Jump to content

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


Ser Petyr Parker

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

They might not function equally the same, but if incest was not a problem, people would be inbreeding more often for power issues and the faiths would not formid any type of incest.

The Faith only defines (vaginal) sex between brother and sister, mother and son, and father and daughter as incest. Anything else is perfectly fine. Avuncular marriages and cousin marriages are not defined or seen as incest in the Seven Kingdoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Well, this way it is actually more relatable to RL. In one of the many past threads on the topic, someone linked an article on the Genetic Sexual Attraction. It had interviews by people that unbeknownst to themselves fell in love with a close relative. Guess what, these people were repulsed at the idea of thinking romantically of their adoptive families, but they couldn't bring themselves to feel the same way about their incestous romantic partner.

Also note that avuncular incest is conveniently acceptable in the ASoIaF universe.

 

People don't usually fall in love with genetically closer relatives,LOL. If some people in the worlddo it fine, but the rest of the planet simply doesn't and that's applicable to the world of Westeros as I said.

 

Quote

Frankly, I fail to see what the moral of the story is supposed to be according to you. Don't dare to fall in love without a DNA test? Can't say I find it a deep or useful moral lesson.

I have not talked about morals, but of the portrayal of incest in the show and in the first outline of the books.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Ser Petyr Parker said:

Westeros is full of people marrying their cousins, and Jon and Dany's are as related/unrelated as first cousins, i.e. 25%.

No.

For example, Jon and Arya are first cousins and he has 50% of ancestors unrelated to her (the Targaryens) and so does she respectively (the Tullys). Jon and Dany share more blood since ALL of her ancestors are also Jon's ancestors (though it doesn't work the other way). It's like saying that Cersei and Tywin are as related as Cersei and Jaime.

And the title question is actually good. I'm getting the impression that the writers don't even want us see it more like Rhaegar-Lyanna than like another incest. Got to hand it to them, they're actually consistent in getting over incest. The more we stray from the books, the more Cersei and Jaime are portrayed as romantic, if still troubled (but more because of Cersei's toxic personality than their blood relation). Nonetheless I find the comparative fan reactions, ie. 'Eww! Gross! Incest!" to Jaime/Cersei vs "Aww, so romantic!" to Jon/Dany just plain funny.

Do you have an aunt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Exactly as noted above. Most Targs would

look awful. But they don't. George is using his own fantasy genetics he has used in many of his older stories. But the physical repercussions are not the issue because they don't seem to exist.

 

Not sure that physical repercussions don't exist. I think they still are prevalent, not sure if more or less than it should happen in real life though.

(I was just thinking of the two examples from the show, The Mad King and Joffrey).

Quote

Claiming that closely related incest is prevelant in the north when the stories, lore, and family trees say otherwise is blatantly skewing the information to support a favorite "ship" and hand waving the world away. I don't think George is going to hand wave 6-7 books worth of information to pull a fast one on the readers in a "gotcha" moment. He doesn't do That. Just ask the maid. (He talks about it there) 

I totally agree.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Faith only defines (vaginal) sex between brother and sister, mother and son, and father and daughter as incest. Anything else is perfectly fine. Avuncular marriages and cousin marriages are not defined or seen as incest in the Seven Kingdoms.

Regardless of what the faith says (the show has not been very clear about it, although we know that, at least incest between siblings is forbidden) why would the showrunners say that being his aunt will cause trouble if avuncular incest is something as normal as random marriages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Faith only defines (vaginal) sex between brother and sister, mother and son, and father and daughter as incest.

Didn't they classify Cersei and Lancel's affair as incest? (don't remember taht well)

Anyway,

a. the Faith, at least in the time of the High Sparrow, is clearly portrayed as bigoted and far from being a moral authority

b. the time when the Faith was saying what's what is over thanks to Cersei anyway

c. Jon is a Northman and Dany is a Targaryen, so they won't be giving a tutu about what the Faith would say.* And neither should we.

