Between Sansa and Daenerys, who would make the better ruling Queen?

[The Fattest Leech]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This has nothing to do with the Targaryens. Simply with my view of what should be legal or not (and not with my love for my non-existing sister - I only have brothers, and I'm pretty straight ;-)). There is really no reason why incest should be taboo or even forbidden (and punishable) by law in a society not ruled by superstition.

I was reacting to post like 'I find incest sickening'. I don't see any reason why it should even be another person's business with whom people have sex with if the whole thing is consensual. Incest can be sexual abuse (just like any other sexual act can) but it doesn't have to be.

Over here in Germany we actually had a case where a father of a bunch of children was actually thrown in jail because the mother happened to be his biological sister whom he met only later in life. This kind of thing should not be punished by law, it is just as simple as that.

Ok then. But your casual way of making it seem normal and genetically safe is not correct. 

And if this is about you being ok with incest in the real world, and not you validating the Targaryens or anything book related, then you are way off topic. 

[Lord Varys]

36 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Ok then. But your casual way of making it seem normal and genetically safe is not correct.

Well, it depends on your genes. The funny thing is that a lot unrelated/very distantly related people (we are all cousins, after all) also pass a lot of genetic disorders to their children and there are no legal regulations against this kind of thing. The idea that the state can forbid, say, you and me to have children just because we are very likely to produce sick children isn't exactly supported by many people. If there are means to find out your risk in that kind of thing we expect people to not have children but we do not enforce it or punish the people having children (after all, by extension you also punish the children of such unions, and that's actually a very sick way of handling things).

36 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

And if this is about you being ok with incest in the real world, and not you validating the Targaryens or anything book related, then you are way off topic. 

You are right there. But then, Targaryen incest basically is derived from royal houses in the real world practicing incest. We have this with Pharaohs and the Persian kings, and some Roman imperial dynasties (Emperor Claudius married his niece), and even the medieval European monarchies (there were never any sibling marriages but uncles did marry their nieces and cousin marriages were very common).

As a political tool incest marriages in ruling classes are a way to secure power and wealth and keep the common rabble out. There is a renaissance of this kind of thing in neo-feudalistic structures in our modern societies. Rich people marry each other and more or less stay in their own circles.

[The Fattest Leech]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it depends on your genes. The funny thing is that a lot unrelated/very distantly related people (we are all cousins, after all) also pass a lot of genetic disorders to their children and there are...

You are right there. But then, Targaryen incest basically is derived from royal houses in the real world practicing incest. We have this with Pharaohs and the Persian kings, and some Roman imperial dynasties (Emperor Claudius married his niece), and even the medieval European monarchies (there were never any sibling marriages but uncles did marry their nieces and cousin marriages were very common).

As a political tool incest marriages in ruling classes are a way to secure power and wealth and keep the common rabble out. There is a renaissance of this kind of thing in neo-feudalistic structures in our modern societies. Rich people marry each other and more or less stay in their own circles.

So, you were validating real world incest to prop up the Targaryens, because there is far more evidence that incest in genetically and psychologically wrong, and while it takes a few generations to get hands growing from foreheads, there are almost always other immediate health and cognitive factors that arise. And we know how incest treated the royal families of the past. http://satyavijayi.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Rey_Carlos_II.jpg

[Jon's Queen Consort]

20 hours ago, khal drogon said:

I am glad that Martin didn't write about Saint Dany.

I do know that, Dany's fans didn't seem to know that and they always make excuses. Either she is just a little girl who needs to learn more about ruling even if she seems unwilling to learn or she had good intentions. If there was any other character the same people who always make excuses about Dany would had declared that he was the worst person who ever lived. Some actions are evil and some are stupid they don't need excuses.

[El Guapo]

17 hours ago, khal drogon said:

I am glad that Martin didn't write about Saint Dany.

Indeed. This is what the Dany haters will never understand. We love the fact that she is a gray character. It is what makes her so compelling.

