Annulment vs. 'setting aside a wife/marriage'

[Platypus Rex]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, in the end the Fireball case is not really all that important. He just wanted to rid himself of his wife somehow so he could become or could increase his chances to become a KG.  We have no reason to assume that he wanted to properly and legally do away with his marriage. He would have been all about appearances and not at all about legality or theology.

We agree then.  The Fireball case proves nothing.

Quote

Because the king had changed by the time a spot was available. 

Sure.  But one difference might be, that Fireball and his buddy The Unworthy did not care about the rules, either in letter or spirit, and only cared about what they could get away with.   This is why (as we just agreed) we can draw no conclusions from the Fireball example.

On the other hand Daeron the Good just might care about the rules, both in letter as well as in spirit,  But okay.  We can draw no conclusions from Daeron either.  Which brings us back to -- the Fireball case proves nothing, either way.

Quote

The Faith of the Andals accepted and included the concept of the Night's Watch into their culture, just as they included the concept of the First Night.

A church can accept and even support another institution, but that does not mean they operate under the same jurisdiction.  The Catholic Church teaches "pay unto Caesar what is Caesars", but it does not follow that the definition of "marriage" in Catholic canon law, is the same as the definition of "marriage" used by the United States Internal Revenue Service.

Night's Watch oaths are not even administered by a Septon, as far as I know.  

But it does not matter.  Even if the Night's Watch oaths were delivered by the High Septon himself, there is nothing in the language of the oath that implies the actual dissolution of a pre-existing marriage.

Quote

When you take the black you turn your back on your birth family, your wife, and your children (assuming you have any).

Turning your back on your wife does not mean she ceases to be your wife under Catholic Doctrine.  Why would it necessarily be any different under the Faith of the Seven?

Quote

You also never return (permanently) from the Wall and most black brothers never even visit their former homes and families. 

The same thing happens when you are sentenced to life imprisonment in a maximum security prison, without parole.  

Quote

Even if the theology of the Faith would want to interpret the marriages of black brothers as still valid that would be a completely academic and pointless viewpoint considering that the spouses no longer live together, no longer have sex, no longer are allowed to/able to protect and care for each other, etc.

How is this different from a husband being sentenced to life imprisonment without parole?

If you have an argument that Faith of the Seven doctrine is somehow different from Catholic doctrine, then I'm all ears.  But I'm not seeing your argument.  All you are doing is using parallels to prove things are somehow different.  But all the parallels cannot prove any differences.  They might imply more parallels, though.

Anyway, the distinction is not academic.   It might be academic for HIM.  But you are forgetting his wife.  If the marriage is dissolved, she can remarry while her husband remains alive.  If the marriage is not dissolved, she can not remarry, while her husband remains alive.

Quote

The main reason why it is clear that marriage ends when you take the black is the vow itself - 'I will take no wife.'

"I will take no wife" means "I will not get married"; and perhaps even, "I will not take a woman and live with her as my wife".  Nothing about those words imply a previous marriage was dissolved, and that your wife is now free to remarry.

Quote

It would be a massive injustice if that truly applied only to the poor sots who came to the Wall as bachelors.

What are you talking about?  The married ones also must accept permanent separations from their wives.  The other part of the vow, "I will sire no children", applies to them too.

The already-married black brother has TWO reasons he cannot marry a woman, instead of ONE.  I'm not seeing the huge unfair advantage.

Quote

Not to mention that no black brother ever referred to the wife he left at home.

Well, I would imagine that most of them are not married.   

I would imagine, it would ordinarily be considered dishonorable, and impermissible, for a married man to run off and join the Night's Watch, abandoning his wife.  The only time this seems to happen is when a married man gets sentenced to death, and then gets offered life at the Wall as an alternative.  In this case, there is no dishonor, as he really has no choice.

In any event, I don't see how the distinctions we are arguing about would have any effect on whether a black brother has warm feelings about the wife he left back home.

Quote

Septons and septas break with their birth families and 'the outside world' to an even greater degree than black brothers - like maesters, they give up their family names and thus their family identity. We don't know anything about married septons and septas, and presumably celibacy and chastity are part of the vows of a septon/septa. Neither would be possible if they could remain married.

Once again, you are using Catholic parallels to reach Non-Catholic conclusions.

