The Book of Swords - The Sons of the Dragon SPOILERS

[The Wondering Wolf]

5 minutes ago, The Dragon Demands said:

...er...actually, in context, it says: "Lord Velaryon of Driftmark advised Maegor to send for his niece Princess Rhaena, his brother’s daughter and the widow of his brother’s son,"...

 

Sorry, sorry, the council scene suggesting the "Black Brides" only refers to Rhaena as *Maegor's* niece, without specifying relation of this "Lord Velaryon" to Rhaena.

Yes, that was my assumption. I still think the tree I presented to you is the most plausible version so far. But I guess we will be smarter after the release of Fire and Blood.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

am i the only one who thinks it was a mistake to include the targaryen reigns in the world book?

I mean, i felt we already knew everything that mattered..

very little new information or mysteries, or controversies.

very few new characters that are worth remembering.

 

i liked the new details on Tyanna of Pentos. but thats just about it.

maybe other chapters of fire and blood have more to offer.. like aegons regency. I hope.

 

[The Wondering Wolf]

1 minute ago, LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse said:

am i the only one who thinks it was a mistake to include the targaryen reigns in the world book?

I mean, i felt we already knew everything that mattered..

very little new information or mysteries, or controversies.

very few new characters that are worth remembering.

 

i liked the new details on Tyanna of Pentos. but thats just about it.

I think there's a ton of new information, you just don't see it. Sorry, could not resist. 

My main problem is that it felt kind of static. There are always the same lords running through Westeros. We get the name of some lords fighting against Maegor, we learn that he punished them by executing them or stripping them of their lands, and two pages later the same lords appear running through Westeros again. GRRM should have included some houses that really died out.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

8 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

I think there's a ton of new information, you just don't see it. Sorry, could not resist. 

My main problem is that it felt kind of static. There are always the same lords running through Westeros. We get the name of some lords fighting against Maegor, we learn that he punished them by executing them or stripping them of their lands, and two pages later the same lords appear running through Westeros again. GRRM should have included some houses that really died out.

I agree. I don´t even recall how many times the faith rebelled.

[Lost Melnibonean]

On 10/10/2017 at 11:51 AM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Just finished reading, and noticed a few inconsistencies.

First of all, Robar Baratheon. Spelled Robar thrice in TWOIAF, Rogar trice and Robar once in TSOTD.

Secondly, Prince Viserys, born in 29 AC, is described as sixteen years old at his death in 44 AC in SOTD, but fifteen by Yandel. An explainable, but still..

More importantly, Yandel's account gives the mysterious death of the High Septon at Oldtown when Maegor and Visenya threatened to burn the city as having occurred in 44 AC, yet TSOTD clearly places it in 43 AC. Which one is correct here?

Also, Aenys is mentioned as having "sons and grandsons" while Maegor is king. Since English is not my native language, I assume that this is some king of expression, since Aenys did not actually have grandsons?

 

Sadly, no more information on the Velaryon family tree, or information regarding Corlys's parents. But, at least we know now when Rhaena's twins had been born! With the pregnancy announced in 41 AC and the children being less than a year old in 43 AC, their birth is placed in 42 AC  One "mystery" solved!

Having "sons and grandsons" means having sons and grandsons. I suppose the "sons" part could refer to daughters and granddaughters, but that sounds odd. 

[Lost Melnibonean]

On 10/10/2017 at 1:14 PM, Ran said:

It is. We had corrected that in TWoIaF. It seems George gave Gardner the initial version of Sons of the Dragon to work from, not the one that had edits. So there's mistakes in "Sons of the Dragon" that shouldn't be there. We'll see if we can get them fixed in future editions.

That's not cool. 

[Lost Melnibonean]

On 10/10/2017 at 8:49 PM, Fire Eater said:

The reign of Maegor I Targaryen, known to history and legend as Maegor the Cruel, lasted six years and sixty-six days. 

Apparently, Maegor was the Antichrist. 

Or the emperor of Rome. 

[Lost Melnibonean]

On 10/10/2017 at 11:57 PM, Shmedricko said:

1)

This reminded me of Joffrey:

2)

Doesn't this read like the High Septon who anointed Aenys is the same High Septon who anointed Aegon? But of course that doesn't make sense because the High Septon who anointed Aegon died in 11 AC, and there were numerous High Septons after that.

