First Night in "The Princess and The Queen"... disturbing?

[ChillyPolly]

This is the standard trying "to win an argument by pointing out an illogical fallacy."

It seems like you're suggesting there was no overlap in customs and practices which is extremely naive.

It seems like you're suggesting that I said "there was no overlap in customs and practices". Which is extremely dishonest.

Is there no middle ground between my actual position (that complete universality of the custom is extremely unlikely) and the complete opposite position (no overlap whatsoever)?

This doesn't make any sense. The practice was popular before their arrival. The Targaryens did nothing to spread it. They joined in. That's all.

You have declared it to be so.

However, if we set aside the indisputable fact that the word of Roaming Ronin is the word of God, then there is room for doubt as his claim that the Targs did nothing at all to spread the practice. After all, they did unite the Seven Kingdoms, and in doing so adopted and implemented the practice themselves, thereby setting a (bad) example for those under them. It is by no means inconceivable that this may have done something to "spread the practice". In any event, you have presented no proof that the practice was "popular" at any time.

> "The maesters will tell you that King Jaehaerys abolished

> the lord’s right to the first night to appease his shrewish

> queen, but where the old gods rule, old customs linger."

This says that the custom was widespread before the ban.

No it doesn't. It says Jahaerys abolished it. It says nothing about how widespread the custom was. He merely says it was an "old" custom, and associates it with the old gods, which supports my position.

It was Jaehaerys, not Alysanne. Anyway, I'm not sure what you're arguing here? We've never heard of a ban before the Targaryens arrived. It's like your banking solely on probability.

Yes, I'm banking on probability. There was no kingdom of Westeros 50 years before the ban. Is it your position that even the Rhoynar (in Dorne) universally practiced the "right of first night", merely because GRRM never explicitly says otherwise? What about Essos? Was the practice universally endorsed there too, just because GRRM never explicitly says otherwise? What about the Summer Islands? Sothyros?

Cite a source or concede.

No. Sorry.

[Ran]

There's no evidence that between the time of Aegon the Conqueror and Jaehaerys the Conciliator (who banned the practice), any Targaryen king or prince practiced the right of the First Night. And I mean, I say this with my WoIaF writer hat on. It just doesn't come up. Other Targaryens -- Daemon Targaryen, Aegon IV -- are a much lustier bunch than their predecessors, so far as what George revealed to us -- in discussions, in notes, in the texts he wrote that are as yet unpublished -- goes.

So I don't think it's reasonable to say they promoted it. They didn't do anything about it for a long time, but they didn't set a pro-First Night example as is suggested above.

[Salafi Stannis]

I was more or less on board with most of what you were saying here, until the final sentence where you claim not to see any reason for anyone to take offense or even to discuss whether or to what extent we should be disgusted by the author or merely by the narrator.

If an author goes out of his way to write offensive things, he must anticipate that people may become offended. I have nothing necessarily against the idea of the "unreliable narrator", but it does not necessarily relieve the author of all obligation to say where he really stands, preferably by the end of the story (and this was published as a stand-alone). I do not view "unreliable narrator" as a carte blanche to say any offensive thing one wishes for the entertainment of those who may get off on that sort of thing.

And if we cannot trust the narrator, who can we trust? Mushroom? I'm not sure that's any better. And if we cannot suspend disbelief at all, then why would we even read it? Suspension of disbelief is the first rule for fiction.

This isn't about suspension of disbelief, this is about public outrage and outcry over nothing. Firstly, about the author saying offensive things, this is the ASoIaF forums, fans here clearly haven't been deterred from reading the series by all the fucked up shit characters have done, but the offence is being taken because in this specific case, the narrator is apparently supposed to be reliable, to which I call BS, I mean first of all, this is a Maester, who not only lives in, but is an essential part of an extremely gender unequal society, so this is not only an unreliable narrator, but a clearly extremely biased narrator, secondly, this is the same narrator who said that Targaryens are close to gods, and that the husbands of the raped women don't understand the apparent honour being bestowed upon them, if it's reasonable to claim that GRRM is promoting guest right, then it's equally reasonable to say that GRRM is promoting these other ideas. (Which of course it's not). And I don't even know what to say about that comment about what people get off on, do you think GRRM just sat there writing saying "Let me put a little something in there for my rape fetish fans!". I have no idea why people are blaming GRRM, this is an unreliable and biased narrator, a Maester, who said something an ASoIaF Maester would be likely to say given the society in which they live.

[ChillyPolly]

There's no evidence that between the time of Aegon the Conqueror and Jaehaerys the Conciliator (who banned the practice), any Targaryen king or prince practiced the right of the First Night.

Except the text quoted at the beginning of this thread, which I believe was actually written by GRRM.

And I mean, I say this with my WoIaF writer hat on.

