Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

theblackdragonI

Tywin not remarrying makes no sense

Recommended Posts

On 13/02/2017 at 9:51 AM, devilish said:

snip

You certainly make a good case for it.

Why would Robert not tell Ned on his deathbed though instead of telling him to support Joffrey?

On a side note, do you think it's possible that he told Stannis and Renly and that's why they both refused to pay homage to Joffrey? Personally I don't because they didn't seem to get on and Renly does seem like he's doing it out of ambition but it's an interesting thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, theblackdragonI said:

You certainly make a good case for it.

Why would Robert not tell Ned on his deathbed though instead of telling him to support Joffrey?

On a side note, do you think it's possible that he told Stannis and Renly and that's why they both refused to pay homage to Joffrey? Personally I don't because they didn't seem to get on and Renly does seem like he's doing it out of ambition but it's an interesting thought.

That's a pretty valid argument indeed. Maybe Robert wasn't 100% sure at that point but was confident in Stannis and Renly to be able to unearth the truth behind it. Meanwhile by putting Ned as Lord Protector of the realm he ensured that the kingdom would be ruled by a righteous man who really doesn't need alot of convincing to go against the Lannisters. I mean, lets face it, would you trust Ned to investigate a conspiracy theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2017 at 5:22 AM, John Suburbs said:

Pet theory of mine is that Tywin knows he is impotent. So a childless marriage would call into question the legitimacy of his children.

Beat me to it. His dick don't work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll throw this in as well: none of Tywin's children are his, and Jaime and Cersei are two years older than they think. Hell, maybe they're not even twins. Point being, Joanna was pregnant when Tywin married her, and she was "dismissed" from King's Landing before she started to show. She then had the baby/ies in Casterly Rock, away from the prying eyes of the realm.

It would've all been fine if they'd never had any other kids, but Joanna and Aerys had sex again in 272 (or she was raped), thus conceiving Tyrion, the birth of which killed her. (Or Tywin had her murdered.) (Or he had her exiled.) (Or he cut out her tongue and sent her to the Silent Sisters.)

Tywin is terrified that somebody knows he's been given horns, as the saying goes, but he can't be certain - and if he disinherits Tyrion, that would prove it. So he's forced to raise the little bastard as if he were his own.

Apologies if someone else has said this, I'm not reading all six pages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

I'll throw this in as well: none of Tywin's children are his, and Jaime and Cersei are two years older than they think. Hell, maybe they're not even twins. Point being, Joanna was pregnant when Tywin married her, and she was "dismissed" from King's Landing before she started to show. She then had the baby/ies in Casterly Rock, away from the prying eyes of the realm.

It would've all been fine if they'd never had any other kids, but Joanna and Aerys had sex again in 272 (or she was raped), thus conceiving Tyrion, the birth of which killed her. (Or Tywin had her murdered.) (Or he had her exiled.) (Or he cut out her tongue and sent her to the Silent Sisters.)

Tywin is terrified that somebody knows he's been given horns, as the saying goes, but he can't be certain - and if he disinherits Tyrion, that would prove it. So he's forced to raise the little bastard as if he were his own.

Apologies if someone else has said this, I'm not reading all six pages

You're using a modern mindset which doesn't apply to medieval times. Medicine was very rudamental at that time, so if Tywin is sterile then no one would be able to find out. His wife would be blamed for it and that won't change even if he marries again and again. That's how the chauvanistic pig medieval mentality worked.

Not having kids would represent a failure for Tywin. However its far less tragic then it seems. Tywin had brothers and Kevan had a son. Kevan would inherit CR after Tywin's death and Lancel would then inherit it from his father.

