Jump to content

Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?


Ser Petyr Parker

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

That was probably because Gilly and her mother had no say in the matter. He was rational and compassionate.

So you think Aenys I and Maegor had a say in the matter of their own parents incest? Or Aegon-Rhaena had a choice in who to marry in a world where marriages are arranged by their (royal/noble) parents?

Incest as per the religions in Westeros is not something you better do not do, it is a mortal sin and punishable by death.

And Jon and Sam both don't care about that. So why would they care about avuncular marriages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

So you think Aenys I and Maegor had a say in the matter of their own parents incest? Or Aegon-Rhaena had a choice in who to marry in a world where marriages are arranged by their (royal/noble) parents?

Incest as per the religions in Westeros is not something you better do not do, it is a mortal sin and punishable by death.

And Jon and Sam both don't care about that. So why would they care about avuncular marriages?

I was pointing out that Jon isn't a religious fanatic like the septon.

I believe Jon at least would care about avuncular marriages because it's a not a really common practice. Even amongst the Starks, marrying cousins isn't a that prevalent. Because it was done a few generations ago doesn't mean Jon will be perfectly ok with it.

Also, the madness among Targaryens is thought to be due to the inbreeding. That would give Jon pause about continuing a relationship with his aunt.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

I was pointing out that Jon isn't a religious fanatic like the septon.

But that means that he follows his own good sense rather than religious doctrine and commandments, no?

Quote

I believe Jon at least would care about avuncular marriages because it's a not a really common practice. Even amongst the Starks, marrying cousins isn't a that prevalent. Because it was done a few generations ago doesn't mean Jon will be perfectly ok with it.

Rickard and Lyarra, Jon's maternal grandparents, are cousins, too. It didn't happen in that distant a past, and if we know the Stark family tree as far back as we do then a similar - and even more detailed document - must also have been available at Winterfell. If nobility is obsessed with something it is their pedigree. Especially families who hide thousands of their ancestors in their own cellars.

And you must keep in mind that the Starks must also be cousins of various degrees to all those Karstarks, Manderlys, Umbers, Lockes, etc. they married over the years. Into what houses would their daughters usually marry into? Northern houses. And where would children of such marry into? Other Northern houses and the Starks. They are all inbred up there.

Quote

Also, the madness among Targaryens is thought to be due to the inbreeding. That would give Jon pause about continuing a relationship with his aunt.

That isn't really clear. Not to mention that there aren't all that many mad Targaryens, anyway.

In fact, what little we know about the condemnation of incest seems to indicate that 'monstrosities' and madness are punishments of the gods because the Targaryens commit the sin of incest, but nobody ever says anything about incest naturally leading to health problems (or rather - increasing the risk of health problems if you already carry genes that could cause health problems; incest itself doesn't cause anything).

In that sense I don't think there is a scientific theory in place in Westeros that presents the people with good reason why to avoid incest. If such theories existed the entire nobility would have to change their marriage policies and stop marrying cousins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Also, the madness among Targaryens is thought to be due to the inbreeding. That would give Jon pause about continuing a relationship with his aunt.

True, but if she's already pregnant, it's a moot point.
He can try to convince her of having an abortion...and then he'd quickly learn the meaning of dracarys :P
Dany is very touchy when it comes to having human children of her own, I'd love to see her reaction if someone suggests she should get rid of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if there is one thing the show went out of its way to hammer home, it is that Daenerys will get pregnant and give birth to a child or children. Everything else is up in the air (including whether Daenerys herself survives giving birth). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But that means that he follows his own good sense rather than religious doctrine and commandments, no?

Yes, but continuing a relationship with an aunt doesn't sound like good sense.

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Rickard and Lyarra, Jon's maternal grandparents, are cousins, too. It didn't happen in that distant a past, and if we know the Stark family tree as far back as we do then a similar - and even more detailed document - must also have been available at Winterfell. If nobility is obsessed with something it is their pedigree. Especially families who hide thousands of their ancestors in their own cellars.

They were distant cousins, not the same as avuncular marriages or first cousin marriages. And aunt and nephew would have higher shared genes than first cousins.

 

18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And you must keep in mind that the Starks must also be cousins of various degrees to all those Karstarks, Manderlys, Umbers, Lockes, etc. they married over the years. Into what houses would their daughters usually marry into? Northern houses? And where would children of such marry into? Other Northern houses and the Starks. They are all inbred up there.

