Jump to content

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


Ser Petyr Parker

Recommended Posts

I remain surprised that there are readers arguing that the great houses of Westeros operate differently in their marriage practices than the real life houses on which they are based but here we are. 

I repeat my view that the evidence we have is indicative of consanguinity being standard practice among the aristocracy in Westeros. For example, I think members of House Tyrell have been marrying members of the same handful of families for hundreds of years (i.e., Hightower, Redwyne, Fossoway, etc.) I think this is fairly typical and that the Martells, Lannisters, Greyjoys, Tullys, Baratheons, Starks and Arryns have done the same. 

Nevertheless, there seems to be several lines of arguments that are getting conflated in this thread and the issues are starting to get confused. One questions is whether a relationship between an aunt and nephew within the story would be an issue because of how closely related they are. Another question is whether we, the readers, should have an issue with the relationship. I think these two questions are not interrelated but that seems to be the inclination of those arguing here. Personally, I do not get that viewpoint. Even if the characters within the story had no issue with such a relationship, I think it is a perfectly valid opinion for a reader to find such a relationship distasteful.  The opposite being true as well. 

In any case, my own view is that I do not have a problem with the relationship, largely because Martin has taken decided steps to defray the emotional baggage one would usually have with such a relationship (i.e., there are no genetic consequences associated with incest in Martin's story and Daenerys and Jon have never had a familial relationship).

As for how the characters in the story will view it, my thoughts are that I find it difficult to believe that many will even know about it. I truly think that Jon will not share the information with very many people, largely because he has no interest in being king or anything else associated with what his true parentage might bring. For example, I doubt that Sana and Arya will ever find out. So, really, my own take is that the only people we will have to react to the news in a meaningful way will be Jon and Daenerys, which itself will be complicated by the fact that she will likely be pregnant with their child by the time they both find out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/taboo

If you don't know the definition of taboo, here it is. If you're willfully ignoring the definition of the word to suit your argument, we have nothing further to discuss.

Well, for Craster it isn't taboo, right? And while we don't know how representative he is it is quite likely that he is not the only one who has struck that particular deal with the Others.

36 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I never said these marriages didn't happen. I said the text always shows them happening where there are sufficient new bloodlines introduced in preceding and successive generations to mitigate damage.

But you have no evidence for that claim, do you? Or can you tell me how much Stark blood Marna Locke or Arya Flint had? How closely were Lysara Karstark, Melantha Blackwood, Lyanne Glover, and Lorra Royce related to their Stark husband? What does 'sufficient new bloodlines' even mean in that context?

You can make the case that Rohanne Webber introduced new blood into House Lannister, but those Kyndalls, Farmans, Marbrands, and Reynes the Lannisters are wont to marry under normal circumstances don't count as 'new blood'. They are fellow Westermen who should have married scores or even hundreds of Lannister maidens in the last centuries and millennia.

36 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Prove me wrong with actual text from GRRM otherwise I've said all I have to say on the topic.

I don't have to prove you wrong. You are making a claim here. You prove it. Prove it that all those Stark wives are 'sufficient new bloodlines'.

And no - there is no reason to believe that the Starks or anyone in this world is aware of the bad effects of inbreeding. This is never discussed. Incest is a sin against the gods, not something that has bad effects and is best avoided for that reason. In that sense, there is no breeding program in place where people consciously arrange a cousin marriage every 2-3 generations and then introduce 'new blood' to mitigate those effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And no - there is no reason to believe that the Starks or anyone in this world is aware of the bad effects of inbreeding. This is never discussed. Incest is a sin against the gods, not something that has bad effects and is best avoided for that reason. In that sense, there is no breeding program in place where people consciously arrange a cousin marriage every 2-3 generations and then introduce 'new blood' to mitigate those effects.

Not to butt in -- but I presume that a public exchange is permissive of butting in. I think that this paragraph is what really matters. Even if someone could "prove" that cousin/cousin or uncle/niece marriages have only been done every once it a while, that finding would seem to be irrelevant. The readers/viewers have NO indication from the books or the show that "incest" or permissible marriages are at all tested by how recently a similar close marriage occurred in the bloodline or whether fresh "blood" has been introduced recently. Every available evidence is that certain groups (like the Targs) considered brother/sister marriages permissible, while most others did not. But either brother/sister marriages are permissible always or never -- no suggestion has ever been made that a brother/sister marriage is permissible only if it has been a couple of generations since the last brother/sister marriage.