Things would be far worse if there's question marks surrounding Tywin's children legitimacy. Being king or part of the nobility was considered as a gift/responsibility given by God. Bastards on the other hand were considered the fruit of sin. The slightest of doubts could cause a civil war, hence why women were often kept under lock and key. One of the accusations brought forward against Anne Boleyn was that she enterntained her own brother in her private chambers causing question marks on her child's legitimacy.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, devilish said:

You're using a modern mindset which doesn't apply to medieval times. Medicine was very rudamental at that time, so if Tywin is sterile then no one would be able to find out. His wife would be blamed for it and that won't change even if he marries again and again. That's how the chauvanistic pig medieval mentality worked.

Not having kids would represent a failure for Tywin. However its far less tragic then it seems. Tywin had brothers and Kevan had a son. Kevan would inherit CR after Tywin's death and Lancel would then inherit it from his father.

Things would be far worse if there's question marks surrounding Tywin's children legitimacy. Being king or part of the nobility was considered as a gift/responsibility given by God. Bastards on the other hand were considered the fruit of sin. The slightest of doubts could cause a civil war, hence why women were often kept under lock and key. One of the accusations brought forward against Anne Boleyn was that she enterntained her own brother in her private chambers causing question marks on her child's legitimacy.

1. I said his dick don't work, not his jizz don't work.

2. You're the one with the modern mindset, assuming that every man in history was a "chauvanistic pig" prior to The Female Eunuch. If a man had multiple wives, none of whom conceived a child, then the man would absolutely be under suspicion of infertility.

3. Re: legitimacy: exactly. That's why Tywin never disowned Tyrion, and why he (maybe) hid Joanna at Casterly Rock for a few years, so people would never connect her pregnancy to her time at King's Landing, in the company of "liberty-taking" Aerys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

1. I said his dick don't work, not his jizz don't work.

2. You're the one with the modern mindset, assuming that every man in history was a "chauvanistic pig" prior to The Female Eunuch. If a man had multiple wives, none of whom conceived a child, then the man would absolutely be under suspicion of infertility.

3. Re: legitimacy: exactly. That's why Tywin never disowned Tyrion, and why he (maybe) hid Joanna at Casterly Rock for a few years, so people would never connect her pregnancy to her time at King's Landing, in the company of "liberty-taking" Aerys.

2. It was a chauvanistic pig society where everything bad was linked to the woman.

3. If there was even the slightest question mark that Tyrion wasn't Tywin's then rest assured that he would be disowned or worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2017 at 4:09 AM, devilish said:

I think its more than that. Tywin lived in a world where most things couldn’t be explained (storms, rains, sickness etc). The only answer people had to explain all such phenomenon was that everything originated from the Gods. Now Tywin grew up thinking that the Gods loved him. He was healthy, strong, wise and the first born in one of the most powerful houses in Westeros.

Throughout his entire life he did his best to increase the gift given to him by the gods. He put the Reynes in their place and he swallowed his pride with Aerys to avoid risking everything. The gods seem to appreciate that. They gave him a beautiful wife and 2 beautiful children. 


Suddenly lightning strikes. His wife died giving birth to a ‘monster’. Tywin might have thought that it’s a co-incidence. Even the best of people can have a bad day. Yet as time passed, the boy turned out to be a spitting image of his father. His perfect children turned out to be fools. One became KG and the other one doesn’t seem to stop putting herself into trouble. The gods seem paving the way for this ‘monster’ to succeed him. What further proof did Tywin needed that the gods were somehow punishing him for his crimes, ruining the very legacy he worked so hard to achieve?


I think that Tywin hated Tyrion not only because he was a dwarf but because he saw him as the gods way of punishing him. For a superstitious society the Gods were basically revealing to him the way they saw him.
 

Beautifully stated, and makes sense. I've always wondered why Tywin hated Tyrion so much, as the explanations in the book never seemed quite right. This is a great interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

1. I said his dick don't work, not his jizz don't work.

2. You're the one with the modern mindset, assuming that every man in history was a "chauvanistic pig" prior to The Female Eunuch. If a man had multiple wives, none of whom conceived a child, then the man would absolutely be under suspicion of infertility.