 

(Or at least they shouldn't. After a septon marrying Rhaegar and Lyanna after unnuling in secret a royal marriage, I wouldn't make too many bets.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Regardless of what the faith says (the show has not been very clear about it, although we know that, at least incest between siblings is forbidden) why would the showrunners say that being his aunt will cause trouble if avuncular incest is something as normal as random marriages?

The show guys tell us that the revelation of Jon's parentage is going to cause trouble in the next season. There are two things that can be meant there:

1. The fact that 'Aegon Targaryen' is 'the rightful heir' to the Iron Throne.

2. The fact that Daenerys Targaryen and Jon Snow are in love and have a sexual relationship.

[Additionally there is also the fact that Jon's true identity as a Targaryen prince is likely going to threaten his ability to remain 'King in the North'. 'Aegon Targaryen' is not a Stark.]

What they played up is the former point, not the latter. In fact, the average viewer might not even know exactly how Dany and Jon are related to each other. You have to know who this Rhaegar chap was again, and how he was related to Daenerys. That is not really done in this season in a way to create tension there. Instead, we get a lot of buildup (with the ridiculous High Septon Maynard back story) for the story of Jon being technically able to challenge Daenerys' claim.

That is the false tension they are trying to create there, not them suddenly having issues with being closely related.

I mean, how do you think that aunt-nephew thing could affect the relationship. Should they suddenly decide to ignore their feelings for each other just because they are closely related? Should Dany abort the child they might already have conceived on the ship? Is Jon going to force his own son or daughter to be born a bastard just because he has issues marrying his own aunt? Why on earth should they be troubled by that thing in light of the fact that the Wall has fallen and they have to fight for their own survival? Who cares about such things if there might be no tomorrow for anyone?

There is nobody else they love but each other. It is not that Dany has a string of handsome suitors or Jon a string of gorgeous women standing outside the doors waiting for them to separate so that they can get their shot at this.

The incest thing would work as a potential conflict/heartache story in a soap opera setting where you have people who actually are in a conflict - people torn between their feelings for each other and the 'right thing to do' - if it was really incest. And you also can draw out the entire conflict there, having the people go back and forth between duty and desire, etc. (like George does, for a while, with Jon-Ygritte and Arys-Arianne).

But it is not. They are just aunt and nephew. Not exactly a usual match but not a match that's condemned or forbidden in many countries in the real world. It is not seen as the sibling or parent-child incest. That's the really controversial stuff.

Jon-Ygritte are an interesting parallel there. Love/desire caused Jon to break his vows. If he can do that for Ygritte he sure as hell can also ignore that the fairest woman in the world also happens to be his own aunt. And unlike with Ygritte being with Dany is not hurting anyone. It is not a problem, he is not torn between duty and desire/love, nor is Daenerys part of an enemy force he is supposed to infiltrate. She is his true love.

In addition, the show should actually have built up incest as a vile sin in this story - which they could have done perfectly fine by, for instance, depicting Cersei and Jaime doing anything in their power to prevent anyone from finding out what they are doing because that could have dire consequences. In such a setting a union between aunt and nephew could perhaps also be problematic.

Thinking how few episodes there are left they are likely going to play both revelations as fake tension with a good ending. After all, a marriage between Daenerys Targaryen and 'Aegon Targaryen' should unite not only the North and Dany's people but also help the gang tie the alliance against the Others stronger together. In addition, Jon actually being a royal prince by birth should enable Daenerys to marry him without any problems. Jon may wear a crown in the show but he is still a bastard by birth and thus technically not eligible to marry royalty. Especially not while it is unclear who is mother was. That could be an interesting part of the thing in the books. If George also intends them to fall in love before Jon knows who he is then the fact that Jon is just a Stark bastard might actually be a problem for their relationship. 

'Aegon's' better claim might cause potential for trouble for about five minutes - but unless they suddenly reinvent 'Aegon Targaryen' as a power-hungry, capricious madman he is not going to demand that Dany now bent the knee to him. Jon doesn't have the numbers to challenge Daenerys seriously and Dany's people are her people because they have chosen her. They don't care that 'Aegon' has the better claim. They only care about her.