The same logic in this type of medieval society would apply to groups that permitted cousin/cousin marriages or uncle(aunt)/niece(nephew) marriages. Either they are permitted or not permitted. And clearly the Stark tradition permits such marriages, as they were practiced by the Starks. There is absolutely no hint at all that such a marriage is only permitted if new bloodlines had been introduced recently. As you note, people in this type of society have no idea about the genetic problems with inbreeding. The original rule may have been set down due to an observation by certain elites of these problems (who knows as not really relevant how the rule came to be developed) -- but the vast majority of people would have no idea and the rules would not be so nuanced as to permit certain types of marriages based on how recently new bloodlines were introduced. Such a rule is way too complicated for this type of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reported a pattern in the series which you have yet to contradict with text. Take it as you will.

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And no - there is no reason to believe that the Starks or anyone in this world is aware of the bad effects of inbreeding. This is never discussed.

 

ASOS Daenerys VI (Barristan says this to Daenerys' face)

"I am no maester to quote history at you, Your Grace. Swords have been my life, not books. But every child knows that the Targaryens have always danced too close to madness. Your father was not the first. King Jaehaerys once told me that madness and greatness are two sides of the same coin. Every time a new Targaryen is born, he said, the gods toss the coin in the air and the world holds its breath to see how it will land."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

I reported a pattern in the series which you have yet to contradict with text. Take it as you will.

 

ASOS Daenerys VI (Barristan says this to Daenerys' face)

 

"I am no maester to quote history at you, Your Grace. Swords have been my life, not books. But every child knows that the Targaryens have always danced too close to madness. Your father was not the first. King Jaehaerys once told me that madness and greatness are two sides of the same coin. Every time a new Targaryen is born, he said, the gods toss the coin in the air and the world holds its breath to see how it will land."

 

 

 

But he does not connect this issue to inbreeding. The quote is about Targs either being mad or great. If inbreeding is seen as an inherent problem, then why would any of the Targs be great after so many generations of inbreeding? This observation is one about House Targ in terms of a family trait that is observed -- but no one seems to think that this trait is the negative repercussion from generations of incest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

But he does not connect this issue to inbreeding. The quote is about Targs either being mad or great. If inbreeding is seen as an inherent problem, then why would any of the Targs be great after so many generations of inbreeding? This observation is one about House Targ in terms of a family trait that is observed -- but no one seems to think that this trait is the negative repercussion from generations of incest.

Other posters have clarified this with more text earlier in this thread and in the Incest thread in the book forum.

Not sure if you're familiar with this, but in real life greatness and madness are seen as strongly connected with only a thin line separating the two sometimes. It's most common among artists (Van Gogh is a prominent example) and to a lesser extent it can appear in scientists, writers, philosophers, etc. John Nash is famous schizophrenic mathematician and Einstein had some peculiar behaviors though I wouldn't call him mad at all. Autistic people can be prodigies in some aspects. There's a new tv show on this fall in the US about an autistic genius doctor. In real life, it's the positive/negative manifestations of mental illness or brain irregularities, but as Westeros can't really have psychiatrists with contemporary diagnostic criteria, this manifests through incest in the Targs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Other posters have clarified this with more text earlier in this thread and in the Incest thread in the book forum.

Not sure if you're familiar with this, but in real life greatness and madness are seen as strongly connected with only a thin line separating the two sometimes. It's most common among artists (Van Gogh is a prominent example) and to a lesser extent it can appear in scientists, writers, philosophers, etc. John Nash is famous schizophrenic mathematician and Einstein had some peculiar behaviors though I wouldn't call him mad at all. Autistic people can be prodigies in some aspects. There's a new tv show on this fall in the US about an autistic genius doctor. In real life, it's the positive/negative manifestations of mental illness or brain irregularities, but as Westeros can't really have psychiatrists with contemporary diagnostic criteria, this manifests through incest in the Targs.