3)

Donal Noye gave a similar description of Stannis:

4)

This line caught my eye, given the legend that dragons come from the moon:

5) Maegor's Trial of Seven obviously brings to mind Dunk's Trial of Seven. Specifically, Bernarr Brune's "Are there no true knights here?" is reminiscent of Dunk's "ARE THERE NO TRUE KNIGHTS AMONG YOU?" And Maegor received "a terrible blow to the head that cracked his helm and left him insensate" which is similar to how Baelor died.

6)

And to think, years later a Lannister would order the deaths of Prince Aegon and Princess Rhaenays.

7)

This is similar to what the Mountain did to Vargo Hoat:

8) A small spelling discrepancy:

9) 

There should be an "a" between there, I believe.

Very sharp-eyed as always @Shmedricko. As to the high septon, since the high septon is the representation of the gods on earth (Cersei I, Dance 54), perhaps they are all just mere incarnations of each other, as some in the real world believe that the Pope in an incarnation of the Apostle Peter. 

[Lost Melnibonean]

On 10/11/2017 at 1:05 AM, SFDanny said:

Just finished my first read of TSotD and I'm quite happy to have new ASoI&F material to discuss. I have to say I see absolutely no evidence here that there was an agreement between Aegon, Aenys, or Maegor with the Faith to limit Targaryen marriage customs either in the area of polygamy or in what the Faith considers to be incest. To the contrary,  we are told the following:

A new kingdom that had grown through the years of Aegon's rule to accept the Targaryens did these things differently. 

The closest to any agreement we see is a communication between the High Septon and Aegon about Visenya's proposal of a marriage between the twelve year old Prince Maegor and the new born Rhaena. Not only is there objection to the marriage from the Faith, but also from Rhaena's parents, Prince Aenys and Princess Alyssa. With the suggestion of Ceryse Hightower as an alternative bride, Aegon agrees to this second match for Maegor in an attempt to keep the Faith's support. But here it is important to note that this concerns incest, not polygamy. We know from the wedding of Aenys's children that there is no support for a ban on such marriages that the Targaryens have agreed to.

I could go on, and if LV or anyone wants to dispute my reading of the text, I will happily do so. Loving to finally discuss new Martin material.

The Faith's, or perhaps more acurately, the faithful's, rejection of, and resistance to, Targaryen incest, which we see echoed by our High Sparrow, further suggests that the Faith would support Aegon, the presumed son of Rhaegar and Elia over Daenerys, the daughter of Aerys and his sister Rhaella. And perhaps more importantly, it also suggests they might spit the bit if Aegon were to propose wedding his presumed aunt Daenerys, which might cause Aegon to take a Dornish bride as did his presumed father. 

[LiveFirstDieLater]

21 hours ago, Ran said:

Polygamy fell out not because it became illicit for the Targaryens, but because: 1)  the Targaryen family got a lot bigger over time and 2) the need to bind the realm led to marrying out rather more often than Viserys would have had you believe in AGoT. Aegon and his sisters were the last Targaryens in the world, while Maegor was a monster. Why would anyone want to replicate what Maegor did? Why would anyone feel compelled to do what Aegon did? (Isn't that kind of like asking who would want to be like William the Conquerer or Alexander the Great... almost every little boy ever?)

I don't expect there was ever a formal legal document from the crown or a Great Council proclaiming that the Targaryens would never indulge in polygamy again. It simply fell by the wayside. But you can look at the novels and see characters entertaining it now for Daenerys, for example -- Jorah suggests it, and Dany even considers it in ADwD -- in a way that shows that there seems to be a very pragmatic view on this. 

1st, I don't really understand why the size of the Targ Family is relevant to taking multiple wives. Aegon clearly didn't start the practice, Targaryens had been doing it at least since they left the freehold.

Quote

The Targaryens were of pure Valyrian blood, dragonlords of ancient lineage. Twelve years before the Doom of Valyria (114 BC), Aenar Targaryen sold his holdings in the Freehold and the Lands of the Long Summer and moved with all his wives, wealth, slaves, dragons, siblings, kin, and children to Dragonstone, a bleak island citadel beneath a smoking mountain in the narrow sea.

Having multiple wives could have helped bind the realm together as well since it allows for an increase in the number of alliances bound by marriage. Unless, there is great opposition to polygamy itself.

Also, say what you will about Maegor (he's a monster), but he did without a doubt preserve the Targaryen Dynasty. As you pointed out, Aegon and his Sisters were the last Targaryen's, and if it weren't for Meagor, almost certainly Aegon's kin and kingdom would never have survived. 