Well, as discussed above, there is doubt as whether the maester can be trusted. But surely that applies to your "writer's hat" maesters as well as GRRM's, if not moreso.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

There's no evidence that between the time of Aegon the Conqueror and Jaehaerys the Conciliator (who banned the practice), any Targaryen king or prince practiced the right of the First Night. And I mean, I say this with my WoIaF writer hat on. It just doesn't come up. Other Targaryens -- Daemon Targaryen, Aegon IV -- are a much lustier bunch than their predecessors, so far as what George revealed to us -- in discussions, in notes, in the texts he wrote that are as yet unpublished -- goes.

So I don't think it's reasonable to say they promoted it. They didn't do anything about it for a long time, but they didn't set a pro-First Night example as is suggested above.

:)

Thanks for clearing that up!

[Ran]

No, no contradiction. It was the law, because it had always been the law on Dragonstone, but there is no example or even hint of an example of any Targaryen king, from Aegon to Jaehaerys, taking advantage of it. So again, nothing suggestive of promotion. They didn't _change_ things, but they didn't actually take advantage of the custom after having conquered the Seven Kingdoms.

You have to realize that we didn't just spend all of our time pretending to be Yandel and Gyldayn when we talked with George about things. If we had a question about something, we asked George, and he'd give us actual details which we would then use directly or obscure as seemed most appropriate for the book.

[ChillyPolly]

No, no contradiction. It was the law, because it had always been the law on Dragonstone, but there is no example or even hint of an example of any Targaryen king, from Aegon to Jaehaerys, taking advantage of it.

So, you are saying that there is no evidence that these lavish gifts to the mother actually took place, and/or that there is no evidence that any of these dragonseeds of Dragonstone were actually descended from Targaryens within the last few generations?

You have to realize that we didn't just spend all of our time pretending to be Yandel and Gyldayn when we talked with George about things. If we had a question about something, we asked George, and he'd give us actual details which we would then use directly or obscure as seemed most appropriate for the book.

If you want to quote George, then quote George. And if you want to quote a text that he approved, quote a text that he approved.

[ChillyPolly]

So I don't think it's reasonable to say they promoted it. They didn't do anything about it for a long time, but they didn't set a pro-First Night example as is suggested above.

My claim was not specifically that they promoted it. My position was that it was probably not a universal practice before the conquest (nor afterwards, in all probability).

Your position seems to be that you don't know whether they practiced it after the conquest or not. Therefore they did not practice it because otherwise you'd know. That logic does not fly with me. Seems to me, we don't know whether they practiced it or not.

[Jaak]

This doesn't make any sense. The practice was popular before their arrival. The Targaryens did nothing to spread it. They joined in. That's all.

What they did was install House Qoherys at Harrenhal. And Gargon Qoherys earned the nickname Gargon the Guest.

But it was not directly Targaryen policy. The first two Lords Qoherys did not earn nickname the Guest. Gargon´s father and grandfather would have had the same right of first night... but only Gargon had the interest to actually use it.

Did Hoares?

Unlike the greenlanders, ironmen had the saltwives.

Harren the Red was a "bastard" of Harren the Black. Himself not an ironman, so a King of Riverlands only. Does it mean that Harren the Red´s mother was not even a saltwife?

[Suzanna Stormborn]

So, you are saying that there is no evidence that these lavish gifts to the mother actually took place, and/or that there is no evidence that any of these dragonseeds of Dragonstone were actually descended from Targaryens within the last few generations?

If you want to quote George, then quote George. And if you want to quote a text that he approved, quote a text that he approved.

I think he is saying that no 'kings' took part, but that some of the other Targs did, like Dameon.

[ChillyPolly]

This isn't about suspension of disbelief, this is about public outrage and outcry over nothing.

It is not over "nothing". Argue that it is the fictional maester we should be mad at, and not GRRM. I might even agree. It is still not over "nothing".

There was outcry over Swift's "A Modest Proposal", because some took it as a serious proposal. That was not outcry over "nothing" either.

You may read "A Modest Proposal" here:

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

[Pod The Impaler]

I don't see the issue here, the guy says "rightly regarded as being closer to gods" He says "Rightly regarded" for fricks sake! That right there should be enough indication that the it's a biased pov. Then, as if we needed any more indication, he goes on to say "This custom was widely resented... by men of a jealous temperament who did not grasp the honor being conferred upon them". It's written in the pov by a man who lives in a world were men are treated as being greatly superior to women and were the upper classes are greatly superior to the lower. So I really don't understand all of the disgust and the need for this thread.

Archmaester Gildayn ios the author, and speaking as a man who had chronicled the events from his own perspective, though.

Consider the historians like Seneca, Suetonius, and Tacitus - the fact that their portrayals certain leaders are certainly coloured by their own biases. Doubt does not so much exist that the people and events they described are real, but modern historians are more skeptical that all the things they stated were really true to life, such as the degree of Caligula's madness, or the rreal relationship between Mark Antony and Cleopatra. They were men of their times, and also serving the higher-ranked men of their times. So should we expect a fully objective account of events? No. As well, the archmaester may be reflecting existing belief systems of those ruled by Targaryen / Valyrian rulers, just as in real life, pharaohs were considered like living deities, and the Roman cult of Sol Invictus supposedly elevated emperors to a higher order of existence than common folk.