Quite interesting -- but not relevant to whether Barristan thought that Targ madness was a result of incest. You were responding to a post by LV that no one connects incest with bad effect and you posted the quote from Barristan in response. But Barristan does not mention incest or inbreeding -- just a problem with the Targs (just as people make generalizations about the traits of Starks and Lannisters, without any thought that they are involved with incest). So the Barristan quote does not support the proposition that you were asserting it supports

With respect to a prior post of yours in which you noted that you were demonstrating an observed "pattern" -- I would emphasize that correlation is not causation. Sure, maybe you are correct that close relationship marriages seem to occur only after new blood was recently introduced -- but so what. Again, correlation is not causation. Without some textual evidence that the intervening "new blood" had anything to do with making the close relationship marriage permissible, you are engaging in a classic logical flaw. There are numerous alternative reasons for this pattern other than some societal rule that requires it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Quite interesting -- but not relevant to whether Barristan thought that Targ madness was a result of incest. You were responding to a post by LV that no one connects incest with bad effect and you posted the quote from Barristan in response. But Barristan does not mention incest or inbreeding -- just a problem with the Targs (just as people make generalizations about the traits of Starks and Lannisters, without any thought that they are involved with incest). So the Barristan quote does not support the proposition that you were asserting it supports

I'm running out of time here and the incest problem has been backed up elsewhere in this thread. It's up to you to look for it or not.

 

3 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

With respect to a prior post of yours in which you noted that you were demonstrating an observed "pattern" -- I would emphasize that correlation is not causation. Sure, maybe you are correct that close relationship marriages seem to occur only after new blood was recently introduced -- but so what. Again, correlation is not causation. Without some textual evidence that the intervening "new blood" had anything to do with making the close relationship marriage permissible, you are engaging in a classic logical flaw. There are numerous alternative reasons for this pattern other than some societal rule that requires it.

I do agree with this and the pattern was all that I cited. The pattern can be thrown at any given time by introducing more info which bucks it but it's all I can and will go on at this point.  I'm hinging on the fact that GRRM is overall a very diligent and detailed writer and for some reason he has yet to establish that uncle/niece, aunt/nephew or strings of close relative marriage are universally-acceptable. "It happened a few times in 5000+ pages of actual series and even more pages of additional in-world text in non-Targ families" says to me that this is not universally acceptable or it would have happened with a lot more frequency in a feudal world where it would be beneficial. If someone wants to believe that he just "forgot" to clarify this, then that's up to you. 

Additionally, the pattern in the books is towards the complicated and convoluted (see all the succession clusterf**** and grey characters) and a Jon/Dany marriage being just being cool with everyone isn't consistent with complicated and convoluted. I've said this before, but I'll say it again, this is my book position should this happen. The show will do whatever is easy and makes money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lollygag--

I am not quite sure what you mean by the "incest problem" being addressed elsewhere. Certainly people have shown that incest is considered a sin in Westeros. Different groups in the series seem to have a different definition -- but only the Targs seem to have no form of prohibited incest (although presumably parent/child marriage would not happen even with Targs). People also have shown that incest is a problem in the real world for genetic reasons (and other reasons). But I have seen no evidence that there is any textual support that anyone in Westeros thought that incest between an aunt and nephew (or even brother-sister) might lead to genetic problems. The discussions of the evils of incest among the characters never get at any genetic defects likely to occur as a result of the incest -- they are prohibited because they are "sinful" or "abominations" -- the analysis never goes further than that. And the one quote you provided from Barristan does not attribute any of the Targ issues to the genetic issues regarding incest. Keep in mind that in the books at least, almost no one thinks it odd that all of Cersei's children with Robert have blonde hair (Ned needs to do extensive research to figure this out -- while in modern times, the issue would be obvious). People in that society simply have little understanding of genetics.

Yes, I agree that GRRM is careful. But I think that proves the opposite of what you think it proves. Sure, a marriage between uncle(aunt) and niece(nephew) might not be that common in Westeros. But GRRM would not include such marriages in the Stark family tree for no reason at all. He included them to show that they were not prohibited. He does not want Jon to have a crisis regarding "incest" with Dany. There are many other issues to be addressed in terms of Jon's identity as a Targ that will be front and center. Adding the "ick" factor for Jon to have to get over that he is committing incest with his aunt simply is not part of GRRM's plan. How do we know? Well, we don't "know" but his inclusion of these types of marriages in the Stark family tree is huge clue.