[MoIaF]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it depends on your genes. The funny thing is that a lot unrelated/very distantly related people (we are all cousins, after all) also pass a lot of genetic disorders to their children and there are no legal regulations against this kind of thing. The idea that the state can forbid, say, you and me to have children just because we are very likely to produce sick children isn't exactly supported by many people. If there are means to find out your risk in that kind of thing we expect people to not have children but we do not enforce it or punish the people having children (after all, by extension you also punish the children of such unions, and that's actually a very sick way of handling things).

You are right there. But then, Targaryen incest basically is derived from royal houses in the real world practicing incest. We have this with Pharaohs and the Persian kings, and some Roman imperial dynasties (Emperor Claudius married his niece), and even the medieval European monarchies (there were never any sibling marriages but uncles did marry their nieces and cousin marriages were very common).

As a political tool incest marriages in ruling classes are a way to secure power and wealth and keep the common rabble out. There is a renaissance of this kind of thing in neo-feudalistic structures in our modern societies. Rich people marry each other and more or less stay in their own circles.

 

4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

So, you were validating real world incest to prop up the Targaryens, because there is far more evidence that incest in genetically and psychologically wrong, and while it takes a few generations to get hands growing from foreheads, there are almost always other immediate health and cognitive factors that arise. And we know how incest treated the royal families of the past. http://satyavijayi.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Rey_Carlos_II.jpg

Whether you agree with it or not, the genetic risks from incest are completely overrated. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-of-1st-cousins.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share 

 

[The Fattest Leech]

58 minutes ago, MoIaF said:

 

Whether you agree with it or not, the genetic risks from incest are completely overrated. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-of-1st-cousins.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share 

 

Incest is wincest, I guess???

Funny how in that same article it says cousins are all clear, sometimes, but then says things like this, "These are among the conditions that may be slightly more likely to occur in children whose parents are cousins.", and even that some internal problems are fifty percent higher. So, knowing this, it's ok to submit your future children to long term health problems? And how other studies tell of our built-in psychological awareness that close incest is not good for our gene pool. Humans knew of the dangers and results decades before the modern day studies started. Hell, that is what started the formal studies- the negative side effects. And how even mice avoid incest unless under severely isolated, dire circumstances, such as being locked up long term with just one sibling where then survival of the species kicks in. And then, if another male mouse in introduced, a female can still spontaneously abort and start again with the new male. Come on... your telling me that "basic" animals like mice and monkeys know better then humans do??? You don't say.

I've seen these incest conversations go round and round and it always ends up in a divided conversation that includes Tagr fans being ok with it in real life because it helps validate things in the book. I have no desire to continue this because there is nothing in this world or the next that anyone can say that will convince me it is ok to get it on with a genetic or adopted family member. And clearly I am not alone.

Besides, for the sake of the books, I am going with that George has told us:

The Targs did it because they saw them selves above the rules and laws and gods, etc, because of blood purity, blood of the dragon thing. Even back in Valyria it was really mostly/only practiced by the highest ruling houses.

Here are just a few quotes from various books in the series:

• The tradition amongst the Targaryens had always been to marry kin to kin. Wedding brother to sister was thought to be ideal. Failing that, a girl might wed an uncle, a cousin, or a nephew; a boy, a cousin, aunt, or niece. This practice went back to Old Valyria, where it was common amongst many of the ancient families, particularly those who bred and rode dragons. "The blood of the dragon must remain pure," the wisdom went. Some of the sorcerer princes also took more than one wife when it pleased them, though this was less common than incestuous marriage. In Valryia before the Doom, wise men wrote, a thousand gods were honored, but none were feared, so few dared to speak against these customs.
  This was not true in Westeros, where the power of the Faith went unquestioned. Incest was denounced as vile sin, whether between father and daughter, mother and son, or brother and sister, and the fruits of such unions were considered abominations in the sight of gods and men. With hindsight, it can be seen that conflict between the Faith and House Targaryen was inevitable.
• Dominion over mankind then passed to his eldest son, who was known as the Pearl Emperor and ruled for a thousand years. The Jade Emperor, the Tourmaline Emperor, the Onyx Emperor, the Topaz Emperor, and the Opal Emperor followed in turn, each reigning for centuries...yet every reign was shorter and more troubled than the one preceding it, for wild men and baleful beasts pressed at the borders of the Great Empire, lesser kings grew prideful and rebellious, and the common people gave themselves over to avarice, envy, lust, murder, incest, gluttony, and sloth.
• the boy Joffrey, the boy Tommen, and the girl Myrcella being abominations born of incest between Cersei Lannister and her brother Jaime the Kingslayer.
• Bastards were common enough, but incest was a monstrous sin to both old gods and new, and the children of such wickedness were named abominations in sept and godswood alike. The dragon kings had wed brother to sister, but they were the blood of old Valyria where such practices had been common, and like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men.
• "Joffrey the Illborn," one of the Cerwyn knights growled. "Small wonder he's faithless, with the Kingslayer for a father."