Again, distantly related.

 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

That isn't really clear. Not to mention that there aren't all that many mad Targaryens, anyway.

In fact, what little we know about the condemnation of incest seems to indicate that 'monstrosities' and madness are punishments of the gods because the Targaryens commit the sin of incest, but nobody ever says anything about incest naturally leading to health problems (or rather - increasing the risk of health problems if you already carry genes that could cause health problems; incest itself doesn't cause anything).

In that sense I don't think there is a scientific theory in place in Westeros that has presents the people with good reason why to avoid incest. If such theories existed the entire nobility would have to change their marriage policies and stop marrying cousins.

I can see that the universe doesn't have any fixed scientific theories. It would've been strange if they did. But Targaryen practice of marrying really close relatives has been questioned, for religious reasons and others. So I think it's fair to assume Jon and Dany being related won't be a non issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

True, but if she's already pregnant, it's a moot point.
He can try to convince her of having an abortion...and then he'd quickly learn the meaning of dracarys :P
Dany is very touchy when it comes to having human children of her own, I'd love to see her reaction if someone suggests she should get rid of it.

I agree that if Dany is already pregnant, that changes everything. Jon is definitely not going to desert his child or suggest Dany get rid of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the world of ASoIaF, in Westeros, the only time we see incest being defined as anything other than siblings or parent+child (and presumably grandparent+grandchild), is when Ygritte mentions the Wildling custom to go beyond the village, to avoid clan-kin. Going outside the village/clan-kin, may well be a hold-over from when the population was smaller and everyone was living in family homesteads; also, an outsider would be safer for village political stability, making factionalization more difficult.

 

However, what matters isn't the standards of the Wildlings, but the standards of those of the North and the rest of the Seven Kingdoms - those south of the Wall.

South of the wall, cousins are relatively common amongst the nobility, and nobody considers that to be incest. Aunt/nephew and Uncle/niece are less common than cousins, but are not described as incestuous; most of the time, when such are arranged, I'm sure they'd normally prefer a cousin instead of the aunt or uncle, but they have to work with what they've got.

 

Remember, Westeros, by and large, has a different definition of incest than most of us do today in real life. By Westerosi standards, Jon and Daenerys, even after knowing they're Aunt and Nephew, is perfectly acceptable and not incestuous, albeit uncommon. By some standards, it's even more important that they marry and have kids with each other, so as to forestall a succession dispute if they each marry and have kids with third parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Yes, but continuing a relationship with an aunt doesn't sound like good sense.

Only if you have issues with that. Which isn't confirmed for Jon - neither in the show nor in the books.

18 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

They were distant cousins, not the same as avuncular marriages or first cousin marriages. And aunt and nephew would have higher shared genes than first cousins.

How do you know the people in Westeros see differences between 'normal marriages' (between non-cousins/or very, very, very, very distant cousins) and second and first cousin marriage?

18 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

I can see that the universe doesn't have any fixed scientific theories. It would've been strange if they did. But Targaryen practice of marrying really close relatives has been questioned, for religious reasons and others. So I think it's fair to assume Jon and Dany being related won't be a non issue.

Oh, it certainly will be some sort of issue. But nothing they won't overcome. In fact, the fact that Jon is a Targaryen prince should help with that. Targaryens can marry their own (and Starks, too, to a lesser degree), and Targaryens have a tendency to marry whom they choose - Rhaegar, Jaehaerys, Shaera, Duncan, Daeron, Egg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

You just answered your own question.

Er, no. In no sense does that answer the question.  A vision is not reality.

.

People, the phrase is avunculate marriage not avuncular.

.

I know everyone keeps banging on about the marriages of Serena and Sansa Stark being avunculate and therefore proof positive that the North approves.  That isn't fully the case as their father was a half-brother to their respective husbands and that does cut the genetic risk to a degree.  Plus it's pretty clear to me that something very particular happened in that generation as there were three Lords of Winterfell from that set of brothers alone and it looks like some kind of political consolidation.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if this generation is part of the She-Wolves of Winterfell D&E story and we'll get the full story then.  Apart from this generation, however, we don't see it happening again in the Stark line.  We see cousin marriage, which isn't considered incestuous in Westeros so is disregarded.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Only if you have issues with that. Which isn't confirmed for Jon - neither in the show nor in the books.