In this society, either a type of relationship is permitted or not permitted. In the Stark family tree -- they were permitted. They cannot be "sort of" permitted. We have no evidence that some special dispensation was needed to permit these marriages (and there were at least two). Your notion of complex rules involving "new blood" being added or being discouraged (but not prohibited) are just too complicated and legalistic for this type of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I'm running out of time here and the incest problem has been backed up elsewhere in this thread. It's up to you to look for it or not.

It's only a problem if the characters and their culture define it as incest. And they don't define it as incest in-universe.

Westerosi south of the Wall, ie, everyone but the Wildlings, do not consider first cousins to be incest, and what evidence we have also suggests that Aunt/Nephew and Uncle/Niece relationships are accepted and not considered incestuous, although they are uncommon.

The Aunt/Nephew and Uncle/Niece relationships are relatively uncommon because normally there'd be enough of an age gap for the Aunt or Uncle to have married someone else, and instead there would be a first cousin marriage.

 

Something is either defined as incest or it is not. It's a binary solution set, not a conditional one. In Westeros, first cousins are not incest, and somewhat common. Aunt/Nephew and Uncle/Niece are not incest, though relatively uncommon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Faint said:

I repeat my view that the evidence we have is indicative of consanguinity being standard practice among the aristocracy in Westeros. For example, I think members of House Tyrell have been marrying members of the same handful of families for hundreds of years (i.e., Hightower, Redwyne, Fossoway, etc.) I think this is fairly typical and that the Martells, Lannisters, Greyjoys, Tullys, Baratheons, Starks and Arryns have done the same. 

Even though I agree with your overall points, I do want to raise something here:

The Tyrells may well be a special case. Aegon I put the old king's stewards, the Tyrells, in charge, despite there being six families that had an arguably better claim. Ever since then, the Tyrells seem to have very evenly divided their children among those six families. That could be a deliberate plan to solidify their rule (or at least it could have started as a deliberate plan and then just become a family tradition).

But of course that's just a more extreme version of what every ruling house does. I'd bet if we got a full family tree for the Arryns we'd see that Royces and Waynwoods are much more common than Coldwaters and Hardyngs. So it doesn't really change your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Faint said:

I repeat my view that the evidence we have is indicative of consanguinity being standard practice among the aristocracy in Westeros. For example, I think members of House Tyrell have been marrying members of the same handful of families for hundreds of years (i.e., Hightower, Redwyne, Fossoway, etc.) I think this is fairly typical and that the Martells, Lannisters, Greyjoys, Tullys, Baratheons, Starks and Arryns have done the same.

We can see that as confirmed indeed. For the Redwynes-Tyrells we even have a recent first cousin marriage confirmed in Paxter Redwyne (nephew of Olenna Redwyne Tyrell) and Mina Tyrell (daughter of Olenna Redwyne Tyrell).

And it is quite clear that the Tyrells would have predominantly chosen their brides from the Hightowers, Redwynes, Rowans, Peakes, Oakhearts, and Tarlys. Especially in their main branch. They needed to gain standing and legitimacy among their peers in the Reach.

A really good example for the way things were done over the centuries are those nine marriages between the Gardeners and Tyrells over the centuries - which indicates dozens or scores of such marriages with the truly noble houses of the Reach prior to the Conquest (i.e. Hightowers, Redwynes, Manderlys, Peakes, Rowans, etc.) - as well as those many marriages between the Brackens and Blackwoods.

1 hour ago, Faint said:

Nevertheless, there seems to be several lines of arguments that are getting conflated in this thread and the issues are starting to get confused. One questions is whether a relationship between an aunt and nephew within the story would be an issue because of how closely related they are. Another question is whether we, the readers, should have an issue with the relationship. I think these two questions are not interrelated but that seems to be the inclination of those arguing here. Personally, I do not get that viewpoint. Even if the characters within the story had no issue with such a relationship, I think it is a perfectly valid opinion for a reader to find such a relationship distasteful.  The opposite being true as well.