  "Aye," said another, "the gods hate incest. Look how they brought down the Targaryens."

[Suzanna Stormborn]

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Incest is wincest, I guess???

Funny how in that same article it says cousins are all clear, sometimes, but then says things like this, "These are among the conditions that may be slightly more likely to occur in children whose parents are cousins.", and even that some internal problems are fifty percent higher. So, knowing this, it's ok to submit your future children to long term health problems? And how other studies tell of our built-in psychological awareness that close incest is not good for our gene pool. Humans knew of the dangers and results decades before the modern day studies started. Hell, that is what started the formal studies- the negative side effects. And how even mice avoid incest unless under severely isolated, dire circumstances, such as being locked up long term with just one sibling where then survival of the species kicks in. And then, if another male mouse in introduced, a female can still spontaneously abort and start again with the new male. Come on... your telling me that "basic" animals like mice and monkeys know better then humans do??? You don't say.

I've seen these incest conversations go round and round and it always ends up in a divided conversation that includes Tagr fans being ok with it in real life because it helps validate things in the book. I have no desire to continue this because there is nothing in this world or the next that anyone can say that will convince me it is ok to get it on with a genetic or adopted family member. And clearly I am not alone.

I'm a huge Targ fan, but not a fan of cousins or siblings getting it on in real life.  But it doesnt bother me in the books, just like it doesnt bother me when Morgaine and Arthur have a kid in The Mists of Avalon (and other Arthur tales).  It was a different time, different civilization, so whatever.

 

Edit: however I do believe in consenting adults, and would never presume to tell anyone what to do with their own lives. In tribes in Africa or Australia or New Guinea it happens constantly, who am I to tell them 'that's gross' or 'you shouldnt do that'.  I'm sure they would say the same about me eating GMO's or spending money at Sephora. Live and let live.

[The Fattest Leech]

Just now, Suzanna Stormborn said:

I'm a huge Targ fan, but not a fan of cousins or siblings getting it on in real life.  But it doesnt bother me in the books, just like it doesnt bother me when Morgaine and Arthur have a kid in The Mists of Avalon (and other Arthur tales).  It was a different time, different civilization, so whatever.

I can totally separate the fact from fiction thing when reading, I agree. However, George has made statements about it in the books and in interviews, which I just updated in my previous post, so for this, I am going by his in-world descriptions.

I love your signature, by the way, and I love that story/movie

[Lord Varys]

@MoIaF

Well, I didn't even realize that first cousin marriages were taboo in America. Over here that's perfectly fine. But I remember now that this is taboo is even a plot device in Godfather III.

I don't know anybody who married his first cousin but there is no reason why people can't or shouldn't if they are not so inclined. There is no law against this kind of thing here. Of course, I guess anybody who actually marries his or her cousin gets some incest jokes and the like, but it is no big deal.

And one should keep in mind that the risk of genetic disorders is completely dependent on the genes of the parents. Since we are all related to various degrees we all carry a lot of genes around that could cause trouble if they are united. But if you have a reasonably healthy pair of siblings then the risk that a child will be sick are not necessarily bigger than if you (unknowingly) have children with your second cousin thrice removed.