Catholic Clergy also tend to give up their names and their family identity.  Married Catholic Clergy are virtually unheard of.  Celibacy and Chastity are routinely a part of the vows of a Roman Catholic priest or nun.  

Nonetheless, your conclusion would be wrong, if you applied it to Catholicism.  Holy orders (whether null or valid) have no power to dissolve a valid pre-existing marriage.  And conversely a marriage (whether valid or null) has no power to dissolve a pre-existing valid priesthood.

Is it different in the Faith of the Seven?  Maybe.  But all you've got are parallels to Catholicism.

Quote

We know Naerys was very pious and wanted to be a septa:

Right.  I would suppose she wanted to be a Septa because she was pious; and not because she thought it would dissolve her marriage.  

Quote

And we know that Naerys did want to end her marriage after the birth of her son:

Meaning what?  She wanted a permanent separation?  She wanted an annulment?  Okay, I'm sure she did.   She might have hoped to obtain either of those things under Catholic doctrine, too.

It does not follow that she thought the vows of a septa would dissolve a pre-existing valid marriage and thereby give her the right to remarry.

Quote

We also know that King Baelor took the vows of a septon after he had annulled his marriage to Daena to ensure he could never marry again:

That would be no different under Catholicism.  If my dad coerced me into an incestuous marriage with my sister, and I never consummated the marriage, and renounced it as soon as I was old enough to assert myself, I bet you a million dollars I could get an annulment in the Catholic faith as well, on at least 3 different grounds, each sufficient in itself.

And if I was single (because my marriage had been declared a nullity) then I would be free to take holy orders, including any vows of celibacy.

And yes, taking vows of celibacy DOES mean that if you get married, you are breaking your vow of celibacy.  This is no different from the Catholic Church.

You keep taking things that are exactly the same to try to prove that things are different.

Quote

If a septon could be married then it makes little sense that taking a septon's vows prevents you from marrying in the future.

 

You could also say "If a Catholic priest could be married then it makes no sense that taking a Priest's vows (which include a vow of celibacy) prevent him marrying in the future."

Nonetheless, it IS possible for a Catholic priest to be married.  This is true notwithstanding that, if he takes a vow never to marry, this really ought to prevent him from marrying in the future.

[Platypus Rex]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 7:35 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Faith of the Andals accepted and included the concept of the Night's Watch into their culture, just as they included the concept of the First Night. 

This is a bit of a side-issue from our original discussion, but I do not think this statement is correct, as regards the Right of First Night.

In the discussion that occurs in F&B, Lord Benifer says that when the Andals conquered Westeros, they left the First Night in place … as well as the godswoods.  But this does not mean that the Faith of the Seven endorsed the First Night, any more than it means that the Faith of the Seven endorsed the godswoods.   

In the same discussion, Jahaerys says the Right of First Night is rarely exercised south of the Neck.  I don't think it is a coincidence that South of the Neck is where the Faith of the Seven is strong.

Septon Barth chimes in.  He argues that the Right of First Night is contrary to the teachings of the Seven Pointed Star, which makes no exception for Lords; and that it is contrary to the ideals of knighthood (knighthood being of the Faith).  He also anticipates that, if the Right of First Night is abolished, the Faithful will be pleased, and that the High Septon will voice his praise.

In this discussion, the chivalrous ideals of the Faith, which oppose the Right of First Night; are contrasted with the Might Makes Right philosophy of the Old Gods; which support the First Night.

So I see no indication that the Faith endorsed the Right of First Night.  The Faith merely failed to abolish it, no doubt because the Faith did not have the power.

One of Septon Barth's quotes may have some relevance to our discussion about divorce versus annulment:  "We swear our marriage vows before the Father and Mother, promising fidelity until the Stranger comes to part us …"

[Platypus Rex]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 12:04 PM, Karneol said:

Another thing is cheating:

If the wife of cheats she would be death or a silent sister. Obvious. But would the marriage be still valid? Or would it be an annulment (because the vows were not fullfilled) and the children would be declared bastards?

A marriage being dissolved by later events is inconsistent with the idea of "annulment".  When a marriage is dissolved as a result of later events, such as unfaithfulness, that is called "divorce".  