Sure, but those are separate questions. I really don't care how people answer that question in real life.

What isn't a valid argument is claiming that Jon (or any character, really) is (or should) be abhorred by the aunt thing. One could that this is likely to be the case if we had evidence that Jon disliked or abhorred avuncular relationships but there is no evidence for that. Our personal opinion of how the character should react or how we would like him or her to react is irrelevant.

1 hour ago, Faint said:

In any case, my own view is that I do not have a problem with the relationship, largely because Martin has taken decided steps to defray the emotional baggage one would usually have with such a relationship (i.e., there are no genetic consequences associated with incest in Martin's story and Daenerys and Jon have never had a familial relationship).

I'm not sure if the offspring figures into all that. I'm not sure we are going to see all of Dany-Jon's offspring (assuming they survive the series) and there certainly could be some freaks among them (due to the blood of the dragon thing) but I'm not sure if I'd judge them for their love even if that was the case.

1 hour ago, Faint said:

As for how the characters in the story will view it, my thoughts are that I find it difficult to believe that many will even know about it. I truly think that Jon will not share the information with very many people, largely because he has no interest in being king or anything else associated with what his true parentage might bring. For example, I doubt that Sana and Arya will ever find out. So, really, my own take is that the only people we will have to react to the news in a meaningful way will be Jon and Daenerys, which itself will be complicated by the fact that she will likely be pregnant with their child by the time they both find out. 

That certainly is a possibility although I doubt it is a very likely one. The show most likely is going to reveal the truth to the public and I assume it is going to get out in the books as well, although I doubt many people will care about it all that much. If you fight for your very survival you have other things to worry about.

1 hour ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Not to butt in -- but I presume that a public exchange is permissive of butting in.

Sure, this is an open discussion board. And it is always good to hear from you ;-).

1 hour ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I think that this paragraph is what really matters. Even if someone could "prove" that cousin/cousin or uncle/niece marriages have only been done every once it a while, that finding would seem to be irrelevant. The readers/viewers have NO indication from the books or the show that "incest" or permissible marriages are at all tested by how recently a similar close marriage occurred in the bloodline or whether fresh "blood" has been introduced recently. Every available evidence is that certain groups (like the Targs) considered brother/sister marriages permissible, while most others did not. But either brother/sister marriages are permissible always or never -- no suggestion has ever been made that a brother/sister marriage is permissible only if it has been a couple of generations since the last brother/sister marriage.

Yeah, we really don't have representative data on this kind of thing. While we knew the Targaryens usually married brother and sister we also expected a lot more of them being married to siblings than they actually were in the final family tree - after all, you do need a sister if you want to marry her, and quite a few Targaryen kings didn't have sisters to marry.

And while we have no evidence that avuncular marriages were seen as sinful there is no reason to believe that people actively tried to reduce them. Sure, it doesn't seem as if this kind of thing was seen as ideal but if circumstances pushed this or that lord or king in that direction they would have gone there rather than risk negative political consequences. Preventing a succession or civil war usually is the top priority.

The crucial aspect ruling marriages in this setting are political alliances and political convenience. And especially the royal houses prior to the Conquest - which usually did not have to seal alliances via marriages after they had already conquered all territories and houses they wanted to conquer - would have had more interest to keep the number of cadet branches under control rather than create more and more male and female cadet branches. We see how this kind of thing can cause problems with the Greystarks (who may have been more interrelated with the Boltons than the Starks by the time they rebelled).

In that sense it is very likely that the royal houses tended to turn to those bloodlines they were already related to, both to continue to show them royal favor to prevent them from trying to usurp them as well as to keep a tight leash on them.

1 hour ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

The same logic in this type of medieval society would apply to groups that permitted cousin/cousin marriages or uncle(aunt)/niece(nephew) marriages. Either they are permitted or not permitted. And clearly the Stark tradition permits such marriages, as they were practiced by the Starks. There is absolutely no hint at all that such a marriage is only permitted if new bloodlines had been introduced recently. As you note, people in this type of society have no idea about the genetic problems with inbreeding. The original rule may have been set down due to an observation by certain elites of these problems (who knows as not really relevant how the rule came to be developed) -- but the vast majority of people would have no idea and the rules would not be so nuanced as to permit certain types of marriages based on how recently new bloodlines were introduced. Such a rule is way too complicated for this type of society.