And just to clarify in general: Sibling incest as an expression of romantic is very uncommon simply because children who are raised together from birth seldom feel attracted to each other in a romantic way (however, there is apparently quite a percentage of siblings who actually explore their own sexuality with each other in the their adolescence). However, biological siblings who are raised apart often feel attracted to each other in a way that can lead to a romantic relationship (usually only if they don't know that they are brother and sister when they meet).

In our modern society cousins aren't necessarily raised in the same household nor even the same town/city. It is actually pretty normal that such people can feel attracted to each other, and there is no reason to feel guilty about that. Hell, and if you feel guilty about the children thing don't have children, or adopt some children.

The fact is that you don't need any taboo reinforced by law to prevent people from marrying their siblings. Pretty much nobody is inclined to do that, anyway. The point is that the tiny fraction of people who want to do that (or accidentally did it and intend to continue because, you know, they have children now they love and care for) should not be punished for it by law.

But there is no reason whatsoever to put a taboo on cousin marriages. That's just ridiculous.

[MoIaF]

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Incest is wincest, I guess???

Funny how in that same article it says cousins are all clear, sometimes, but then says things like this, "These are among the conditions that may be slightly more likely to occur in children whose parents are cousins.", and even that some internal problems are fifty percent higher. So, knowing this, it's ok to submit your future children to long term health problems? And how other studies tell of our built-in psychological awareness that close incest is not good for our gene pool. Humans knew of the dangers and results decades before the modern day studies started. Hell, that is what started the formal studies- the negative side effects. And how even mice avoid incest unless under severely isolated, dire circumstances, such as being locked up long term with just one sibling where then survival of the species kicks in. And then, if another male mouse in introduced, a female can still spontaneously abort and start again with the new male. Come on... your telling me that "basic" animals like mice and monkeys know better then humans do??? You don't say.

I've seen these incest conversations go round and round and it always ends up in a divided conversation that includes Tagr fans being ok with it in real life because it helps validate things in the book. I have no desire to continue this because there is nothing in this world or the next that anyone can say that will convince me it is ok to get it on with a genetic or adopted family member. And clearly I am not alone.

Besides, for the sake of the books, I am going with that George has told us:

The Targs did it because they saw them selves above the rules and laws and gods, etc, because of blood purity, blood of the dragon thing. Even back in Valyria it was really mostly/only practiced by the highest ruling houses.

Here are just a few quotes from various books in the series:

• The tradition amongst the Targaryens had always been to marry kin to kin. Wedding brother to sister was thought to be ideal. Failing that, a girl might wed an uncle, a cousin, or a nephew; a boy, a cousin, aunt, or niece. This practice went back to Old Valyria, where it was common amongst many of the ancient families, particularly those who bred and rode dragons. "The blood of the dragon must remain pure," the wisdom went. Some of the sorcerer princes also took more than one wife when it pleased them, though this was less common than incestuous marriage. In Valryia before the Doom, wise men wrote, a thousand gods were honored, but none were feared, so few dared to speak against these customs.
  This was not true in Westeros, where the power of the Faith went unquestioned. Incest was denounced as vile sin, whether between father and daughter, mother and son, or brother and sister, and the fruits of such unions were considered abominations in the sight of gods and men. With hindsight, it can be seen that conflict between the Faith and House Targaryen was inevitable.
• Dominion over mankind then passed to his eldest son, who was known as the Pearl Emperor and ruled for a thousand years. The Jade Emperor, the Tourmaline Emperor, the Onyx Emperor, the Topaz Emperor, and the Opal Emperor followed in turn, each reigning for centuries...yet every reign was shorter and more troubled than the one preceding it, for wild men and baleful beasts pressed at the borders of the Great Empire, lesser kings grew prideful and rebellious, and the common people gave themselves over to avarice, envy, lust, murder, incest, gluttony, and sloth.
• the boy Joffrey, the boy Tommen, and the girl Myrcella being abominations born of incest between Cersei Lannister and her brother Jaime the Kingslayer.
• Bastards were common enough, but incest was a monstrous sin to both old gods and new, and the children of such wickedness were named abominations in sept and godswood alike. The dragon kings had wed brother to sister, but they were the blood of old Valyria where such practices had been common, and like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men.
• "Joffrey the Illborn," one of the Cerwyn knights growled. "Small wonder he's faithless, with the Kingslayer for a father."