How do you know the people in Westeros see differences between 'normal marriages' (between non-cousins/or very, very, very, very distant cousins) and second and first cousin marriage?

If religion in westeros deems incest unacceptable, that has to be due to the fact that siblings and parents are closely related. So there has to be a difference and the question has to be where do you draw the line.

 

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, it certainly will be some sort of issue. But nothing they won't overcome. In fact, the fact that Jon is a Targaryen prince should help with that. Targaryens can marry their own (and Starks, too, to a lesser degree), and Targaryens have a tendency to marry whom they choose - Rhaegar, Jaehaerys, Shaera, Duncan, Daeron, Egg.

Jon has believed himself to be a Stark all his life. I don't think knowing that he is also a Targaryen would suddenly change how he thinks. And I agree, we don't know what Jon's views are about incest. But I don't see him viewing it favorably. I dont see his overcoming the incest issue easily.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Apoplexy said:

If religion in westeros deems incest unacceptable, that has to be due to the fact that siblings and parents are closely related. So there has to be a difference and the question has to be where do you draw the line.

Quite honestly, aside from the core family relations there is little reason for people to see each other as closely related if they are cousins, etc., especially not in those noble contexts where the children usually are married off to other families, meaning that siblings don't see each other all that often. Especially not those related through the female line.

And we see this difference in our world, too, even in this forum. Some people are abhorred by cousin marriages - even second cousin marriages - and others have no issue with that. 

Robert and Sansa, for instance, first meet each other in ASoS. They are first cousins but that doesn't mean they are or feel close. Quite the contrary, actually.

1 minute ago, Apoplexy said:

Jon has believed himself to be a Stark all his life. I don't think knowing that he is also a Targaryen would suddenly change how he thinks. And I agree, we don't know what Jon's views are about incest. But I don't see him viewing it favorably. I dont see his overcoming the incest issue easily.

Jon has never believed to a be Stark. He knows that he isn't a Stark. He is a Snow. And he is very aware of that. Knowing that he isn't a bastard should come as a great relief to him as it would come to everyone in his world. All he wanted in his life was to not be a bastard.

And quite frankly - in the books we have to seriously expect Jon getting a lot of issues with the 'Stark side' of his ancestry. His so-called father wasn't his father. And his siblings aren't his siblings. And he was lied to and tricked into believe to be less than he is - a bastard - when in fact he was more than all of the Starks of Winterfell - a royal prince of House Targaryen, the son of the Prince of Dragonstone, and the grandson of a king.

Ned's lie prevented Jon from ever searching out his uncle Viserys III, aunt Daenerys, and half-brother Aegon. Depending when exactly he learns the truth he might be unable to help them - or not think he should help them which he would do if he knew that they are his family - in crucial points in the story. I'm sure Jon would at once try to contact Aegon right now if he knew that they are (or might be) half-brothers.

The fact that this lie about being a bastard also poisoned his relationship to his Stark cousins, preventing him from getting as close to Sansa as he could have been, and even putting an unseen wall between him and Robb certainly is going to hurt in retrospect.

Not to mention the cowardice in Ned Stark to not have the grace to tell him the truth before he made the life-changing decision to take the black. Everyone making that choice should know who and what he is, don't you agree? Jon should have had the right to make an informed decision.

In that sense the chances are pretty good that Jon very quickly sees himself as a Targaryen should he learn the truth about his parentage and true identity when he is already in love with Daenerys Targaryen. Because then she and what she represents will be the most important thing in his life, not the Stark cousins. They will remain important, too, of course, but Jon will have another family in Dany (and perhaps Aegon and/or Tyrion) that might turn out to be more important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

If religion in westeros deems incest unacceptable, that has to be due to the fact that siblings and parents are closely related. So there has to be a difference and the question has to be where do you draw the line.

 

Jon has believed himself to be a Stark all his life. I don't think knowing that he is also a Targaryen would suddenly change how he thinks. And I agree, we don't know what Jon's views are about incest. But I don't see him viewing it favorably. I dont see his overcoming the incest issue easily.

