Arya and Jon being Incest ( Jaehaerys I, Jon and Sansa/ Queen Alysanne )

[ARYa_Nym]

I don't really get why people say Arya/Jon is incest, because they feel like siblings, but Jon/Sansa is perfectly fine because Sansa called him half-brother?

They grew up together just the same. Just because they don't think of each other that much doesn't mean they don't also love each other (as siblings).

I think it's a weak argument because on a different topic it is said that Sansa was no different towards Jon than the others since all of them including Arya called him half brother. But then when a ship is argued all of a sudden it's no they had a different relationship and she saw him as her half brother.

[Liz Stark-Targaryen]

It would be on a psychological level of the Westermark Effect: people raised together in close proximity since a young age almost never develop sexual feelings or marry each other, because it has the same effect on the brain as being raised with a sibling.

I can see where "remnants" of the pairing lingered in GRRM's writing, but my reading of the text is that GRRM imprinted most of those feelings and dynamics onto Gendry as a part of his "gardening" approach. Once Arya didn't reach the Wall, and once Jon found himself set on a course toward heroic martyrdom, the relationship as a romantic one left the story.

Exactly. I'm not biologically related to the entire paternal side of my family. Gee, guess that means I'll be hooking up with my uncles and cousins! :ack:

The only people who can root for this are people for whom this doesn't apply, I think.

Yes, hooking up with someone who you grew up with as your sibling and considered your sibling all your life is incest, legal or not, and whether or not you consider cousin marriage to be incestuous - and also, it's extremely rare and unlikely to have sexual feelings for someone you grew up thinking as your sibling. Which Arya and Jon don't. Come on. Not everyone is Jaime And Cersei.

Trying to pretend it's not incest just because someone may tell you one day: "oh, her father is not actually your father, her aunt is your mother!" is ridiculous, as is expecting two siblings to suddenly decide: "I'm really adopted? We're just cousins? Let's hook up!" :rolleyes:

:agree: Personally, it'd be great if Jon never has another woman after Ygritte... she meant that much to him. That would be unexpected and I'd applaud GRRM for going that route.

[King Jon Targaryen I]

And oh dear, yet another "let's randomly compare Jon, Arya or Sansa to some long dead historical Targaryen they have nothing to do with, as proof of incoming Starkcest" thread? Even for this forum, "they both like music/swords/whatever, therefore they are both going to fuck their sibling" is too crackpot and silly.

Oh my god on every forum you seem to be hostile for some reason, its just a thought and that's it MY GOD RELAX!!!!

[King Jon Targaryen I]

I will make this point clear to people that seem to think love starts by just knowing the person more, this is not entirely true. Sometimes it happens so fast and sometimes it doesn't the obvious proof of this is Rhaegar and Lyanna. I don't think the Sansa and Jon thing will happen nor the Arya one but people have a point to bring this up. Rhaegar and Lyanna fell in love rather quickly did they? I'm not talking about prophecy rhaegar which some people think rhaegar was so OBSESSED with he couldn't think straight that to me is not Georges point to how Jon as conceived his point like in the real world was based on luck. Rhaegar accomplished the prophecy without realizing he did with Lyanna this is my interpretation to the idea of prophecy in Martins world and I still stand by that opinion.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

I wonder how people in this thread feel about Jane Austen's Emma? Knightley is16 years older than Emma and recalls holding her as a baby. She basically grew up with him as her big brother.

Emma: "Indeed I will. You have shown that you can dance, and you know that we are not really so much brother and sister as to make it at all improper."

Mr. Knightley: "Brother and sister! No indeed."

Their close relationship which is emotionally for Emma sibling-like is considered the foundation of their romantic relationship. But Emma and Knightley are aware they are not actual siblings. Something Jon and Arya have not discovered yet.

Not to say GRRM plopped down an Austen romance in ASOIAF but its an interesting parallel to his intentions, and the morality of it. Emma and Knightley is considered one of the greatest love stories in literature.

[Mal Malenkirk]

It was never the question of legalities, it is the question of how they feel for each other. At this point, I doubt there is a plausible way for GRRM to morph what either one of them feels for each other into romantic and sexual emotions.

Romantic and sexual emotions are no pre-requisite for a political marriage. Just saying.

I'm not rooting for it but I can see scenarios were such a match make sense. Ex: Daenerys is the ultimate winner, Jon supported her, was key to winning the North and is now known, at least to Dany, as Rhaegar's son. For Queen Dany, marrying Jon to a Stark (Sansa or Arya) would then be a good way to solidify her hold on the North. They don't have 'romantic feelings'? Who cares? Think Dany had those for Hizdar? Close your eyes, do your duty, then get a lover/mistress.

That qualifies as a bitter sweet ending; Starks are back in control of the North but ewww!

[Mladen]

Romantic and sexual emotions are no pre-requisite for a political marriage. Just saying.