So appears to me to be not just doing what Aegon did, or Meagor did, it's doing what Targaryens do... incest and polygamy. But I mean carving out a Massive kingdom and preserving your family's power are pretty good reasons. 

Why preserve one tradition and not the other, especially when the one retained appears far more despised by the religions/cultures being ruled?

Incest is mentioned dozens of times and seems to be explicitly forbidden by all the major Westerosi religions. 

Polygamy seems to be ok north of the wall, and on the Iron Islands, and I'm not sure about Dorne, but this story about the High Septon and faith frowning on Maegor's poligamy seems to be the only example of it being frowned on. In fact, Oldtown seems to have tried to give Aegon a Third wife. Even more damning maybe, is the fact that one of the Seven themselves practices polygamy, as all of the Silent Sisters are the Stranger's wives.

Now Targaryen's hold themselves above the laws of Gods and Men (other people might not like that), and people are less likely to object to someone with a fire breathing dragon. I get it.

I can totally accept that there could be practical reasons for abandoning polygamy as a practice but not incest, I just can't find those reasons in the text. I had hoped Meagor's tale might provide more of an explanation, that's all.

Jorah for instance is from a northern house, it's not surprising at all he wouldn't be opposed to polygamy... why would he? 

I don't expect to learn about some official decree, just some logic or excuse why the practice seemed to completely stop after Meagor while incest continued. Presumably something has changed since then if all of a sudden it is a practical consideration again... after all the incest continued even after there were no more dragons, and if the concern is preserving "the blood" then multiple wives might help with that.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, no, it is quite clear that polygamy provoked as much ire and opposition in the Faith than did the incest thing, perhaps even more. Maegor never married a sister, remember, and Rhaena was only his half-niece. Even the Starks marry their half-nieces.

I don't think this is really true, I think the Faith objected strongly when it was a Hightower woman who was being set aside. Of course there is politics involved with all of it, but I don't see anyone in the SoIaF series complain about multiple wives like they do incest...

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Still, there is a chance that Alyssa and Jaehaerys realized that the root of all their troubles was in Aegon's two sister-wives.

There would also be the chance that Rhaena explicitly declined Jaehaerys' offer to marry her, too - perhaps because she wanted to marry her lover Androw Farman - but that alone wouldn't have ended the polygamy thing. Jaehaerys I and Alysanne had three sons and six daughters who reached adulthood. Surely the thought must have crossed their mind to marry to mimic the Conqueror and marry two of their daughters to their eldest son... 

So I don't think the Targaryen Dynasty would exist without the two sister-wives and as I said above Meagor might have been cruel but he did preserved their dynasty.

And it comes back to the point, I was just hoping for some practice reason why this tradition was abandoned while at the same time they went out of their way to preserve the tradition of incest...

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Since we actually don't really know what that means - we know she walked the world of men for two hundred years but not when. It is quite likely it refers to the era of the Targaryen dragons in Westeros, but it could also refer to the days the Valyrian dragons still ruled the world. Then Leaf would have walking the Seven Kingdoms much, much earlier.

That's exactly why I had hoped to spot her creepin about!!!  

[Lost Melnibonean]

On 10/11/2017 at 7:31 AM, Lord Varys said:

From the way incest is defined in TSotD - as sexual intercourse between siblings and parents and children - the Rhaena-Maegor match actually does not constitute incest (we know such marriages don't seem to be uncommon among the Starks and perhaps even among other noble families) nor is it condemned by the High Septon as such.

This isn't a condemnation nor phrased as 'this is incest, don't do it' but rather a warning that this is seen as too much like the incest you abominations are used to do, and we don't want to give the impression that you want to continue those ways, do we?

Unfortunately, I do not have my book with me right now, but wasn't Uncle-neice and/or aunt-nephew love expressly described as incest in the Sons of the Dragon? 

[RumHam]

19 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

And it comes back to the point, I was just hoping for some practice reason why this tradition was abandoned while at the same time they went out of their way to preserve the tradition of incest...

Most likely because they believed that keeping their bloodline pure was a requirement for their descendants to be able to ride dragons. Why they kept it up after the dragons were dead, I dunno. Just tradition at that point I guess. 

Anyway my copy came today, it was alright but kinda unnecessary between the worldbook and Fire and Blood Vol 1 probably coming out next year. 