 

Overcoming incest as an issue only matters if the characters' definition of incest applies to the relationship.

All known definitions of incest south of the Wall, so, everyone except the Wildlings, is that incest is siblings or parent/child (presumably grandparent/grandchild is included, though). No mention of Aunt/Nephew or Uncle/Niece relationships being defined as incest. First Cousins is perfectly acceptable by the standards of Westerosi.

Admittedly, Aunt/Nephew and Uncle/Niece aren't going to be common - normally the Aunt or Uncle would be closer in age to their sibling, the parent of the nephew or niece, and would be able to marry and have children with someone else, and so there would be a first cousin marriage.

 

Even with the Wildlings, it's unclear where the prohibition against incest ends and the cultural legacy/heritage of stealing from another village/enemy begins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ser Quork said:

 

Er, no. In no sense does that answer the question.  A vision is not reality.

.

People, the phrase is avunculate marriage not avuncular.

.

I know everyone keeps banging on about the marriages of Serena and Sansa Stark being avunculate and therefore proof positive that the North approves.  That isn't fully the case as their father was a half-brother to their respective husbands and that does cut the genetic risk to a degree.  Plus it's pretty clear to me that something very particular happened in that generation as there were three Lords of Winterfell from that set of brothers alone and it looks like some kind of political consolidatio.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if this generation is part of the She-Wolves of Winterfell D&E story and we'll get the full story then.  Apart from this generation, however, we don't see it happening again in the Stark line.  We see cousin marriage, which isn't considered incestuous in Westeros so is disregarded.

 

 

 

I doubt that the Westerosi see much of a difference - they don't really make any as far as brother/sister or half-brother/half-sister marriage is concerned.

And what of it being a political consolidation? 90 % of marriages between nobles is based on politicking. I doubt that a half-brother and half-sister would be allowed to marry for "political consolidation" in any case. If such unions were othewise considered abominable and unacceptable, these marriages wouldn't have taken place, because they wouldn't have helped the involved to keep them in power to begin with.

Anyway, you keep repeating that cousin marriage isn't considered incestous while avuncular *is*. Where is it said exactly? It was recounted in this very thread what kind of union Westerosi define as incest; uncle/niece and nephew/aunt is not there. Unsurprisingly, they are less common, because of the usual generational age difference and because the closer the kinship the lesser the need for further maintaining the alliance. Much like in the real life history, where cousin marriage was also far more common - which doesn't negate that the uncle/niece thing was a feasible choice to make on the part of the ruling house as long as they got a dispensation by the Pope.

For that matter, both "avuncular" and "avunculate" is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Ser Quork said:

People, the phrase is avunculate marriage not avuncular.

Yeah, thanks, I read that a short while back, too, but thought it was a variation.

31 minutes ago, Ser Quork said:

I know everyone keeps banging on about the marriages of Serena and Sansa Stark being avunculate and therefore proof positive that the North approves.  That isn't fully the case as their father was a half-brother to their respective husbands and that does cut the genetic risk to a degree.  Plus it's pretty clear to me that something very particular happened in that generation as there were three Lords of Winterfell from that set of brothers alone and it looks like some kind of political consolidatio.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if this generation is part of the She-Wolves of Winterfell D&E story and we'll get the full story then.  Apart from this generation, however, we don't see it happening again in the Stark line.  We see cousin marriage, which isn't considered incestuous in Westeros so is disregarded.

The fact that Jonnel and Edric are only half-uncles would only be relevant if the Starks or anyone in Martinworld cared or knew about genetics. Which they don't. For them an half-uncle would be an uncle, and most likely also addressed as such. Sansa married Uncle Jonnel and Serena married Uncle Edric.

Now, it is quite likely that those weren't love matches, or anything, but that should be the case for most of noble marriages (although I'd not be surprised if it turned out that Lyarra and Rickard were very much love).

It was most likely a political match arranged and enforced by Lord Cregan to ensure that Winterfell would remain in male Stark hands after his death. His eldest son and heir Rickon had died in Dorne but there had never been a Queen Regnant in the North - and most likely nobody ever had had any interest in a Ruling Lady of Winterfell, especially not in troubled times - so the best way to ensure that one of his granddaughters would not try to usurp the place he thought should go to his eldest son by Lynara Stark would be to marry the girls to their eldest uncles. And that's what was done.