If there were the same type of bad effects of longterm inbreeding as there are in our world then most or even all of the major noble families would suffer from a lot of birth defects and hereditary disease. Since that's not the case we have no little reason to assume that the same rules apply in this world.

After all, as I've said above somewhere already - the Targaryens should either be no longer alive or basically a new (sub-)species of humans, (on the verge of being) no longer capable of breeding outside their own bloodline. They would have practiced 6,000 years of constant sibling incest with very few exceptions, and this should take quite a toll on their genetic fitness.

But we can be very sure nobody ever came up with theories that the nobles should not marry strictly amongst themselves. Else things wouldn't be the way they are. The maesters would advise the nobles to take brides from merchant, craftsmen, or even peasant families.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

I reported a pattern in the series which you have yet to contradict with text. Take it as you will.

There is just no pattern. And even if there were - you do not know that there is a pattern. You don't have enough data to establish such a pattern.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

ASOS Daenerys VI (Barristan says this to Daenerys' face)

"I am no maester to quote history at you, Your Grace. Swords have been my life, not books. But every child knows that the Targaryens have always danced too close to madness. Your father was not the first. King Jaehaerys once told me that madness and greatness are two sides of the same coin. Every time a new Targaryen is born, he said, the gods toss the coin in the air and the world holds its breath to see how it will land."

As @UnmaskedLurker has already said - that's just a statement of Selmy's how Jaehaerys II sees the relation between the gods and the Targaryens.

He expresses a truth about incest in real life there, though. Incest has a tendency to bring forth both sick and strong individuals, depending how things turn out. That effect is usually used when incest is used in selective breeding - you discard the misfits and breed the next generation of the kind of dog you want to create using the healthy individuals.

The whole thing of greatness and madness being two sides of the Targaryen coin actually does make sense in that context. But again - incest does not cause this, it just bring forth certain traits that would have gone unnoticed or be suppressed because problematic recessive genes can make their presence known.

But neither Barristan nor Jaehaerys II (who himself was very much in favor of this incest thing, marrying his own sister and commanding his children to marry each other) actually take a scientific approach to this. Nobody is saying the Targaryens are mad because of their incest or would get better if they no longer practiced incest. In fact, it is the choice of the gods whether a Targaryen becomes a great man or a madman.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

Other posters have clarified this with more text earlier in this thread and in the Incest thread in the book forum.

Not sure if you're familiar with this, but in real life greatness and madness are seen as strongly connected with only a thin line separating the two sometimes. It's most common among artists (Van Gogh is a prominent example) and to a lesser extent it can appear in scientists, writers, philosophers, etc. John Nash is famous schizophrenic mathematician and Einstein had some peculiar behaviors though I wouldn't call him mad at all. Autistic people can be prodigies in some aspects. There's a new tv show on this fall in the US about an autistic genius doctor. In real life, it's the positive/negative manifestations of mental illness or brain irregularities, but as Westeros can't really have psychiatrists with contemporary diagnostic criteria, this manifests through incest in the Targs.

Actually, autism sucks. My girlfriend is an autist, and while she is quite intelligent she would much prefer it if she got her intelligence 'for free' without having to deal with all the shitty brain-functioning stuff autistic people have to deal with. If you have great difficulty following a conversation in a café or restaurant because you are unable to filter out the background noise you are fucked.

There are certain mental affliction which can help you produce great art or can even help you do certain things better than others, but especially things like art are very subjective. It is basically an accident of circumstances whether a man like Van Gogh has success or ends in obscurity.

But this has nothing to do with anything. Very few Targaryens are on the border line between madness and greatness - perhaps Prince Daemon was - but the average Targaryen is either truly great (Jaehaerys I, Aegon I, Daeron II, Aegon V) or truly mad (Maegor, Rhaegel, Aerion, Aerys II, Baelor). There is no middle ground there.