[Ran]

3 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

1st, I don't really understand why the size of the Targ Family is relevant to taking multiple wives. Aegon clearly didn't start the practice, Targaryens had been doing it at least since they left the freehold.

The early Targaryens settling Dragonstone were Valyrian foreigners bringing their customs. Aegon was a lord of the narrow sea attempting to forge a kingdom by to some degree assimilating -- a process that, in fact, was not something he started. So yes, he still married polygamously, but this was at a point where there were basically no Targaryens besides them. Polygamy fell out of fashion because it wasn't necessary at any point after that, essentially.

3 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Having multiple wives could have helped bind the realm together as well since it allows for an increase in the number of alliances bound by marriage. Unless, there is great opposition to polygamy itself.

And then there's what happens when the offspring fight among themselves over who is heir. Which is pretty much what happened thanks to Aegon's polygamous marriage, and Visenya pushing Maegor ahead of Aenys's children. Polygamy is not "all upside". It proved better for the stability of the realm to avoid anything like polygamy. In fact, simply consider that Rhaenyra's relationship with Laenor Velaryon and Harwin Strong helped fuel the fire of the Dance considerably as another example; matters would not have been helped had Harwin been her legal husband. And then consider Aegon IV sleeping around and setting up the realm for five generations of hurt because of his elevation of his bastards to legitimacy. Imagine if they had all been legitimate to begin with -- do you _really_ think Daeron and Daemon and Bittersteel and Bloodraven wouldn't have had issues in that scenario?

So, yeah, there's a danger to polygamy that showed itself again and again. It doesn't mean that the Targaryens formally made it illegal for themselves. It just meant that they didn't bother with it because there were more stable solutions.

3 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Also, say what you will about Maegor (he's a monster), but he did without a doubt preserve the Targaryen Dynasty. As you pointed out, Aegon and his Sisters were the last Targaryen's, and if it weren't for Meagor, almost certainly Aegon's kin and kingdom would never have survived. 

Maegor was a monster. Sometimes, early on, he was the monster who fought on behalf of the family... but  lets not pretend Maegor didn't also nearly destroyed the family at the same time by killing his own kin and setting the realm against himself. 

3 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

So appears to me to be not just doing what Aegon did, or Meagor did, it's doing what Targaryens do... incest and polygamy. But I mean carving out a Massive kingdom and preserving your family's power are pretty good reasons. 

Why preserve one tradition and not the other, especially when the one retained appears far more despised by the religions/cultures being ruled?

From Jaehaerys on, Targaren incest was never an issue and caused no difficulties. Polygamy had proved potentially very dangerous, and so it went unused.

3 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Incest is mentioned dozens of times and seems to be explicitly forbidden by all the major Westerosi religions. 

Polygamy seems to be ok north of the wall, and on the Iron Islands, and I'm not sure about Dorne, but this story about the High Septon and faith frowning on Maegor's poligamy seems to be the only example of it being frowned on. In fact, Oldtown seems to have tried to give Aegon a Third wife. Even more damning maybe, is the fact that one of the Seven themselves practices polygamy, as all of the Silent Sisters are the Stranger's wives.

That's not really damning -- it's like nuns all being "brides of Christ". It's not exactly literal -- it's a "mystical" betrothal rather than an actual. Can't really be equated.

3 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

 

Jorah for instance is from a northern house, it's not surprising at all he wouldn't be opposed to polygamy... why would he? 

Polygamy is not a practice of modern northmen, and we've no examples over many centuries.

[Bael's Bastard]

It seems obvious that no Targaryen king ever formally acknowledged the prohibition against polygamy as applying to House Targaryen.

It probably wasn't very common for them anyway, and it just hasn't been in their own best interest to do.

The enmity between Visenya/Maegor and the children of Rhaenys led to an usurpation and a cold civil war.

By the time Maegor was dead, just one of the five Targ males that were left after Aegon I's death in 37 remained: Jaehaerys I. The male line was nearly wiped out within fifty years of the conquest. 

And the Targs soon learned that threat of succession issues, usurpation, and civil war was already real enough without polygamy.

Jaehaerys I had tons of children with his only wife, which eventually led to competing claims.

Viserys I had children with two wives he was married to at different times, which eventually led to competing claims, and all out civil war.

Even Aegon IV's children with non-wives eventually produced a competing claim against his trueborn son and heir, and all out civil war.