And what is the point of political marriage between Jon and Arya? I think that some people don't understand how those work. It is about creating alliances, strengthening connections, making peaces. None of those can be used as some sort of excuse for this marriage. Starks and Jon were practically raised together, he is their cousin, they love him etc. The union via marriage for them would be meaningless.

[shadow282]

And what is the point of political marriage between Jon and Arya? I think that some people don't understand how those work. It is about creating alliances, strengthening connections, making peaces. None of those can be used as some sort of excuse for this marriage. Starks and Jon were practically raised together, he is their cousin, they love him etc. The union via marriage for them would be meaningless.

Exactly that. Is there any reasonable scenario where any remaining Stark would go "Jon, you know I love you because we were raised thinking we were siblings, and I know you were instrumental to saving the North and the whole kingdom, but now that's over you can fuck off". No.

[Mal Malenkirk]

And what is the point of political marriage between Jon and Arya?

I literally just gave you an example above where it could make sense.

It takes a certain political landscape but in a 'Dany victory / Jon supported her and is outed as a Targ' scenario it can make a lot of sense, in other scenarios, not so much. Depends entirely on the endgame.

[Newstar]

Jon/Arya were clearly going to be A Thing in the outline, there's no denying that Jon and Arya's relationship is extremely important to both of them in the current series, Arya seems to have been deaged from the original outline, and GRRM mentioned when discussing his reasons for scrapping the five year time jump that the world wouldn't wait for Arya to hit puberty. I really don't get all the pearl-clutching about how GRRM would nevah write a romantic Jon/Arya relationship, especially in this series where the ruling family--of which Jon is a member--has a tradition of incest, and where even the Starks have cousin/cousin and even uncle/niece marriages in their history. And since the rules of modern genetics don't apply to the Targs, as they're not hideously deformed and sickly after all their inbreeding, I don't know why we expect modern psychological insights into the dynamics of sibling relationships would apply either, particularly since the history of Targs is peppered with romances between sibling Targs who were raised as siblings. It's pretty silly, IMO. GRRM would go there. He announced his intention to go there in his outline. Get over it.

All that aside, Alysanne doesn't map neatly on to any of the current ASOIAF female characters. She's closest to Margaery, and she has Dany's reformist tendencies, but even then there are discrepancies.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

And what is the point of political marriage between Jon and Arya? I think that some people don't understand how those work. It is about creating alliances, strengthening connections, making peaces. None of those can be used as some sort of excuse for this marriage. Starks and Jon were practically raised together, he is their cousin, they love him etc. The union via marriage for them would be meaningless.

The Northerners still up North are fighting for 'The Ned'. That means liberating Ned's daughter from the grip of the Boltons, it means finding Ned's son on Skagos. If Jon wants the North he will have to marry into Ned's line. Don't presume it will be enough to be 'A Stark' when there are 2-3 trueborn Starks of The Ned's loins about. Rickon may be a child, but that is even better for the Lords who get to raise him. Its not going to be Rickon, Arya or Sansa making those decisions unless we get a bit of a time skip.

And of course, the Stark kids come with the Riverlands, which Jon does not.

[shadow282]

I literally just gave you an example above where it could make sense.

Not really. If Jon was on her side she'd already have full support from whatever Stark was left.

Plus, what exactly would Dany do when Jon flat out refuses to do it? Which everything about his personality says he would. Or if it's to Arya, where everything about her personality says she would?

[shadow282]

The Northerners still up North are fighting for 'The Ned'. That means liberating Ned's daughter from the grip of the Boltons, it means finding Ned's son on Skagos. If Jon wants the North he will have to marry into Ned's line. Don't presume it will be enough to be 'A Stark' when there are 2-3 trueborn Starks of The Ned's loins about. Rickon may be a child, but that is even better for the Lords who get to raise him. Its not going to be Rickon, Arya or Sansa making those decisions unless we get a bit of a time skip.

And of course, the Stark kids come with the Riverlands, which Jon does not.

Again, there's no reasonable scenario where the Starks would wage war on each other. If they're too young to be in control either: A) The regent who waged war on Jon explicitly against the young Stark's opinion wouldn't last long or B) She makes Jon the regent of whoever until they're older.

[Mladen]

I literally just gave you an example above where it could make sense.

It takes a certain political landscape but in a 'Dany victory / Jon supported her and is outed as a Targ' scenario it can make a lot of sense, in other scenarios, not so much. Depends entirely on the endgame.

No, you didn't. Why would Dany need to solidify her reign in the North when she has already half-Star/half-Targ there? I am sorry, but your scenario makes no sense.