  "Aye," said another, "the gods hate incest. Look how they brought down the Targaryens."

There are plenty of people who are not related who have genetic disorders and chose to have children, even at the risk of passing those disorders on to them. Should we also judge them for doing so? And fifty percent higher of a 1.2% risk of genetic disorder is almost negligible.

Regarding the psychological ramifications, the issue arises when there is a power imbalance in the relationship which I might add also occurs in non-incestuous couples. 

Nice wall of quotes, do know why you had to add it but whatever floats your boat. One of the best relationship in ASOIAF is that of Jaehaerys and Alyanne, a marriage between a brother and sister. And before you decide to post your crack theories on them, don't bother. Your head cannon does not equal book cannon. 

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@MoIaF

Well, I didn't even realize that first cousin marriages were taboo in America. Over here that's perfectly fine. But I remember now that this is taboo is even a plot device in Godfather III.

I don't know anybody who married his first cousin but there is no reason why people can't or shouldn't if they are not so inclined. There is no law against this kind of thing here. Of course, I guess anybody who actually marries his or her cousin gets some incest jokes and the like, but it is no big deal.

And one should keep in mind that the risk of genetic disorders is completely dependent on the genes of the parents. Since we are all related to various degrees we all carry a lot of genes around that could cause trouble if they are united. But if you have a reasonably healthy pair of siblings then the risk that a child will be sick are not necessarily bigger than if you (unknowingly) have children with your second cousin thrice removed.

And just to clarify in general: Sibling incest as an expression of romantic is very uncommon simply because children who are raised together from birth seldom feel attracted to each other in a romantic way (however, there is apparently quite a percentage of siblings who actually explore their own sexuality with each other in the their adolescence). However, biological siblings who are raised apart often feel attracted to each other in a way that can lead to a romantic relationship (usually only if they don't know that they are brother and sister when they meet).

In our modern society cousins aren't necessarily raised in the same household nor even the same town/city. It is actually pretty normal that such people can feel attracted to each other, and there is no reason to feel guilty about that. Hell, and if you feel guilty about the children thing don't have children, or adopt some children.

The fact is that you don't need any taboo reinforced by law to prevent people from marrying their siblings. Pretty much nobody is inclined to do that, anyway. The point is that the tiny fraction of people who want to do that (or accidentally did it and intend to continue because, you know, they have children now they love and care for) should not be punished for it by law.

But there is no reason whatsoever to put a taboo on cousin marriages. That's just ridiculous.

Exactly. 

[The Fattest Leech]

1 hour ago, MoIaF said:

There are plenty of people who are not related who have genetic disorders and chose to have children, even at the risk of passing those disorders on to them. Should we also judge them for doing so? And fifty percent higher of a 1.2% risk of genetic disorder is almost negligible.

Regarding the psychological ramifications, the issue arises when there is a power imbalance in the relationship which I might add also occurs in non-incestuous couples. 

Nice wall of quotes, do know why you had to add it but whatever floats your boat. One of the best relationship in ASOIAF is that of Jaehaerys and Alyanne, a marriage between a brother and sister. And before you decide to post your crack theories on them, don't bother. Your head cannon does not equal book cannon. 

Exactly. 

Nope, not what I meant, but whatever.

Thank you, but as I mentioned above, I am done with this topic and it is clear which side you and a few others are on anyway. And thanks for the "head canon" insults. I have been nothing but nice and you start with this??? Feel free to roll in the mud yourself because I am not joining you.

[Clegane'sPup]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I didn't even realize that first cousin marriages were taboo in America. Over here that's perfectly fine

As an opened minded individual in your culture it is okay to marry your fathers sisters offspring?

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

As an opened minded individual in your culture it is okay to marry your fathers sisters offspring?

Sure, why not? And no, I'm not coming from some backwater island in New Guinea or Africa, I'm German.