3. Re: legitimacy: exactly. That's why Tywin never disowned Tyrion, and why he (maybe) hid Joanna at Casterly Rock for a few years, so people would never connect her pregnancy to her time at King's Landing, in the company of "liberty-taking" Aerys.

And yet he has Shae in his bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

And yet he has Shae in his bed.

 

Quote

"Even those who lack a man's parts may still have a man's heart, Your Grace," said Grey Worm. "This one has been told that your servant Stalwart Shield sometimes gave coin to the women of the brothels to lie with him and hold him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, devilish said:

The slightest of doubts could cause a civil war, hence why women were often kept under lock and key.

Lol,

"...and with this key I will dispatch of the latch that guardeth the royal snatch."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JonSnow4President said:

Call me skeptical that applies to Tywin.  I think raging hypocrite fits him much better.

How does that not make him a hypocrite?

Also a guy with no dick can still get into some freaky shit, there's all sorts of stuff he can do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

"Even those who lack a man's parts may still have a man's heart, Your Grace," said Grey Worm. "This one has been told that your servant Stalwart Shield sometimes gave coin to the women of the brothels to lie with him and hold him."

And he chose the whore who slept with his son and sold him out in a trial? It was always beyond me that he was willing to use a prostitute after Tyrion anyway, but believing he'd give out a secret as such around to random girls sounds... unreal.

I think that as mind-boggling as it is, Tywin could be just blindly stubborn/willful, when it came to his descendants. I mean, he underestimated Tyrion, he was blind to the twincest, he misjudged Cersei and Jaime as well... He basically put all his Lannister eggs in one basket, and this basket was in KG. The last Tywin could have realistically thought he could have Jaime out of KG was thirteen years ago, when Robert ascended the throne, but he had no way of predicting Joff ascending the throne in time and crreating the precedent to fire a Kingsguard (Tywin cities it as a reason for Jaime to abandon his post). I mean, what was he counting for? Without Jaime he was stuck with Cersei, Tyrion, maybe Tommen (nominally a Baratheon, though ironically with the most Lannister blood inside around) and Kevan (competent, but not his branch).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tianzi said:

And he chose the whore who slept with his son and sold him out in a trial? It was always beyond me that he was willing to use a prostitute after Tyrion anyway, but believing he'd give out a secret as such around to random girls sounds... unreal.

Yeah, he's into some old creepy shit, probably fucks kids and animals and all sorts of things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Lol,

"...and with this key I will dispatch of the latch that guardeth the royal snatch."

Its the truth though.

Medieval times were a time ruled by superstition. The king justified his absolute power over his subjects by supporting the notion that power came from God and he was made king only because God wanted it so. Their rule was absolute but also weak. Anything from a defeat in battle, to a drought right to not being able to produce male heirs was interpreted as a massage from God. Direct control over a large country was next to impossible (hence why Europe is made of tiny countries, the UK itself is around 1/3 of Texas) and a big country such as France risked having noble lords who were strong enough to raise an army capable of toppling the king if they wanted to.

Women were considered the true children of Eve ie fragile, prone to sin and needing a strong hand to rule over them.  A weak man will commit the same sins Adam did hence it was encouraged for a man to control every aspect of his life wife. Infidelity was the root of all sins. After all Adam and Eve betrayed God for earthly pleasures. Putting a bastard (ie the fruit of an evil union) in a holiest of roles (ie King) would bring the ire of God over the kingdom. At a time where paternity tests were non existent and were women were sometimes more politically connected then their husband (ex Catherine of Aragon vs Henry Tudor) then it was highly important for a king to make sure his children weren't bastards and that he won't be forced to execute his wife. Henry Tudor's libertine life lead to a crusade against England a generation later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people think that Jamie being in the Kingsguard will prevent him from inheriting. Jamie was totally cool with attacking Eddard in the streets over a family issue and then lead a Lannister army into the Riverlands while being a Kingsguard, so why would the Kingsguard oath would prevent him from taking Casterly Rock after Tywin died? Its rather clear, at least to me, that untill Jamie met Brienne he didn't care on whiff for his position as a Kingsguard and would happily trample those oaths into the mud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, devilish said:

Its the truth though.