GRRM chooses some Archmaester as the vehicle to deliver the story to us. Remember we do not know the last names of most of these maesters, and for all we know the man may have been born as a Targaryen or Valaryon or even one of the bastard "dragonseeds" himself (thus considering his own conception an "honour", much as Ramsay tells people Roose was "enamored" of his mother).

I'm sure GRRM has all this in mind when he constructs these histories for us to read, with a nod to the vagaries of historiy thanks to the historians - just as he throws a clear nod to Shaekespeare and other with his use of the playwright Phario Forel, seen depicting the tale of Tyrion vs. Joffrey in a similar light to Richard III and Othello in a play desgined for the lurid entertainment of a Lannister envoy. If the real world concept of "first night" is ambiguous and controversial, would GRRM not be aware of that, and playing with that here as well? GRRM is an author known to use these concepts like author bias and unreliable narration & memory.

One can call out many of these beliefs as horridly exploitive or plainly ridiculous, but still acknowledge that in that setting there were people who actually believed in such things, and it is their perspective of events which we're are seeing.

[ChillyPolly]

I think he is saying that no 'kings' took part, but that some of the other Targs did, like Dameon.

Daemon came after the ban. I think Ran merely said that Daemon was lusty, which indeed he was.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Daemon came after the ban. I think Ran merely said that Daemon was lusty, which indeed he was.

Right, Dameon came after, but no Targaryen 'king' has ever been known to take part in a First Night. I guess Aerys was one of the first to wish it was still ok.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Here's an article in English discussing this source

http://www.fibri.de/jus/arthbes.htm

There are other sources in the article, and other kinds of evidence, in both Europe, including Spain and Portugal, from where the custom travelled to America.

It simply baffles me how you're so ready to ignore textual evidence of something that happened in our history, and as I pointed out before, still happens in many places in rural America, while I've seen you support ASOIAF theories that have no one simple drop of a hint or clue. Baffles me.

[Stannis's Lawyer]

ChillyPolly, Ran disproved your "Evil Rapist Targaryens" stance. This is not "This is what I think happened based on the books" Ran. This is "I have seen GRRM's notes and you are wrong" GRRM.

As for the existence of Jus Primae Noctis, I'm not sure about the Iberian Peninsula, but to the best of my knowledge it did not happen in Scotland, not under Edward Longshanks or any other king.

And I must say that ChillyPolly is not perhaps the best person to use "No evidence!" as an argument.

[Ran]

Aegon IV surely would have liked it to be okay, as well, but then he conducted himself terribly.

[ChillyPolly]

ChillyPolly, Ran disproved your "Evil Rapist Targaryens" stance. This is not "This is what I think happened based on the books" Ran. This is "I have seen GRRM's notes and you are wrong" GRRM.

I don't doubt that Ran has seen GRRM's notes. It just seems illogical to conclude from that that ChillyPolly is wrong, since Ran is not claiming to have seen anything in GRRM's notes that disproves ChillyPolly.

[Maia]

So, you are saying that there is no evidence that these lavish gifts to the mother actually took place, and/or that there is no evidence that any of these dragonseeds of Dragonstone were actually descended from Targaryens within the last few generations?.

Targaryens not practicing the First Night after the Conquest doesn't mean that they didn't carry on with common women by mutual consent, or as close and approximation thereof as happens in Westeros, as we saw a lot of nobility do. I mean, Edmure could have a number of bastards for all we know, and Robert had 16. Zero need for the First Night.

Aegon became estranged from Visenya in the later years, Aenys I was popular with women, his elder sons Aegon and Viserys might have sown some wild oats too. And, for that matter, so might have sons and grandsons of Jahaerys when they lived on Dragonstone.

And, of course, those bastards predating the Conquest would have procreated in their turn and their descendants may have unknowingly intermarried..

It is actually entirely possible as well, that Gyldayn took a dimmer view on nobles just screwing around, particularly if already married, than invoking "an ancient law" which in his eyes made extra-marital sex for a lord sorta kinda not really cheating?

In any case, there is no call to specifically single out Targaryens for this repulsive custom. It was a _First Men_ custom, none of the pre-Conquest regional kings chose to abolish it, so lay the blame where it is due.

[ChillyPolly]

Targaryens not practicing the First Night after the Conquest doesn't mean that they didn't carry on with common women by mutual consent, or as close and approximation thereof as happens in Westeros, as we saw a lot of nobility do. I mean, Edmure could have a number of bastards for all we know, and Robert had 16. Zero need for the First Night.

It's a very silly custom, and I don't see the "need" for it at all, regardless of whether a lord wants to behave badly. However, the text quoted at the beginning of this thread says that it was practiced on Dragonstone, at some undefined point prior to the ban.