 

 

[Colonel Green]

As far as why Aegon IV never took multiple wives, an obvious reason would be that he simply didn't want to.  Mistresses can be disposed of easily after a year or two, as invariably was the case (the outlier among his extramarital relationships, Bellegere Otherys, lasted ten years, but she just dropped in for an occasional booty call while sailing around trading, from the sound of it); a wife, you're stuck with.

[kissdbyfire]

3 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Or the emperor of Rome. 

Same thing!

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

I don't think this is really true, I think the Faith objected strongly when it was a Hightower woman who was being set aside. Of course there is politics involved with all of it, but I don't see anyone in the SoIaF series complain about multiple wives like they do incest...

But that is the major issue the Faith has with Maegor in TSotD. It is his polygamy, not his non-existing incestuous marriages. He is also an abomination born of incest, as was Aenys, and deserves to die as such, but he didn't marry his sister like the Conqueror or Prince Aegon.

The Faith condemns Maegor for his marriage to Alys Harroway, his marriage to Tyanna, and those remnants of the Faith Militant who continue the fight also condemned his marriages to the black brides. Aside from his cruelty and tyranny the main issue the Faith has with Maegor is his polygamy.

3 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

So I don't think the Targaryen Dynasty would exist without the two sister-wives and as I said above Meagor might have been cruel but he did preserved their dynasty.

Maegor nearly destroyed the dynasty. He killed two Targaryen princes, and tried to kill the last one. And his mother murdered a Targaryen king.

The Faith needed a firm hand, sure, but Maegor effectively committed a holocaust there. This wasn't good policy.

3 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

And it comes back to the point, I was just hoping for some practice reason why this tradition was abandoned while at the same time they went out of their way to preserve the tradition of incest...

I think there is a chance that the account on the reign of Jaehaerys I could address this point. 

3 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Unfortunately, I do not have my book with me right now, but wasn't Uncle-neice and/or aunt-nephew love expressly described as incest in the Sons of the Dragon? 

Nope, it wasn't. The definition as to what the Faith sees as incest are defined as intercourse between father and daughter, mother and son, and brother and sister. That's it. Grandparents-grandchildren are excluded, too.

The High Septon objects to the Rhaena-Maegor match but nobody ever calls it incest. I don't think such marriages were defined as abominable incest and thus forbidden. Not if those avuncular Stark marriages are any indication. They wouldn't be the rule but chances are that they were not uncommon among the larger noble and royal families of the Seven Kingdoms. One can practically see the many descendants of Edrick Snowbeard, Garth VII Gardener, or Garth Greybeard arrange such marriages to strengthen the claim of their branch of the family.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

The early Targaryens settling Dragonstone were Valyrian foreigners bringing their customs. Aegon was a lord of the narrow sea attempting to forge a kingdom by to some degree assimilating -- a process that, in fact, was not something he started. So yes, he still married polygamously, but this was at a point where there were basically no Targaryens besides them. Polygamy fell out of fashion because it wasn't necessary at any point after that, essentially.

Polygamy never was a Targaryen tradition to begin with, right? The only know polygamous Targaryens are Aenar, Aegon, and Maegor. But Aegon and Maegor set powerful precedents making polygamy in Westeros an established royal tradition.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

And then there's what happens when the offspring fight among themselves over who is heir. Which is pretty much what happened thanks to Aegon's polygamous marriage, and Visenya pushing Maegor ahead of Aenys's children. Polygamy is not "all upside". It proved better for the stability of the realm to avoid anything like polygamy.

That is certainly the case. Which I would find it very nice if there was a section in 'Fire and Blood' actually discussing the concept of 'royal polygamy'. It would fit very nicely in the section on Jaehaerys I because he and his children and grandchildren would have the ones most tempted to follow in Aegon's and Maegor's footsteps in that regard.

As I've said above - Viserys I's two successive also seemed to have informally established the tradition that a king with heirs of his body does not remarry if his wife predeceases him. Even if that happens early on. The only Targaryen king to remarry after Viserys I was Aegon III. And he had no children at that point.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

In fact, simply consider that Rhaenyra's relationship with Laenor Velaryon and Harwin Strong helped fuel the fire of the Dance considerably as another example; matters would not have been helped had Harwin been her legal husband.

They wouldn't? How so? The 'Strong boys' would then have been definitely born in wedlock and the pretext that in Jacaerys Velaryon would a bastard have set the Iron Throne would have been moot.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

And then consider Aegon IV sleeping around and setting up the realm for five generations of hurt because of his elevation of his bastards to legitimacy. Imagine if they had all been legitimate to begin with -- do you _really_ think Daeron and Daemon and Bittersteel and Bloodraven wouldn't have had issues in that scenario?