And the point is not that we all encourage our children to marry our gorgeous cousins. It is just that you can do that if you want to. There is no law or deeply ingrained societal taboo against that kind of thing. Sure, there might be some bigoted and stupid people who think you should not do it (I have no idea about that, not knowing anybody who actually married his first cousin) but there are no provincial doctors telling you should abort your child if the father is your first cousin (like there are in the US according to the article linked above).

But then, we also don't routinely circumcise our newborn sons for health, hygiene, or other strange reasons over here, and that's the case for all Europe (and most of the world) as far as I know. 

[Wall Flower]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, why not? And no, I'm not coming from some backwater island in New Guinea or Africa, I'm German.

And the point is not that we all encourage our children to marry our gorgeous cousins. It is just that you can do that if you want to. There is no law or deeply ingrained societal taboo against that kind of thing. Sure, there might be some bigoted and stupid people who think you should not do it (I have no idea about that, not knowing anybody who actually married his first cousin) but there are no provincial doctors telling you should abort your child if the father is your first cousin (like there are in the US according to the article linked above).

But then, we also don't routinely circumcise our newborn sons for health, hygiene, or other strange reasons over here, and that's the case for all Europe (and most of the world) as far as I know. 

I'm in Australia and not only are cousin marriages legal (and not considered incest) but our marriage act apparently allows for avuncular marriages (between an uncle and niece or aunt and nephew). I must admit the latter surprised me and I can't imagine that it would occur very often. However, I guess that Dany and Jon could legally marry in my country, even if it might not  be very socially acceptable. However, as an adopted son of Ned Stark, Jon couldn't marry Sansa or Arya, as brother/sister marriages are illegal and an adopted sibling is still a sibling. Of course, we still haven't caught up with the rest of the world yet, so you can only marry relatives of the opposite sex.

 

[Lord Varys]

53 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

I'm in Australia and not only are cousin marriages legal (and not considered incest) but our marriage act apparently allows for avuncular marriages (between an uncle and niece or aunt and nephew). I must admit the latter surprised me and I can't imagine that it would occur very often. However, I guess that Dany and Jon could legally marry in my country, even if it might not  be very socially acceptable. However, as an adopted son of Ned Stark, Jon couldn't marry Sansa or Arya, as brother/sister marriages are illegal and an adopted sibling is still a sibling. Of course, we still haven't caught up with the rest of the world yet, so you can only marry relatives of the opposite sex.

I'm just researching this a little bit and according to wikipedia sibling incest between consenting adult is perfectly legal in China, suggesting that a large portion of the world's population doesn't have a problem with this.

India doesn't have special regulations forbidding incest.

Man, I didn't know that so many US states actually presume to rule on the private lives of their citizens by not permitting cousin marriages. That's just crazy.

Here you can check out more on that whole thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest

As to your uncle-niece case I've just checked that our marriage laws should allow uncle-niece and aunt-nephew marriages, too, considering that only those relations that are defined and punishable as incest (specifically vaginal sex between (grand-)parents and (grand-)children as well as vaginal sex between full and half siblings) effect the laws governing marriage. That means that marriages between uncles/aunts and nephews/nieces are perfectly fine, just as those between first and second cousins, etc.

However, I guess we don't hear a lot about those uncle and aunt marriages because they would be exceedingly rare. My brother had a friend in school who was the youngest child of his parents and he actually had a niece who was only 1-2 years younger than he was. In such a scenario one could imagine such a relationship easily enough but that is hardly representative of the age gap between uncles and nieces. But then, you can also fall for your greatly attractive uncle later in life even if he is 20-30 years your elder.

But we should keep in mind that in general this kind of thing doesn't happen all that often. Marriage historically never was a legal institution to further love and sex and modern family values but simply a way to control and hand down your property to legitimate children. That's what it was for hundreds of years all over the world (and still is in societies where marriages are still arranged). And that's also the reason why the rich and powerful usually tend to marry amongst themselves - more often than not close relations of theirs. You don't marry the person you love, you marry the person who is the most profitable to you, your family, or your country.

Love and attraction seldom had anything to do with those arranged marriages between siblings or cousins in royal and noble families.

