bad one - to get that "good" trait it definitely helps if your parents are closely related. Inbreeding is the usual process if you want to keep a new "good" characteristic.

Ygritte was right, within her culture, with only a few people in each village, it is normal to pick a bride from a different village. That doesn't mean Jon will suddenly think everything she sad was the absolute truth. South of the Wall, no incest means no brother/sister and no parent/child. Uncle/niece or cousin/cousin are perfectly OK, and are not considered incest, or frown upon.

[SeanF]

Regarding Dany and kinslaying. There were many witnesses to Viserys' death as it happened in Vaes Dothrak during a feast. Kahl Drogo killed her brother not Dany and this happened in front of many eye witnesses. The only argument to be made against Dany is if she could have done more to stop it, but she did not order it, and in fact tried to get her brother to leave or at least sit down and act natural (this also happened in front of witnesses though not as many). There are many dothraki witnesses, Jorah, and other people who would have been at the feast as it was market time in the city. To date there have been no accusations of kinslaying against Dany in regards to her brother.

As far as Drogo's death, Dany did everything she could to save him. There are not any witnesses to her actually suffocating Drogo as they were alone in her tent. In fact, most witnesses would have seen Kahl

Drogo as nothing more than a walking zombie who could die at anytime before being led into that tent. So who is going to spread the rumor that Dany did it?

So unless the Dothraki or Jorah are going to start spreading rumors about kinslaying in relation to Drogo, I really do not see any basis for the rumors to start up as there were many witnesses that Drogo killed Viserys not Dany. This whole subject of kinslaying seems like a pipe dream for Dany haters. The folks in Westeros are going to be much more concerned about the dragons than her brother's or Drogo's deaths, which had many witnesses and no witnesses respectively.

That being said, I really do not think Jon and Dany will have a romantic interest. Maybe a political marriage, but Ygritte is Jon's love and I do not think he has gotten over her. Dany has moved on from Drogo but Jon really does not seem like her type.

Patrick quoted upthread, from Quentyn's chapter, that the story of Dany egging on Drogo to kill her brother, before murdering Drogo, is widely told. You can be sure that's how Jhaqo, Pono, Mago, and their friends, tell the story.

[Julia H.]

But you can look at Tommen or Mycella, they are perfectly normal.

The main problem with incest is that the chance of having two sets of lethal/harmful alleles of the same gene is very high, as the child has a chance to inherit it from both parents (as they both can have it, since they are related). The closer related the parents are, the higher is the chance the child might get a bad gene (which makes him sick/crazy/whatever). In case of sibling-parents, the chance the child gets the same bad gene from both parents is 6,25%. It is pretty high, if you only have a couple of children and not thousands (as some animals do - and in their case, incest is not forbidden, since there will be plenty healthy offsprings as well)

If you live your life in a limited area (or a limited social class!), the gene pool will become limited as well, no outside alleles come by, and even cousin - or second cousin - or clan-mate marriages would be considered unhealthy. That's the wildlings. But that's also the highborn part of Westeros - and they definitly don't have the "legal" chance to marry outside of their class. A legitimized lowborn bastard would definitely improve the gene-pool, or a bride from Essos - but there is only that many possible brides in Westeros when a highborn man wants to marry. And that is the reason why cousin marriage is allowed - practically everybody is related to everybody. First cousins share 6,25% of their genes, and the chance that they both give the same bad gene to an offspring is 1/4, that makes it about 1,5%.

IIRC third cousins share about the same amount of genes as two random person IRL, so genetically there is no difference between marrying a 3rd cousin or a random person. (or maybe it was 4th cousin?)

And obviously, there is a chance of a "good" gene instead of a bad one - to get that "good" trait it definitely helps if your parents are closely related. Inbreeding is the usual process if you want to keep a new "good" characteristic.

Ygritte was right, within her culture, with only a few people in each village, it is normal to pick a bride from a different village. That doesn't mean Jon will suddenly think everything she sad was the absolute truth. South of the Wall, no incest means no brother/sister and no parent/child. Uncle/niece or cousin/cousin are perfectly OK, and are not considered incest, or frown upon.

Myrcella and Tommen are not monsters, I agree, but the risk is high anyway. One "monster" in a family is one too many, and we should remember that both Jon and Dany are descendants of Mad King Aerys. Another possibility is having weak and sickly children.

I understand what the risk of incest is from a biological viewpoint. This is, however, Westeros, where certain laws are divine laws, and, according to Ygritte, this is one of them. The gods of the wildlings are the same as the gods of the North, especially the Starks, it is emphasized many times. The warning includes "clan kin", not only brothers, sisters, parents and children.

This is also a novel, and we get some clear hints plotwise: The Targaryens are the only family where incest is allowed, and the reason is to keep the bloodline pure, but the actual result is rather disappointing. Furthermore, the relationship between Cersei and Jaime has disastrous results. We even have the example of Alys Karstark running from a marriage with her uncle. I know incest is not the reason why she objects, or at least she does not use the word, but she is clearly appalled (while she would not have minded a husband from the South), and Jon prevents the uncle from marrying her and marries her off to a wildling from far away. That could also be a subtle hint regarding Jon's choices (if it ever comes to that).

Then we have Ygritte's words about exogamy. This warning is in the novel for a reason. We see how Jon's world view is shaped by Ygritte, how he remembers her when he makes an important decision. If this part somehow does not matter, if Jon can go ahead and marry his aunt and live happily ever after, then why is that quote in the novel at all? The other alternative, i.e., that Jon disregards the warning, marries Dany and they become "cursed", would be just too high a price to pay, and I really would not want it to happen.

[HexMachina]

Um, Alys is fleeing marriage because Cregan and Arnolf want to steal Karhold from her or her brother, and that's why she is married to Sigorn. Not because of him being related to her in some way. (i can't remember what relation they are). And the idea of not marrying "clan kin" in the Seven Kingdoms is nonesensical. We know there are only a limited number of families to marry into, and cousin marriages are not uncommon. I don't see why Jon should take the word of Ygritte over what he has been taught as the norm for most of his life. I mean, even his grandparents were cousins.

[Le Cygne]

I just can't see Jon getting past the incest thing.