Sure, Aegon IV marrying all or many of his mistresses after he became king would have been very bad for the Realm. But the Realm and the dynasty or the well-being of his family was never any concern of Aegon the Unworthy. The man cared only about himself. Which is precisely the reason why he would have entertained the notion of marrying any woman he wanted to marry.

And since we know he loved his nine mistresses - at least for a time - chances are that he would have liked to marry some of them. It is not that being married to Aegon IV did cause him to treat you better.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

So, yeah, there's a danger to polygamy that showed itself again and again. It doesn't mean that the Targaryens formally made it illegal for themselves. It just meant that they didn't bother with it because there were more stable solutions.

I think we can use that explanation for the saner and responsible Targaryens. But that approach doesn't really help on that much with men like Daemon, Aegon II, or Aegon IV.

Thinking about it - polygamy should most certainly come up in detailed discussion of Jaehaerys I's eldest son and heir Aemon. His wife Jocelyn Baratheon only gave him one child, a daughter, and that wasn't exactly ideal. We don't know anything about Jocelyn - how long she lived, etc. - but assuming she did not dies early - which should have caused Aemon to remarry - Aemon taking another wife could have helped to finally get a male heir.

2 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

It seems obvious that no Targaryen king ever formally acknowledged the prohibition against polygamy as applying to House Targaryen.

It probably wasn't very common for them anyway, and it just hasn't been in their own best interest to do.

The enmity between Visenya/Maegor and the children of Rhaenys led to an usurpation and a cold civil war.

By the time Maegor was dead, just one of the five Targ males that were left after Aegon I's death in 37 remained: Jaehaerys I. The male line was nearly wiped out within fifty years of the conquest. 

That is why people should have considered Jaehaerys I following the example of Aegon the Conqueror and take both his sisters to wife a rather promising idea. Sure, it could cause problems eventually, but people usually don't look that far ahead. Marrying Rhaena would make Aerea and Rhaella part of Jaehaerys' immediate family, too, allowing him to control their claims.

Not to mention that the dynasty desperately needed male heirs at that point. Jaehaerys was able to father children, and Rhaena was a fertile woman. If Jaehaerys I had had a mortal accident in 49 AC the dynasty would have been finished.

2 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

And the Targs soon learned that threat of succession issues, usurpation, and civil war was already real enough without polygamy.

Jaehaerys I had tons of children with his only wife, which eventually led to competing claims.

Viserys I had children with two wives he was married to at different times, which eventually led to competing claims, and all out civil war.

By the times of the Dance they must have learned that lesson. But polygamy could actually have helped to reduce the potential branches Jaehaerys' children could produce. If Aemon and Baelon had each taken two sisters to wife they could have kept everything in the family, and then intermarry the grandchildren from all those women among each other. That could have tied them together.

What makes things tense in the 90s is that Aemon's and Baelon's branch do not intermarry.

2 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Even Aegon IV's children with non-wives eventually produced a competing claim against his trueborn son and heir, and all out civil war.

Sure, but as I've said. Aegon IV would not care about that. In fact, he would have liked it. That's why he legitimized all his bastards, and acknowledged Daemon Waters by making a knight at the age of twelve and giving him Blackfyre. He wanted that his sons would destroy each other and the Realm after his death.

2 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

As far as why Aegon IV never took multiple wives, an obvious reason would be that he simply didn't want to.  Mistresses can be disposed of easily after a year or two, as invariably was the case (the outlier among his extramarital relationships, Bellegere Otherys, lasted ten years, but she just dropped in for an occasional booty call while sailing around trading, from the sound of it); a wife, you're stuck with.

Aegon clearly liked to be stuck with his sister-wife. Naerys wanted to go - which is the reason why he did not allow her to go. And marriages certainly can be set aside, just as wives can be executed. 

If you look at the case of Bethany Bracken then Aegon really treated her the way a king would treat an adulterous wife. She was, in a sense, his wife. They all were. They just never said the words.

[Lost Melnibonean]

On 10/11/2017 at 11:58 AM, Lord Varys said:

What is your take on Maegor's death?

The Yandel account about him being broken, etc. made the suicide idea rather likely but George's Maegor doesn't seem to be broken in TSotD. He is just the prick he always was when he beheaded Lord Hayford, and there is no sign that he was suffering from depression or had any intention of ending his own life.