And since Dany and 'Aegon' are in love now they should be able to work things out among themselves, possibly setting on some sort of shared rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Didn't they classify Cersei and Lancel's affair as incest? (don't remember taht well)

Anyway,

a. the Faith, at least in the time of the High Sparrow, is clearly portrayed as bigoted and far from being a moral authority

b. the time when the Faith was saying what's what is over thanks to Cersei anyway

c. Jon is a Northman and Dany is a Targaryen, so they won't be giving a tutu about what the Faith would say.* And neither should we.

 

(Or at least they shouldn't. After a septon marrying Rhaegar and Lyanna after unnuling in secret a royal marriage, I wouldn't make too many bets.)

Well, I was talking about the books there. Archmaester Gyldayn talks about the definition of incest a little bit in TSotD which is going to be out next month. And according to him incest is (vaginal) sex between parents and children and sex between siblings.

Cousin marriages are perfectly fine. The Faith also opposed the marriage between Maegor and Rhaena (half-uncle and half-niece) but that might have to do more with the wish of the Faith and the Hightowers to marry Ceryse to Maegor and the fact that they wanted to send the Targaryens a clear message that their incestuous marriages must be a thing of the past now than it did with the scriptures of the Faith actually explicitly condemning uncle-niece marriages.

As for the show - no idea about Lancel. But considering that Tywin also had sex with his first cousin - not to mention that he married her - it wouldn't make much sense if they made a fuzz about that. The problem with Cersei-Lancel is that the queen slept around there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I was talking about the books there.

The books can take a completely different approach to it. Also, the Faith is still just one of the point of views on the 'what's OK in Westeros' question - the Targaryens, not to look too far, had a different one. So I wouldn't be so sure if the readers - who live in cultures where banging your uncles/aunts/nephews/nieces is unacceptable - are "supposed" to be OK with that. It would be OK with the Faith if Tyrion forced Sansa to consummate their marriage - but his decision not to is clearly presented as the moral one.

As for Lancel, I recall him butthurting about his and Cersei 'unnatural' relationship. Which implies more than 'I'm not married to you'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

The books can take a completely different approach to it.

Sure, but the books are the only thing where things are coherent and consistent. The show makes no sense.

In the books the Faith is the majority religion of the continent. What the High Septon says counts. The followers of the Drowned God and the old gods can be ignored much more easily.

5 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Also, the Faith is still just one of the point of views on the 'what's OK in Westeros' question - the Targaryens, not to look too far, had a different one. So I wouldn't be so sure if the readers - who live in cultures where banging your uncles/aunts/nephews/nieces is unacceptable - are "supposed" to be OK with that. It would be OK with the Faith if Tyrion forced Sansa to consummate their marriage - but his decision not to is clearly presented as the moral one.

Sure, but one assumes that the show would have canceled the Dany-Jon romance or the show runners would have refused the adapt the show entirely if they had such a huge issue with the aunt-niece thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The show guys tell us that the revelation of Jon's parentage is going to cause trouble in the next season. There are two things that can be meant there:

1. The fact that 'Aegon Targaryen' is 'the rightful heir' to the Iron Throne.

2. The fact that Daenerys Targaryen and Jon Snow are in love and have a sexual relationship.

[Additionally there is also the fact that Jon's true identity as a Targaryen prince is likely going to threaten his ability to remain 'King in the North'. 'Aegon Targaryen' is not a Stark.]

What they played up is the former point, not the latter. In fact, the average viewer might not even know exactly how Dany and Jon are related to each other. You have to know who this Rhaegar chap was again, and how he was related to Daenerys. That is not really done in this season in a way to create tension there. Instead, we get a lot of buildup (with the ridiculous High Septon Maynard back story) for the story of Jon being technically able to challenge Daenerys' claim.