However, there is no natural incest taboo in all societies on the planet. There is evidence from Roman census list of Ptolemaic Egypt that not just the Ptolemies practiced incest (following in the footsteps of the previous Pharaohs) but that it was also quite common among the Egyptian commoners.

And, to make a connection to the topic at hand here, this is also what makes the actually romantic love that apparently existed between the Conqueror and Rhaenys, Jaehaerys I and Alysanne, some people apparently believe existed between the Dragonknight and Naerys, and the confirmed romantic love between Jaehaerys II and Shaera appear rather odd.

The Targaryen may live in a climate were incestuous marriage both the martial norm and an ideal, yet it is odd from a realistic point of view to assume that many of those incestuous couples were actually romantically attracted to each other or that they would have wanted to marry each other if they had had a choice in the matter. After all, we know that Targaryen children were raised together at court and would thus be as likely to fall in love with a sibling as the average peasant boy (who perhaps even slept with his sisters in the same room).

But then, perhaps Jaehaerys II and Shaera were just very odd weirdos and there was nothing romantic going on between Aemon and Naerys (just a normal affection between siblings) and Jaehaerys and Alysanne never actually had the hots for each other but got along well as siblings who had to marry each other due to the family marriage policy (I'm inclined to believe that the First Quarrel between these two we know nothing about was about one of them, preferably Alysanne, fell in love with another person and effectively ended the marriage for a time to pursue his or her true passions).

I'd have preferred it if Targaryen incest would have been more often been portrayed as an institution that made the lives of both spouses unhappy. We get that with Aerys II and Rhaella, Aegon IV and Naerys, and to a lesser degree with Aerys I and Aelinor Penrose.

In any case, Dany marrying her nephew Jon Snow (or even her half-brother Tyrion) wouldn't be icky or weird because none of them actually were raised as siblings or close relatives. They have yet to meet each other. But their actual degree of kin could actually be an underlying theme that furthers and explain their attraction for each other. After all, biological siblings that were raised apart apparently often feel attracted to each other. If George wants us to give a Dany-Jon romance he could make use of that to explain the thing.

[Whitering]

Here's the thing, Dany is much closer to Egg than any other Targ, and Egg failed to impose his will on the asshat nobles specifically because he did not have what Dany has. Dany certainly has the justice of Stannis with the mercy of someone like, maybe Ned? I don't want to say she's too merciful. But I don't think she'd just let nobles do whatever they wanted. Like any story of what Ramsay does would just end up with the Dreadfort being melted.

Dany's 2nd trip to the desert is going to end up with a lot more willing to just kill everyone to get what she wants.

Sansa...well, Sansa, if she is some QE1 person, is likely to be a good Queen who doesn't rock the boat overly much. I guess it depends what you want.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

@The Fattest Leech 

My point was not only about health, was also about what is legal in GRRTH and what isn’t. Dany has killed children for their family’s choice that was legal when they did it.

Dany’s family kept practicing incest in Westeros when it was illegal. Thus Dany being killed for what her family was doing is completely justified.

1 hour ago, Whitering said:

Dany is much closer to Egg than any other Targ

When did Egg ordered the death of children?

[Wall Flower]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm just researching this a little bit and according to wikipedia sibling incest between consenting adult is perfectly legal in China, suggesting that a large portion of the world's population doesn't have a problem with this.

India doesn't have special regulations forbidding incest.

Man, I didn't know that so many US states actually presume to rule on the private lives of their citizens by not permitting cousin marriages. That's just crazy.

Here you can check out more on that whole thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest

As to your uncle-niece case I've just checked that our marriage laws should allow uncle-niece and aunt-nephew marriages, too, considering that only those relations that are defined and punishable as incest (specifically vaginal sex between (grand-)parents and (grand-)children as well as vaginal sex between full and half siblings) effect the laws governing marriage. That means that marriages between uncles/aunts and nephews/nieces are perfectly fine, just as those between first and second cousins, etc.

However, I guess we don't hear a lot about those uncle and aunt marriages because they would be exceedingly rare. My brother had a friend in school who was the youngest child of his parents and he actually had a niece who was only 1-2 years younger than he was. In such a scenario one could imagine such a relationship easily enough but that is hardly representative of the age gap between uncles and nieces. But then, you can also fall for your greatly attractive uncle later in life even if he is 20-30 years your elder.