Maegor's own end also completely ignores the advantage Balerion would have still given him. Lord Baratheon can talk about the 2-3 dragons they have all they long, but Dreamfyre, Vermithor, and Silverwing were all no match for Balerion - assuming Silverwing was big enough to be used as a dragon in battle at that time, and Alysanne experienced enough to fly to battle, which seems to be doubtful.

If Alyssa Velaryon had claimed Vhagar after the death of Visenya things would have been different. She - along with the younger dragons - would have been more than a match for Balerion.

But the other point is that suicide seems to be silly move if you have still other options left. And while you have a dragon as large as Balerion there is always another option. Maegor could have pulled an Aemond or a Nettles, leaving KL for the open land. He could have taken Balerion North and demanded that the Starks raise an army to crush his enemies. Or to the Vale, demanding a similar thing. Or basically any other place in the Seven Kingdoms. A dragon the size of Balerion is very effective weapon of terror. The way George describes it just Vhagar and Balerion motivated the Hightowers to murder the High Septon and disarm and arrest the Warrior's Sons. What do we think would have happened if Maegor and Balerion had flown to Gulltown, White Harbor, or Lannisport? The people there would have joined him or burned.

In that sense - do you think the man was murdered after all? If so, I think the Kingsguard acting in concert is the likeliest possibility. Four strong men should have been able to seize the man, and kill him by means of the Iron Throne. Elinor Costayne most likely wouldn't have had the strength to do that - unless Maegor fell asleep on the Iron Throne, or it was some sort of assisted suicide. If Maegor fell asleep somebody else sneaking in could also have done the deed. With a conscious and alert Maegor it shouldn't have worked without him being able to alert the Kingsguard or to fight off, injure, or kill at least one of the attackers - and from what we know there were no signs of a struggle or fight in the throne room.

After Tyanna stopped working her voodoo, Maegor started losing it, and the Iron Throne finished the job. 

[Lost Melnibonean]

On 10/11/2017 at 0:03 PM, The Dragon Demands said:

Poxy Jeyne Poore was one of the most interesting new characters in this - getting a strong Joan of Arc vibe from her.  Is "Poore" a noble House we haven't heard of before, or just a nickname etc?  Managed to hold off Maegor for a while, taking pressure off of Septon Moon and Ser Doggett.

She made me think of Wenda the White Fawn. 

[The Dragon Demands]

From my graduate-level medieval history courses - particularly "The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe" by Jack Goody - there used to be a lot of discourse that "the Catholic Church set about asserting its right to enforce consanguinity laws regarding incest, saying who could and could not be married, as a sinister plot to assume political control over all of Europe".  Not just incest, but also discouraging polygamy....which was actually fairly common in the early centuries after the Germanic invasions, i.e. early Frankish kings circa 500-1000 often DID take multiple wives, sometimes even cousins or sisters from the same family (to ensure their legal claim to their lands etc.)

BUT, over time, more modern scholarship concluded this was silly:  the Catholic Church never had that level of power and coordination, even if it wanted to.  Rather, the reason the Catholic Church (in say the 700's) argued against incestuous marriages (like 1st cousins) and polygamy (you married your wife's sister too or her cousin) was probably much more prosaic:

It led to constant civil wars, and the Church was honestly just trying to stabilize the political order as best it could.

Not some vast conspiracy to establish a Church-dominated continent-spanning government (things were in chaos, they were never remotely that powerful).  Just, practically, logically....why would the local bishop be okay with the local lord being polygamously married to two women who were cousins to each other?  This INEVITABLY would lead to a succession conflict between their rival children.  And who wants a civil war?

So "polygamy is bad because it will lead to succession wars" seems like an issue that would logically arise with the Faith of the Seven in Westeros.

 

....which leads me to wonder just now......could THIS be one of the things that fueled the constant internal feuds among the 40 dragonrider families that ruled the Valyrian Freehold?

Why it took them over 4,000 years after conquering the Ghiscari Empire to move on to conquering the Rhoynar to the west?  Heck, even the Rhoynish Wars dragged on 250 years...because the dragonriders always left after fighting off Rhoynish offensives, to go back to dealing with their internal feuds back home.  

Yeah there were internal factions in the Roman Republic and such....but incest and polygamous marriage...probably only aggravated the situation.  

I hope Gyldayn explains more on that.