That is the false tension they are trying to create there, not them suddenly having issues with being closely related.

I mean, how do you think that aunt-nephew thing could affect the relationship. Should they suddenly decide to ignore their feelings for each other just because they are closely related? Should Dany abort the child they might already have conceived on the ship? Is Jon going to force his own son or daughter to be born a bastard just because he has issues marrying his own aunt? Why on earth should they be troubled by that thing in light of the fact that the Wall has fallen and they have to fight for their own survival? Who cares about such things if there might be no tomorrow for anyone?

There is nobody else they love but each other. It is not that Dany has a string of handsome suitors or Jon a string of gorgeous women standing outside the doors waiting for them to separate so that they can get their shot at this.

The incest thing would work as a potential conflict/heartache story in a soap opera setting where you have people who actually are in a conflict - people torn between their feelings for each other and the 'right thing to do' - if it was really incest. And you also can draw out the entire conflict there, having the people go back and forth between duty and desire, etc. (like George does, for a while, with Jon-Ygritte and Arys-Arianne).

But it is not. They are just aunt and nephew. Not exactly a usual match but not a match that's condemned or forbidden in many countries in the real world. It is not seen as the sibling or parent-child incest. That's the really controversial stuff.

Jon-Ygritte are an interesting parallel there. Love/desire caused Jon to break his vows. If he can do that for Ygritte he sure as hell can also ignore that the fairest woman in the world also happens to be his own aunt. And unlike with Ygritte being with Dany is not hurting anyone. It is not a problem, he is not torn between duty and desire/love, nor is Daenerys part of an enemy force he is supposed to infiltrate. She is his true love.

In addition, the show should actually have built up incest as a vile sin in this story - which they could have done perfectly fine by, for instance, depicting Cersei and Jaime doing anything in their power to prevent anyone from finding out what they are doing because that could have dire consequences. In such a setting a union between aunt and nephew could perhaps also be problematic.

Thinking how few episodes there are left they are likely going to play both revelations as fake tension with a good ending. After all, a marriage between Daenerys Targaryen and 'Aegon Targaryen' should unite not only the North and Dany's people but also help the gang tie the alliance against the Others stronger together. In addition, Jon actually being a royal prince by birth should enable Daenerys to marry him without any problems. Jon may wear a crown in the show but he is still a bastard by birth and thus technically not eligible to marry royalty. Especially not while it is unclear who is mother was. That could be an interesting part of the thing in the books. If George also intends them to fall in love before Jon knows who he is then the fact that Jon is just a Stark bastard might actually be a problem for their relationship. 

'Aegon's' better claim might cause potential for trouble for about five minutes - but unless they suddenly reinvent 'Aegon Targaryen' as a power-hungry, capricious madman he is not going to demand that Dany now bent the knee to him. Jon doesn't have the numbers to challenge Daenerys seriously and Dany's people are her people because they have chosen her. They don't care that 'Aegon' has the better claim. They only care about her.

And since Dany and 'Aegon' are in love now they should be able to work things out among themselves, possibly setting on some sort of shared rule.

No, the showrunners explicitly said that she is his aunt in the inside the episode and said this is gonna cause trouble. If they were merely referring to the claim thing (which also happens to exist in the scene) they’d not have said that.

The viewers already know who Rhaegar is, he is been mentioned many times as Dany’s brother, and the viewers know who Lyanna is and ten episodes ago she gave birth to Jon Snow, so it’s not that complicated.

I don’t know what they will do but Jon will likely relucntanly accept an incestuous marriage in order to not father a bastard but I think he won’t tell his child about his origins. I mean, not until his child is older, he will not tell him that his father is also his cousin and her mother is also his great aunt. This or, either, he fully accepts he is a Targaryen side and lives happily with it, which is very unlikely, because that’s not the way he was raised and would be out of character..