Medieval times were a time ruled by superstition. The king justified his absolute power over his subjects by supporting the notion that power came from God and he was made king only because God wanted it so. Their rule was absolute but also weak. Anything from a defeat in battle, to a drought right to not being able to produce male heirs was interpreted as a massage from God. Direct control over a large country was next to impossible (hence why Europe is made of tiny countries, the UK itself is around 1/3 of Texas) and a big country such as France risked having noble lords who were strong enough to raise an army capable of toppling the king if they wanted to.

Women were considered the true children of Eve ie fragile, prone to sin and needing a strong hand to rule over them.  A weak man will commit the same sins Adam did hence it was encouraged for a man to control every aspect of his life wife. Infidelity was the root of all sins. After all Adam and Eve betrayed God for earthly pleasures. Putting a bastard (ie the fruit of an evil union) in a holiest of roles (ie King) would bring the ire of God over the kingdom. At a time where paternity tests were non existent and were women were sometimes more politically connected then their husband (ex Catherine of Aragon vs Henry Tudor) then it was highly important for a king to make sure his children weren't bastards and that he won't be forced to execute his wife. Henry Tudor's libertine life lead to a crusade against England a generation later.

All true, but I think there was a more practical consideration as well.

When a great warrior compiles enough holdings to declare a kingdom, it was believed his kingly virtues were passed from father to son just like hair color, eye color, etc. Since there is no doubt about the maternity of a child but plenty of room for doubt as to paternity, medieval society had to go to extreme steps to ensure that the child born of the queen was the king's and no others. So when the king was away, or even when he wasn't, they trussed up the queen's parts like a knight heading into battle, making it impossible for her to accept any other man. And they had nuns, ladies in waiting and female relatives with her 24-7 -- just like Margaery has with her brood -- so there would be plenty of witnesses to deny any accusation that might arise.

They certainly wanted to avoid God's wrath, to be sure, but they also had to guard against insurrection of the mortal variety, which tended to gather steam whenever there was even the slightest hint that the queen might be carrying another man's child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, devilish said:

Its the truth though.

Medieval times were a time ruled by superstition. The king justified his absolute power over his subjects by supporting the notion that power came from God and he was made king only because God wanted it so. Their rule was absolute but also weak. Anything from a defeat in battle, to a drought right to not being able to produce male heirs was interpreted as a massage from God. Direct control over a large country was next to impossible (hence why Europe is made of tiny countries, the UK itself is around 1/3 of Texas) and a big country such as France risked having noble lords who were strong enough to raise an army capable of toppling the king if they wanted to.

Women were considered the true children of Eve ie fragile, prone to sin and needing a strong hand to rule over them.  A weak man will commit the same sins Adam did hence it was encouraged for a man to control every aspect of his life wife. Infidelity was the root of all sins. After all Adam and Eve betrayed God for earthly pleasures. Putting a bastard (ie the fruit of an evil union) in a holiest of roles (ie King) would bring the ire of God over the kingdom. At a time where paternity tests were non existent and were women were sometimes more politically connected then their husband (ex Catherine of Aragon vs Henry Tudor) then it was highly important for a king to make sure his children weren't bastards and that he won't be forced to execute his wife. Henry Tudor's libertine life lead to a crusade against England a generation later.

 

58 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

All true, but I think there was a more practical consideration as well.

When a great warrior compiles enough holdings to declare a kingdom, it was believed his kingly virtues were passed from father to son just like hair color, eye color, etc. Since there is no doubt about the maternity of a child but plenty of room for doubt as to paternity, medieval society had to go to extreme steps to ensure that the child born of the queen was the king's and no others. So when the king was away, or even when he wasn't, they trussed up the queen's parts like a knight heading into battle, making it impossible for her to accept any other man. And they had nuns, ladies in waiting and female relatives with her 24-7 -- just like Margaery has with her brood -- so there would be plenty of witnesses to deny any accusation that might arise.