When adultery is grounds for divorce, then divorce becomes relatively easy.  All a wealthy and powerful man need do is (1) cheat on his wife; (2) treat her badly; and (3) hint to her that if she sues for divorce, this will solve all her problems.  Then, all he need do is admit the adultery, and the divorce is granted.  (He can also accuse her of adultery; but that is strictly optional).

There is no indication that this option is available in the Faith of the Seven.  Otherwise (for instance) the "Bronze Bitch" would surely have divorced Daemon; and both would have been free to remarry.

It seems likely that divorce for adultery is not available under the doctrines of the Faith of the Seven.  After all, the Faith of the Seven is based on Medieval Catholicism, and not on the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation. 

Historically, there has been no tendency to regard the children of annulled marriages as bastards.  This may seem contradictory and inconsistent, but it is generally how it was.  The explanation I have seen sometimes is that legitimacy is a civil concept, affecting the rights of inheritance, and not a religious one (canon law having no say in the rights of inheritance).  Parties seeking annulment generally have no particular interest in disinheriting their children, and neither the Civil Law nor the Canon Law has any interest in creating problems that nobody wants.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

This is a bit of a side-issue from our original discussion, but I do not think this statement is correct, as regards the Right of First Night.

Oh, I think our differences are just my choice of words. I used 'culture' deliberately above because I did not want to say - and didn't mean - that the First Night and the Night's Watch, etc. became part of the religious doctrine of the Andals - merely that it became part of the overall noble culture to include this tidbit of First Men culture into the Andal way of life - just as they kept the godswoods, mention the old gods in their vows and promises, took the black, etc.

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

In the same discussion, Jahaerys says the Right of First Night is rarely exercised south of the Neck.  I don't think it is a coincidence that South of the Neck is where the Faith of the Seven is strong.

Sure, the First Night is, apparently, no longer as prominent in the south than it is in the North. But it was apparently also rather popular on Targaryen-ruled Dragonstone in the century before the Conquest - and the Targaryens never followed the old gods and only gradually adopted the Faith.

But it is still pretty clear that the Andal conquerors kept or included quite a few First Men traditions into their new way of life.

[Platypus Rex]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I think our differences are just my choice of words. I used 'culture' deliberately above because I did not want to say - and didn't mean - that the First Night and the Night's Watch, etc. became part of the religious doctrine of the Andals - merely that it became part of the overall noble culture to include this tidbit of First Men culture into the Andal way of life - just as they kept the godswoods, mention the old gods in their vows and promises, took the black, etc.

Sure, the First Night is, apparently, no longer as prominent in the south than it is in the North. But it was apparently also rather popular on Targaryen-ruled Dragonstone in the century before the Conquest - and the Targaryens never followed the old gods and only gradually adopted the Faith.

But it is still pretty clear that the Andal conquerors kept or included quite a few First Men traditions into their new way of life.

Powerful and unscrupulous men have a tendency to abuse their power.  This is simply a sad fact of human nature.

The Targaryens thought they were gods among men; and that any wife or daughter they raped was being done a favor.  How much does this have to do with "Right of First Night"?  Not much, I would guess, except that they saw no reason not to adopt the custom; and no reason to limit themselves to the first night either. (Targaryens also tended to have an unearthly beauty, so in many cases, perhaps such abuses were not entirely unwelcome.)

Andal culture has elements, in the form of certain doctrines of the Faith, and the traditions of knighthood, that tend to oppose such abuses.  But human nature is human nature is human nature, whether Andal, or First Men, or Valyrian.

[Lord Varys]

11 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Powerful and unscrupulous men have a tendency to abuse their power.  This is simply a sad fact of human nature.

The Targaryens thought they were gods among men; and that any wife or daughter they raped was being done a favor.  How much does this have to do with "Right of First Night"?  Not much, I would guess, except that they saw no reason not to adopt the custom; and no reason to limit themselves to the first night either. (Targaryens also tended to have an unearthly beauty, so in many cases, perhaps such abuses were not entirely unwelcome.)

Andal culture has elements, in the form of certain doctrines of the Faith, and the traditions of knighthood, that tend to oppose such abuses.  But human nature is human nature is human nature, whether Andal, or First Men, or Valyrian.