People in Westeros don’t marry aunts or nephews as a normal thing, so not being the same abomination as father-daughter and such doesn’t mean people who marry in these circumstances automatically think it’s fantastic, it always causes trouble and indeed, it is controversial. Why would it be unusual if there was no controversy at all? There is, because it's the sister of your father. Even if the laws of Westeros said it's OK it will still not be OK for the ones involved. That's the reason why that's not what the great majority of marriages are not avuncular.

Jon will have a hard time knowing that he is a Targaryen, so having had sex with his aunt and even having a child with her will be the icing of the cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

The books can take a completely different approach to it. Also, the Faith is still just one of the point of views on the 'what's OK in Westeros' question - the Targaryens, not to look too far, had a different one. So I wouldn't be so sure if the readers - who live in cultures where banging your uncles/aunts/nephews/nieces is unacceptable - are "supposed" to be OK with that. It would be OK with the Faith if Tyrion forced Sansa to consummate their marriage - but his decision not to is clearly presented as the moral one.

As for Lancel, I recall him butthurting about his and Cersei 'unnatural' relationship. Which implies more than 'I'm not married to you'.

Yes, it was also implied in the show! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Wow. Nope. Look at the results of Alysanne and Jaehaerys. Not good.

They had a long, prosperous reign that benefited them and the realm, they were beloved rulers, they had kids who successfully continued the Targ dynasty, and they had a (mostly) happy, fruitful marriage, living to a ripe old age. No one else in ASOIAF history managed as much, and certainly none of the non-incestuous king/queen matches. Incest worked out pretty well for them, and the realm. 

You do realize "Nuh uh!" isn't an argument, right?

 

Quote

First off, this relationship is a show invention. And then the show had the wall fall. How romantic. 

Rhaegar and Lyanna's wedding was presented as very romantic and the writers explicitly linked their undeniable canon love with Dany and Jon's undeniable canon love through Bran's voiceover. You may not like it, but not liking something is not an argument.

As for the Rhaegar/Lyanna parallel, Rhaegar and Lyanna remained deeply in love until they died, as politically inconvenient as it was and as much collateral damage as it caused. Rhaegar died with Lyanna's name on his lips. If the parallel holds, Jon's love for Dany will be just as enduring as Rhaegar's for Lyanna. 

 

4 hours ago, Snormund said:

"deeply in love" :lol:

Dany and Jon are deeply in love in the show, according to the writing. You may not like it, but again, not liking something isn't an argument.

 

4 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

It would be quite silly, and very ineffective to attempt to portray a message in regards to the implications of incest, in a story that didn't prominently feature incest. I

He's not portraying a message in regards to the implications of Targ incest, no more than he's portraying a message in regards to the merits of political marriages even though ASOIAF has a number of miserable political marriages (GRRM has said that happiness in Westeros marriage is a tossup, with happy and miserable political marriages, and happy and miserable love matches). Targ incest in the world of Westeros is more comparable to magic or dragons: a value-neutral feature of the fictional world he has created, exempt from real world considerations or consequences.

I think it's safe to say that GRRM loves the Targs. He has made two out of three ASOIAF lead characters Targs (three if you count A+J=T). He has written about them at great length (even to the point of neglecting to work on ASOIAF as a result). He has lovingly detailed the hair colour, eye colour, clothing choices, love lives (usually with other Targs), and biographies of the Targs going back hundreds of years in Westeros history. We know virtually nothing about Lyarra Stark, even though she's Ned's mother, but we know Elaena Targaryen's hair colour, eye colour, fashion preferences, childhood, personality, and marriages to a tee, even though she was never even queen!

If GRRM is so horrified about writing about incest and so determined to show with ASOIAF and related works set in Westeros that Incest is Bad, creating a fictional dynasty where incest is no big deal and carries no real world consequences and writing hundreds of thousands of words about the various members of that dynasty and their various incestuous liaisons is a funny way of showing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Newstar said:

You may not like it, but again, not liking something isn't an argument.

Agreed. This seems to be the main "argument" from people who don't approve of the way the show is currently heading.
They consider their personal opinion about characters and events as facts, when it's not. It's just their (subjective) opinion. 