Now, the really interesting question there is why on earth Winterfell did not pass from Jonnel to Edric and Serena's twins Cregard and Torrhen. That might be where the She-Wolves story might set in - which plays decades later, during the ill-fated rule of Lord Beron Stark, but could feature an aged and embittered Serena (in her sixties), plotting to oust Lorra Royce and supplant her children with her own sons or grandchildren. She certainly could use the rivalries and petty bickerings between the other Stark widows and daughters infesting Winterfell during those days to her advantage. That thing really has great potential. Not to mention that two of Serana's daughters are married to an Umber and a Cerwyn, respectively, which could allow her to command the allegiance of a great house in the North as well as the closest noble house to Winterfell, which might enable to have a strong force of men-at-arms arrive unannounced and uncalled for very quickly should the need arise...

We see no need for another such match in the family tree because Cregan seems to be the only Stark lord living to very old age and fathering a huge army of healthy children by three wives. Those kind of things complicate the succession. Such marriages might also have been very common among the descendants of those old kings TWoIaF mentions for various houses - Edrick Stark, Garth Goldenhand, etc. - because when a king has too many heirs you either have to kill your rivals or make alliances. If grandsons and great-grandsons vie for power cousin and avunculate marriages certainly are an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

It was most likely a political match arranged and enforced by Lord Cregan to ensure that Winterfell would remain in male Stark hands after his death. His eldest son and heir Rickon had died in Dorne but there had never been a Queen Regnant in the North - and most likely nobody ever had had any interest in a Ruling Lady of Winterfell, especially not in troubled times - so the best way to ensure that one of his granddaughters would not try to usurp the place he thought should go to his eldest son by Lynara Stark would be to marry the girls to their eldest uncles. And that's what was done.

Now, the really interesting question there is why on earth Winterfell did not pass from Jonnel to Edric and Serena's twins Cregard and Torrhen. That might be where the She-Wolves story might set in - which plays decades later, during the ill-fated rule of Lord Beron Stark, but could feature an aged and embittered Serena (in her sixties), plotting to oust Lorra Royce and supplant her children with her own sons or grandchildren. She certainly could use the rivalries and petty bickerings between the other Stark widows and daughters infesting Winterfell during those days to her advantage. That thing really has great potential. Not to mention that two of Serana's daughters are married to an Umber and a Cerwyn, respectively, which could allow her to command the allegiance of a great house in the North as well as the closest noble house to Winterfell, which might enable to have a strong force of men-at-arms arrive unannounced and uncalled for very quickly should the need arise...

 

The option that offers itself is that the boys predeceased their father. We know that the Stark family tree includes also children that died very young - such as Rickard's half-brother Brandon. After that it was down to girls, which the Northern houses might not have liked.

The Umbers are prominent due to their boisterousness and skill at arms, but I don't get the impression they are powerful in the way the Karstarks or Manderly's are. My theory in regards to the double Umber marriage is that the Umbers in question were loyal followers of the new Lord Stark (much like the Greatjon adored Robb), and these marriages were a way of rewarding them as well as getting safely rid off of the dangerous female claimants. As to the Cerwyns, they seem to be the Northern version of the Stokeworths to me - the Starks have socialized with them due to the closeness of their lands, but they are not really all that important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this in the book forum, but since this has turned into more of a book discussion, I'll add it here. That said, I don't think this will have any bearing on the show because in the end they'll just do what's "cool", what's easy, and what gets ratings as the show is clearly geared towards the casual viewer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incest in Westeros is often characterized as an is-or-isn’t thing by the fandom but when looking at how it’s practiced, we see that’s not how it’s viewed by the Westerosi themselves.

Parent-child: Universally considered incest. Taboo even for Targs.

Sibling-sibling: Practiced by Targs. Tolerated at best by non-Targ Westerosi. Deeply reviled by some characters.

For the rest of the options, we see that Westeros is very, very conscious of the fact that marrying within the family causes problems and the frequency of these unions and the fact that they are carefully considered within the context of past bloodlines and future bloodlines means that Westeros does in fact consider them a type of incest and they warrant very careful treatment for several generations both before the union and after the union to mitigate damage.