1 hour ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

With respect to a prior post of yours in which you noted that you were demonstrating an observed "pattern" -- I would emphasize that correlation is not causation. Sure, maybe you are correct that close relationship marriages seem to occur only after new blood was recently introduced -- but so what. Again, correlation is not causation. Without some textual evidence that the intervening "new blood" had anything to do with making the close relationship marriage permissible, you are engaging in a classic logical flaw. There are numerous alternative reasons for this pattern other than some societal rule that requires it.

It is not just that - we also don't know whether those Stark brides from other houses are truly 'fresh blood' in any meaningful sense. Because we don't know how many of them are children or grandchildren of those many Stark daughters we see on the family tree whose husbands we simply do not know. Once a Stark daughter married into another house her daughter could easily marry into another house and then a Stark from the main line such a daughter. That kind of thing could only be tracked if we had a complete family tree. Which we do not have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, falcotron said:

Even though I agree with your overall points, I do want to raise something here:

The Tyrells may well be a special case. Aegon I put the old king's stewards, the Tyrells, in charge, despite there being six families that had an arguably better claim. Ever since then, the Tyrells seem to have very evenly divided their children among those six families. That could be a deliberate plan to solidify their rule (or at least it could have started as a deliberate plan and then just become a family tradition).

But of course that's just a more extreme version of what every ruling house does. I'd bet if we got a full family tree for the Arryns we'd see that Royces and Waynwoods are much more common than Coldwaters and Hardyngs. So it doesn't really change your argument.

I actually think some of the other great houses might practice an even more extreme form of consanguinity, specifically the Lannisters and, to a lesser extent, the Starks and Tullys. The fact that those three houses have a particular look associated with their members is evidence enough that there is not much diversity in their lines. 

I think the practice applies to the entire aristocracy of Westeros though. As an example, I would be shocked if the Greyjoy family tree is not filled with a series of Harlaws, Sunderlys and Stonetrees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, falcotron said:

But of course that's just a more extreme version of what every ruling house does. I'd bet if we got a full family tree for the Arryns we'd see that Royces and Waynwoods are much more common than Coldwaters and Hardyngs. So it doesn't really change your argument.

We have a lot of recent Royce marriage there, actually. There is Hubert Arryn, the cousin of ill-fated Ronnel Arryn, who had a Royce wife. Then there is Jeyne Royce, the first wife of Jon Arryn.

In-between we have Yorbert Royce, the Lord Protector of the Maiden of the Vale. Could be that he held that office as her uncle or granduncle. After Jeyne's death Ser Corwyn Corbray was killed during a parlay at Runestone, possibly indicating that the Royces were backing some Arryn claimant the Corbrays were opposing, indicating that a Royce might have been married to whoever ended up succeeding Lady Jeyne as Lord of the Vale.

And that's the evidence/hints we have without any good and thorough family tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Faint said:

I actually think some of the other great houses might practice an even more extreme form of consanguinity, specifically the Lannisters and, to a lesser extent, the Starks and Tullys. The fact that those three houses have a particular look associated with their members is evidence enough that there is not much diversity in their lines. 

I think the practice applies to the entire aristocracy of Westeros though. As an example, I would be shocked if the Greyjoy family tree is not filled with a series of Harlaws, Sunderlys and Stonetrees. 

Sure. In fact, it's quite possible that by carefully spreading their blood around six families, the Tyrells actually casting a wider net than the other families. (After all, most regions don't have six houses tied for #2.) Again, not disputing your conclusions at all, I'm just not sure the Tyrells are the best example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We have a lot of recent Royce marriage there, actually. There is Hubert Arryn, the cousin of ill-fated Ronnel Arryn, who had a Royce wife. Then there is Jeyne Royce, the first wife of Jon Arryn.

Thanks for that example. That's exactly the kind of thing I'd expect from a family that's just winging it with their marriages, and it demonstrates Faint's point nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Faint said:

I actually think some of the other great houses might practice an even more extreme form of consanguinity, specifically the Lannisters and, to a lesser extent, the Starks and Tullys. The fact that those three houses have a particular look associated with their members is evidence enough that there is not much diversity in their lines. 

I think the practice applies to the entire aristocracy of Westeros though. As an example, I would be shocked if the Greyjoy family tree is not filled with a series of Harlaws, Sunderlys and Stonetrees. 