Snormunds sarcastic "deeply in love :D"-comments fits the bill: Jon and Daenerys are in love at this stage. The show has made this abundantly clear over the course of season 7. Their romance is canon, regardless of how one personally feel about these two.
One might not buy the acting or like the writing, and one might not personally feel the supposed emotions come at you trough the screen - this is all fine, what we feel and interpret is very personal, I personally felt nothing for Robb and Talissa - but laughing at people for not sharing your opinion just makes you look like an ass.



 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that the Dany-Jon thing is a plot element the show came up with is ridiculous. This whole thing is named 'A Song of Ice and Fire', is it not? On the global level the title refers to the fight against the Others with the help of the dragons but on the mundane level of romances and alliances the love of Jon and Dany obviously could also be described as a song of ice and fire. These two are the central characters of the story and they coming together and doing stuff is the prerequisite for a successful fight against the Others.

I mean, Jon does have a Targaryen father but he isn't fire. He is ice, if you want to associate the Starks with that element (which they are in less literal sense than the Targaryens are associated with fire). But Daenerys is pure fire if you take a Targaryen looking like a proper Targaryen and hatching herself some dragons as evidence in that department. Dany's Blackwood heritage (she is half-Blackwood due to her great-grandmother Betha) is about as visible in her features as is Jon's Targaryen heritage in his.

"He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire." (House of the Undying)

Song of Ice and Fire refers to one person, THE prince. One person Fire and another person Ice is your interpretation. Not mine. On the elemental level, Daenerys is pure Fire, as the Others are pure Ice.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The whole women-stealing thing of the wildlings is certainly not presented a good trait among them, and that custom really seems to come from their ridiculous idea that you better not marry people you grew up with, never mind whether you are (closely) related to them or not.

Ygritte pretends women are not that helpless. And forced marriages between noble houses are not much better. But whatever, I will not argue about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but one assumes that the show would have canceled the Dany-Jon romance or the show runners would have refused the adapt the show entirely if they had such a huge issue with the aunt-niece thing.

I dare to say that the showrunners have no issue with (fictional) incest at all. Or at least the show takes much less issue with that than the books. Jaime and Cersei were portrayed straight-up as star-crossed lovers in the scenes that weren't taken directly from the books and the problem presented with them was that they were doing other evil things because of it, not because their love on itself was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

People don't usually fall in love with genetically closer relatives,LOL. If some people in the worlddo it fine, but the rest of the planet simply doesn't and that's applicable to the world of Westeros as I said.

 

I have not talked about morals, but of the portrayal of incest in the show and in the first outline of the books.

 

I´m speaking of this phenomenon. It is supposed to come into play when family members that had been separated during childhood meet later in life. You can google it if you care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually pretty sick of all the people who look at the show through 21st century morals.  The world as we know it wasn't always how it is today.  In ancient Egypt royal brother/sister marriages were common.  In European history, royal first cousins often married.  There were even cases of uncles marrying their nieces and aunts marrying their nephews.

What I do think is weird is that GRRM created a Westeros in which people accepted the Targ siblings pairing off but they looked down on the Lannisters doing it. Why the double standards?

http://listverse.com/2014/11/26/10-royal-families-riddled-with-incest/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BalerionTheCat

Quote

Song of Ice and Fire refers to one person, THE prince. One person Fire and another person Ice is your interpretation. Not mine. On the elemental level, Daenerys is pure Fire, as the Others are pure Ice.

As it happens, "the prince" is only a translation from "the dragon",... and the dragon is supposed to have three heads.

We cannot take Rhaegar´s words as gospel, because Rhaegar had been wrong before. Would be ironic if Rhaegar´s attempt to get the third head ultimately led to the third head missing, because Rhaenys and Aegon had been killed in the Rebellion. OTOH maybe it could a good thing after all, since the third might have a third wheel much like Visenya, which hadn´t worked out all that well. Two’s company, three’s a crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...