Uncle-Niece or Aunt-Nephew: These unions are not unheard of by some non-Targ Westerosi but you have to still dig deep to find examples of these due to extreme rarity. All that I can recall involve power-grabs or special circumstances. Basically, these unions are never anyone’s first or ideal choice and all had no interfamily marriage for a number of generations before or after indicating that Westerosi know that this union is very risky and to be avoided.

Cousin-Cousin: For how advantageous these unions can be for keeping family alliances or property within the family, these are still fairly rare. No one bats an eye at the presence of these unions, but you’ll notice that successive cousin-cousin marriages throughout generations is rare or non-existent. If a family decided on marrying cousin-to-cousin for successive generations, I’m betting that Westeros would come to see that as incest because over successive generations, not enough new bloodlines were being introduced. These unions are ok, but only if they're only sporadic.

Basically these Westerosi interfamily but non-incestuous marriages are only considered to not be incest because they are very careful to ensure new blood enters the line both before and after the union. Context is key for whether uncle-niece, aunt-nephew, or cousin-cousin unions are incestuous or not and they are not viewed as benign by the Westerosi population at all, or they would be a lot more common with less diligence paid to ensuring new blood enter the line in other generations. They absolutely do not have the blanket acceptance that is given to non-familial unions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lojzelote said:

The option that offers itself is that the boys predeceased their father. We know that the Stark family tree includes also children that died very young - such as Rickard's half-brother Brandon. After that it was down to girls, which the Northern houses might not have liked.

That is an option, but not the really interesting one ;-).

In light of the fact that Jonnel was not succeeded by Edric, indicating that he, most likely, predeceased Jonnel, one could speculate whether their children were still infants at the time, making it unlikely or even impossible for them to actually be considered as successors. Especially if both Jonnel (and Edric at his side, perhaps?) fell in some battle.

Another interesting scenario could be that Serena and the children were away somewhere, and people didn't know where they were or whether they were still alive.

And one should not forget the role of the Iron Throne in all that. If the Starks had a succession struggle the king would rule on that, and not the Lords in the North.

Quote

The Umbers are prominent due to their boisterousness and skill at arms, but I don't get the impression they are powerful in the way the Karstarks or Manderly's are. My theory in regards to the double Umber marriage is that the Umbers in question were loyal followers of the new Lord Stark (much like the Greatjon adored Robb), and these marriages were a way of rewarding them as well as getting safely rid off of the dangerous female claimants. As to the Cerwyns, they seem to be the Northern version of the Stokeworths to me - the Starks have socialized with them due to the closeness of their lands, but they are not really all that important.

It is noteworthy that we actually get the husbands of Serena's daughters unlike so many other Stark daughters in the family tree. Ran has told us that most of the women in the family tree were married, but George wasn't in the mood to invent names all that time (he said that referring to Black Aly's daughters, if I remember correctly). That could mean that Serena's daughters are important for the She-Wolves story - or not. We don't know.

However, while the Umbers clearly are not the most refined Northern house they are clearly among the more powerful. They are a former royal house and the only noble ruling the lands east of the Kingsroad/south of the Wall. That is a huge tract of land. Sure, there might be not all that many men up there but they are clearly prestigious and powerful. If I had to make some hierarchy of strength there the Umbers would still come behind the Manderlys, Karstarks, Dustins, and Boltons but they would still be a rather important house.

As to the Umber marriages - I'm not sure Serena married Jon Umber after Edric's death. I think it is the other way around. She was the eldest daughter of Rickon Stark, and that marriage may have been arranged before her father died - or at least before Lord Cregan had fathered his sons on Lynara Stark. Once it was decided that Winterfell would not go to the girls only Sansa was left to be married to the uncles, so they first decided to marry Sansa to Jonnel and only after Jon Umber died was Serena then given to Edric.

The Cerwyns aren't in the same league as the Umbers, of course, but their importance from a story-telling point of view is the closeness to Winterfell as well as the fact that they are a lordly house in their own right which means they should command a few forces of their own. If there is turmoil at Winterfell the Cerwyns could be there faster than anyone else, allowing them to settle any such dispute with (deadly) force long before another Northern house could react.

And therein lies power.

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Parent-child: Universally considered incest. Taboo even for Targs.