They certainly wanted to avoid God's wrath, to be sure, but they also had to guard against insurrection of the mortal variety, which tended to gather steam whenever there was even the slightest hint that the queen might be carrying another man's child.

 

 

I'm sorry, but you two are talking shite. Chastity belts are about as real as the droit du seigneur. Although I will grant that, despite all his supposed historical research, GRRM either (a) thinks the latter is real or (b) used it anyway, so maybe we can apply that to other contentious historical practices.

There's a modern, post-feminist, and may I say ignorant way of looking at history, which is to believe that prior to the suffragettes and "I have a dream" the whole world was unstoppably, irredeemably awful and stupid, and it's only thanks to the wisdom and bravery of recent generations that we have climbed out of the mire. The fact that it's those recent generations telling this story ought to give us pause.

And no, I'm not saying that the medieval world was an egalitarian paradise either, but the notion that lords could rape and kill whomever they liked without consequence or that women had no agency at all is simply wrong.

What's also wrong is your thoughts on bastards and the important of kingly virtues passing straight from father to son. Bastards and people outside the family would take or inherit lordships and thrones all the time. William the Conqueror used to be called William the Bastard, and nobody gave three shits about it. And the king he fought was Harold Godwinson - was Godwin the previous king of England? No, the Edward the Confessor was. He named Harold his heir because he and the earls thought he'd be the best man for the job; Edward himself was celibate.

Alright, maybe this is middle ages rather than medieval, and the customs re: inheritance firmed up a bit over time. But still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but you two are talking shite. Chastity belts are about as real as the droit du seigneur. Although I will grant that, despite all his supposed historical research, GRRM either (a) thinks the latter is real or (b) used it anyway, so maybe we can apply that to other contentious historical practices.

There's a modern, post-feminist, and may I say ignorant way of looking at history, which is to believe that prior to the suffragettes and "I have a dream" the whole world was unstoppably, irredeemably awful and stupid, and it's only thanks to the wisdom and bravery of recent generations that we have climbed out of the mire. The fact that it's those recent generations telling this story ought to give us pause.

And no, I'm not saying that the medieval world was an egalitarian paradise either, but the notion that lords could rape and kill whomever they liked without consequence or that women had no agency at all is simply wrong.

What's also wrong is your thoughts on bastards and the important of kingly virtues passing straight from father to son. Bastards and people outside the family would take or inherit lordships and thrones all the time. William the Conqueror used to be called William the Bastard, and nobody gave three shits about it. And the king he fought was Harold Godwinson - was Godwin the previous king of England? No, the Edward the Confessor was. He named Harold his heir because he and the earls thought he'd be the best man for the job; Edward himself was celibate.

Alright, maybe this is middle ages rather than medieval, and the customs re: inheritance firmed up a bit over time. But still.

Partly true. The chastity belt didn't make an appearance until the 16th century or so, but wasn't really common until the Victorian age -- and even then more as an anti-wanking device than a virtue protector.

But the need to ensure royal male paternity was important. Crowns, like lands and titles, were hereditary, and when dealing with unchecked political power, any question regarding the line of succession was usually resolved by civil war, which only subjected the realm to invasion from the outside. That's why the queen's loyalty to the king must be unquestioned, and women like Anne Bolyn and (one of the later ones, I forget) were executed -- not simply because they cuckolded the king but because doing so was a crime against the realm.

Your later facts are a little mixed up. Harold Godwinson was the legal son of Godwin, Earl of Wessex and Gryna something-or-other, daughter of the King of Denmark. When Edward the Confessor died with no heir, they raised Harold up to king, supposedly after EC made it his dying wish. What's interesting is that William immediately begins planning his invasion upon hearing the that the new king of England was appointed by men, not bestowed through the divine right of heredity. And if Harold hadn't pissed off so many of his fellow nobles with all the murdering and skullduggery that put EC on the crown, he just might have had enough support to repel the Normans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×