Actually, I think the Tullys might show more variation than most, at least in the surface, since the default bride for each heir of Riverrun actually should be a daughter of the present Lord of Harrenhal. And since that castle changed possession rather often in the last three hundred years there should be some variations there. We know a daughter of Edmyn Tully married Quenton Qoherys. Not sure whether the Towers was important/powerful enough to warrant marriages with with Tullys, but the Strongs certainly were - before and after they rose to Harrenhal (Ser Osmund Strong was Hand during the reign of the Conqueror).

Lord Lyonel Strong had three wives - I'd be very surprised if not at least one of them was a Tully. Just as I'd be very surprised if not one of his two daughters was married to Elmo Tully or his father.

The Lothstons were also powerful and notorious enough to warrant a marriage with the Tullys - if only to keep them in line - and a marriage is confirmed for the Tullys and the Whents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Sure. In fact, it's quite possible that by carefully spreading their blood around six families, the Tyrells actually casting a wider net than the other families. (After all, most regions don't have six houses tied for #2.) Again, not disputing your conclusions at all, I'm just not sure the Tyrells are the best example.

That's true actually, now that you mention it. The Tyrells have many more houses to appease than the other great houses. They might actually be the least inbred of the lot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not just that - we also don't know whether those Stark brides from other houses are truly 'fresh blood' in any meaningful sense. Because we don't know how many of them are children or grandchildren of those many Stark daughters we see on the family tree whose husbands we simply do not know. Once a Stark daughter married into another house her daughter could easily marry into another house and then a Stark from the main line such a daughter. That kind of thing could only be tracked if we had a complete family tree. Which we do not have.

I don't have much to add to the rest of your points (mostly agree with them) -- but I wanted to clarify this one issue. Of course you are correct that we don't know how must "fresh blood" really is being introduced. I get that and understand that we don't have the full family trees of all the Houses in the North (or elsewhere).

But the point I was trying to make is that even if we give @Lollygag every benefit of the doubt possible -- that there is a pattern (I am not sure that there really is one -- but assume there is) and that there really is a marriage among close relatives only after truly "new blood" has been introduced (again, we cannot be sure of this given the limited family trees -- but assume it is true) -- it would not be meaningful evidence in support of the thesis being put forth. If such a "pattern" or "rule" existed in Westeros, someone in-universe would have hinted at it. Someone would have made some comment along the lines that their House only permits cousins to marry if some number of generations has passed between the last such intra-House marriage -- or some clue in the direction of such a rule.

But the readers/viewers get nothing like that from any of the characters. The characters talk about the sins regarding incest. And the definition of incest (outside the Targs) seems to be limited in Westeros to parent/child and brother/sister relationships. Other than incest, there is no mention of any other restrictions on relationships (ignoring polygamy for this purpose, as that gets into a whole different discussion not relevant to this analysis). So any perceived pattern would simply be a correlation without any reason to believe causation. There are multiple reasons (many of which you put forth) to explain why bringing in brides from other Houses can be helpful to a ruling House. That benefit is more likely to be the "cause" of the correlation than some rule that is never mentioned in the text (or on the show) that Westeros has some elaborate notion of incest or permissible marriages among relatives that looks to how recently a similar marriage occurred. The way that all of the "rules" are expressed in Westeros simply are not consistent with such a nuanced rule -- and we never hear any discussion to support this theory. Noticing a presumed pattern (whether really a pattern or just the appearance of a pattern) and then constructing some "law" or "rule" that must have cause the pattern is simply faulty logical reasoning. Some other independent evidence for the existence of the "law" or "rule" to support the causation premise must be found -- and here no such evidence has been presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Faint said:

That's true actually, now that you mention it. The Tyrells have many more houses to appease than the other great houses. They might actually be the least inbred of the lot.

I suspect the Martells might be the least inbred. The same Princess who managed to get one of her daughters married to Rhaegar let her heir marry a Norvosi lady and her other son bring home bastards from four foreign women before settling down with (but not marrying) the bastard daughter of one of their lesser vassal houses. And everyone in Dorne seems to take that as business as usual. (And the show seems to have exaggerated rather than downplayed these differences.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...