Not completely unheard of. Aegon IV may have had sex with his own daughter, Jeyne Lothston. But still, unheard of in the marriage department. At least in Westeros. That tells us nothing about Dragonstone and nothing at all about Valyria. I'd be very surprised if stuff like that didn't happen over there. If a dragonlord house was on the decline they may have tried everything they could to produce more dragonlords.

And, of course, there is Craster, who marries his daughters, granddaughters, and possibly even great-granddaughters.

Quote

Uncle-Niece or Aunt-Nephew: These unions are not unheard of by some non-Targ Westerosi but you have to still dig deep to find examples of these due to extreme rarity. All that I can recall involve power-grabs or special circumstances. Basically, these unions are never anyone’s first or ideal choice and all had no interfamily marriage for a number of generations before or after indicating that Westerosi know that this union is very risky and to be avoided.

Since we have only two examples for those outside the Targaryen-Velaryon-Baratheon complex this is hardly a surprise. However, your second point there is wrong. Lynara Stark, the mother of Jonnel and Edric Stark was a Stark herself, meaning Jonnel and Edric were not only Sansa and Serena's half-uncles but also her cousins to an unspecified degree.

In addition, we don't know how closely all the brides bearing different names are related to the Starks (or Lannisters) at hand. We can only identify cousins through the male line. Cousins (and even aunts and uncles) through the female line are invisible to us.

Quote

Cousin-Cousin: For how advantageous these unions can be for keeping family alliances or property within the family, these are still fairly rare. No one bats an eye at the presence of these unions, but you’ll notice that successive cousin-cousin marriages throughout generations is rare or non-existent. If a family decided on marrying cousin-to-cousin for successive generations, I’m betting that Westeros would come to see that as incest because over successive generations, not enough new bloodlines were being introduced. These unions are ok, but only if they're only sporadic.

There is no basis for that assessment because we do not have a single representative genealogy of a noble house of Westeros and the degree to which it is interrelated with another house. 

But what is clear is that neither the Lannisters nor the Starks (or the Tyrells-Redwynes, about whom we also know a little bit) pick the overwhelming majority of their spouses from a heavily interrelated gene pool, i.e. the nobility of the North and the West or the Reach. They do marry their own. They pick their spouses from the handful of families that are of equal standing, and pepper it with an exotic bride (a Norrey or Flint with the Starks, and a Webber with the Lannisters) here and there. That gives us no indication that they care about inbreeding, let alone strive to prevent it. Quite the contrary, actually.

Tricking yourself into believing that the Starks are not (somewhat distant) cousins to those Lockes, Karstarks, Manderlys, and Umbers they are wont to marry doesn't make a lot of sense - especially since we have no idea into what houses most of the Stark daughters actually did marry. A really complete family tree of House Stark would cover all the descendants of Lord Benjen and Lysa Locke down to the last female cadet branch, and such a picture would most likely reveal quite a few additional cousin marriages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Uncle-Niece or Aunt-Nephew: These unions are not unheard of by some non-Targ Westerosi but you have to still dig deep to find examples of these due to extreme rarity. All that I can recall involve power-grabs or special circumstances. Basically, these unions are never anyone’s first or ideal choice and all had no interfamily marriage for a number of generations before or after indicating that Westerosi know that this union is very risky and to be avoided.

Cousin-Cousin: For how advantageous these unions can be for keeping family alliances or property within the family, these are still fairly rare. No one bats an eye at the presence of these unions, but you’ll notice that successive cousin-cousin marriages throughout generations is rare or non-existent. If a family decided on marrying cousin-to-cousin for successive generations, I’m betting that Westeros would come to see that as incest because over successive generations, not enough new bloodlines were being introduced. These unions are ok, but only if they're only sporadic.

Although there is no way to verify the answer to how frequent these pairings happen among the aristocracy of Westeros, largely because we only have extensive family trees for two such families, I think the evidence that we do have leans heavily against your suppositions here.  

It is clear from Martin's books that, excepting the Targaryens, the aristocrats of Westeros marry in much the same fashion as the aristocrats of Europe married up until the 20th century. Even when they do not marry within the same house, members of such houses almost always marry among a handful of other houses, generation after generation, century after century. That being the case, marriages between cousins looks to be quite prevalent and marriages between uncles and nieces are probably not particularly extraordinary.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...