But we should keep in mind that in general this kind of thing doesn't happen all that often. Marriage historically never was a legal institution to further love and sex and modern family values but simply a way to control and hand down your property to legitimate children. That's what it was for hundreds of years all over the world (and still is in societies where marriages are still arranged). And that's also the reason why the rich and powerful usually tend to marry amongst themselves - more often than not close relations of theirs. You don't marry the person you love, you marry the person who is the most profitable to you, your family, or your country.

Love and attraction seldom had anything to do with those arranged marriages between siblings or cousins in royal and noble families.

However, there is no natural incest taboo in all societies on the planet. There is evidence from Roman census list of Ptolemaic Egypt that not just the Ptolemies practiced incest (following in the footsteps of the previous Pharaohs) but that it was also quite common among the Egyptian commoners.

And, to make a connection to the topic at hand here, this is also what makes the actually romantic love that apparently existed between the Conqueror and Rhaenys, Jaehaerys I and Alysanne, some people apparently believe existed between the Dragonknight and Naerys, and the confirmed romantic love between Jaehaerys II and Shaera appear rather odd.

The Targaryen may live in a climate were incestuous marriage both the martial norm and an ideal, yet it is odd from a realistic point of view to assume that many of those incestuous couples were actually romantically attracted to each other or that they would have wanted to marry each other if they had had a choice in the matter. After all, we know that Targaryen children were raised together at court and would thus be as likely to fall in love with a sibling as the average peasant boy (who perhaps even slept with his sisters in the same room).

But then, perhaps Jaehaerys II and Shaera were just very odd weirdos and there was nothing romantic going on between Aemon and Naerys (just a normal affection between siblings) and Jaehaerys and Alysanne never actually had the hots for each other but got along well as siblings who had to marry each other due to the family marriage policy (I'm inclined to believe that the First Quarrel between these two we know nothing about was about one of them, preferably Alysanne, fell in love with another person and effectively ended the marriage for a time to pursue his or her true passions).

I'd have preferred it if Targaryen incest would have been more often been portrayed as an institution that made the lives of both spouses unhappy. We get that with Aerys II and Rhaella, Aegon IV and Naerys, and to a lesser degree with Aerys I and Aelinor Penrose.

In any case, Dany marrying her nephew Jon Snow (or even her half-brother Tyrion) wouldn't be icky or weird because none of them actually were raised as siblings or close relatives. They have yet to meet each other. But their actual degree of kin could actually be an underlying theme that furthers and explain their attraction for each other. After all, biological siblings that were raised apart apparently often feel attracted to each other. If George wants us to give a Dany-Jon romance he could make use of that to explain the thing.

Jaehaerys and Shaera are interesting because they were the product of three generations of non-incestuous marriages. If all the marriages Aegon V proposed had taken place, incestuous  marriage might have died out permanently among Targaryens. Jaehaerys was apparently a Targaryen traditionalist and that may have factored into his attraction for his sister. Maybe they were just enamoured of the romance of their own ancestors. Neither Duncan or Daeron were attracted to their siblings, though.

Not a geneticist but I imagine the big problem with families like the Hapsburgs was repeated generations of closely related marriages, which must have increased the risk of genetic problems in their children. The Targaryens do have that as well but they also have a few generations non-incestuous marriages added to the family tree.

[Lifestream]

So far (I'm around ch.6 in aDwD), it seems Daenerys is a better candidate to be Queen than Sansa. At least she acts like one and tries to improve.

Of course Daenerys isn't a perfect queen and has made quite a few questionable decisions, but Daenerys(so far) doesn't seem to pass her responsibilities as a Queen to other people.

 

Sansa on the other hand has never had the chance to govern people and while she displays some traits that would be useful for a Queen, we've never seen her act as one. So at the same time we don't know her true potential as a Queen.

 

Also between the two, Daenerys seems to understand(or at least try to) the common people better than Sansa and is more inclined to help them.