Jon/Arya were clearly going to be A Thing in the outline, there's no denying that Jon and Arya's relationship is extremely important to both of them in the current series, Arya seems to have been deaged from the original outline, and GRRM mentioned when discussing his reasons for scrapping the five year time jump that the world wouldn't wait for Arya to hit puberty. I really don't get all the pearl-clutching about how GRRM would nevah write a romantic Jon/Arya relationship, especially in this series where the ruling family--of which Jon is a member--has a tradition of incest, and where even the Starks have cousin/cousin and even uncle/niece marriages in their history. And since the rules of modern genetics don't apply to the Targs, as they're not hideously deformed and sickly after all their inbreeding, I don't know why we expect modern psychological insights into the dynamics of sibling relationships would apply either, particularly since the history of Targs is peppered with romances between sibling Targs who were raised as siblings. It's pretty silly, IMO. GRRM would go there. He announced his intention to go there in his outline. Get over it.

All that aside, Alysanne doesn't map neatly on to any of the current ASOIAF female characters. She's closest to Margaery, and she has Dany's reformist tendencies, but even then there are discrepancies.

The sillier thing is inability to actually distinguish differences between discarded outline and well, published material.

So, I am sorry, but "get over it" should be used in terms "get over that scenario, we already have books"

The Northerners still up North are fighting for 'The Ned'. That means liberating Ned's daughter from the grip of the Boltons, it means finding Ned's son on Skagos. If Jon wants the North he will have to marry into Ned's line. Don't presume it will be enough to be 'A Stark' when there are 2-3 trueborn Starks of The Ned's loins about. Rickon may be a child, but that is even better for the Lords who get to raise him. Its not going to be Rickon, Arya or Sansa making those decisions unless we get a bit of a time skip.

And of course, the Stark kids come with the Riverlands, which Jon does not.

It is not even up to who will rule the North, but necessity of marriage. Is there a necessity for Starks to create alliance with Jon? No, why? Because they are, well, one family.

[Le Cygne]

They remember each other often, and almost always Jon calls Arya "little sister" - the author seems to want to emphasize the brother/sister relationship.

[Mladen]

They remember each other often, and almost always Jon calls Arya "little sister" - the author seems to want to emphasize the brother/sister relationship.

You know what is so hilarious? People missed the whole Sansa/Sandor thing with Sansa remembering "kiss" and "little sister" memories are supposedly filled with sexual energy...

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

Again, there's no reasonable scenario where the Starks would wage war on each other. If they're too young to be in control either: A) The regent who waged war on Jon explicitly against the young Stark's opinion wouldn't last long or B) She makes Jon the regent of whoever until they're older.

A clever, loyal regent would try to extract the most gain for his Lord while keeping the fact that their backing is assured close to their chest. Go to war for Jon for no real gain or worse be re-absorbed back into the seven kingdoms or go to war for Jon with the assurance you will get a Northern Queen and the crowns of the North and the South will be joined like Dorne. Dorne got to keep their titles remember.

[Mal Malenkirk]

1 - Not really. If Jon was on her side she'd already have full support from whatever Stark was left.

2 - Plus, what exactly would Dany do when Jon flat out refuses to do it? Which everything about his personality says he would. Or if it's to Arya, where everything about her personality says she would?

1 - You don't take alliances for granted, you secure them. In this scenario, Jon is now outed as a bastard(ish) of Rhaegar and Dany's nephew and supporter. She thus wants him as Warden of the North to secure her rule but some families are bound to grumble, no matter how heroic and half-Starkish Jon is (It's human nature). Give him a Stark bride and agree that children will carry the name Stark and it strongly reinforce his position and legitimacy in the North, which is good for Dany assuming Jon is loyal to her. That's the scenario. If they are at odds, then fuck it, it obviously makes no sense.

That's why I'm saying the match can make sense in some scenarios. We don't know the endgame yet.

2 - People change. People can do things they find distasteful for the greater good. Lyanna started a great political upheaval by refusing to put the greater good above her personal preferences. Perhaps Jon and Arya could instead foster stability and peace by going against their personal preference. Would be a nice and slightly ironic way to end the cycle of violence. Though personally I'd expect Sansa would be preferred over Arya in that scenario if still alive.

[Le Cygne]

You know what is so hilarious? People missed the whole Sansa/Sandor thing with Sansa remembering "kiss" and "little sister" memories are supposedly filled with sexual energy...

That is hilarious. A kiss means nothing romantic at all. But little sister, ah, romance.

[Mal Malenkirk]

No, you didn't. Why would Dany need to solidify her reign in the North when she has already half-Star/half-Targ there? I am sorry, but your scenario makes no sense.

Having Jon in the North solidify her rule only as long as he and his descendent are firmly in power. But Jon outed as a bastard of Rhaegar and not Ned would weaken his legitimacy a lot in the eyes of many Northerner traditionalist, no matter how heroically he carried himself in the conflict. Jon having a Stark bride solidify his rule and more importantly that of any of his children who will then be able to bear the name Stark on more solid ground. It's one thing to have allies in power, you also want them firmly in control, not fighting legitimacy issues.