You cannot make an artificial cultural barrier here. First Men culture did survive and was adopted both by Andal lords and kings and the Targaryens on Dragonstone. That's just a fact.

It makes sense to create the concept of a 'pure Andal culture' and separate it from the way the actual Andal lords and kings managed their affairs.

It is clear that teachings and theological concepts of the Faith were a basis for arguments against the First Night, but it is quite clear that there were Andals who practiced it for thousands of years after the Andal conquest, meaning that the ruler of the Andals had no issue adopting the practice into their culture.

This is not comparable to a culture resisting foreign cultural influences - like the Ironborn resisted the Faith.

[Platypus Rex]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You cannot make an artificial cultural barrier here. First Men culture did survive and was adopted both by Andal lords and kings and the Targaryens on Dragonstone. That's just a fact.

It makes sense to create the concept of a 'pure Andal culture' and separate it from the way the actual Andal lords and kings managed their affairs.

It is clear that teachings and theological concepts of the Faith were a basis for arguments against the First Night, but it is quite clear that there were Andals who practiced it for thousands of years after the Andal conquest, meaning that the ruler of the Andals had no issue adopting the practice into their culture.

This is not comparable to a culture resisting foreign cultural influences - like the Ironborn resisted the Faith.

I'm not sure what artificial barriers you are accusing me of creating.   I was only trying to say that the ideals of a certain religion are opposed to the Right of First Night.  And you seem to agree.

I do not share your apparent preoccupation with the ethnic origins of the Citizens of Westeros, 1000 years after the Andal Conquest.  That seems to me rather like debating whether a modern Englishman is an Angle, a Saxon, or a Breton. 

I never sought to create an artificial distinction where an Andal Lord would never abuse his power and rape the maidens under his jurisdiction.  Indeed, it seems almost imposslble to me that, 1000 years after the Andal Conquest, any modern Westerosi Lord would not have some Andal heritage.

And, BTW, it is also possible for those paying lip service to the Faith of the Seven to also commit such horrible sins and abuses.  We have no specific examples of any such thing ever happening.  But, like I said, human nature is human nature is human nature.  And power corrupts.  

[Lord Varys]

20 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

I never sought to create an artificial distinction where an Andal Lord would never abuse his power and rape the maidens under his jurisdiction.  Indeed, it seems almost imposslble to me that, 1000 years after the Andal Conquest, any modern Westerosi Lord would not have some Andal heritage.

My point is that I don't buy for a second that the Andal rulers of the Andals were ever seen as abusing their power when they practiced the First Night. I think the First Night continued because it was and remained an accepted practice in the lands and regions where it was practiced until it was forbidden. This is not lords and kings breaking the laws or defying divine command - it is them doing what was their right.

In those regions where the First Night was a thing a lord or king was obviously not raping a woman when he visited her in her wedding night.

It might be that in those Andal lands and kingdoms where the First Night was no longer a thing in the 1st century - we have no idea where those regions were, just that the First Night was more rarely practiced in the south than in the North - the Faith had gradually led the lords and kings there to give up the practice. But even that's unclear.

I mean, people can and did cite the Bible to criticize and to justify slavery - one can imagine Andals citing the holy scriptures to justify and criticize the First Night, too - just as one can imagine that the consensus in the Faith in the days of Alysanne was no longer favorably on the First Night - unlike it may have then centuries or millennia before.

 

[Platypus Rex]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

My point is that I don't buy for a second that the Andal rulers of the Andals were ever seen as abusing their power when they practiced the First Night. 

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

You've got to be kidding.

So this was all Queen Alyssanne's idea, was it?

Well.  There go all Queen Alyssanne's arguments, up in smoke.

I guess Alyssanne was just telling a pack of lies, as an clever means of social engineering.  And I guess the only reason Septon Barth supported her, by telling all the lies he told, is because she bribed him, as part of her clever social engineering scheme.  

So I guess there was no element of poetic justice in the gruesome execution of Gargon the Guest.  And I guess the man who opened Gargon's gates for Harren the Red, has reasons of his own, which had nothing whatsoever with Gargon's deflowering of his maiden daughter on her wedding night, which of course he had no problem with whatsoever.  And I guess when Archmaester Gyldayne describes Gargon the Guest as "infamous", he is only projecting back in time the attitudes of his own age.

And how many other examples of retaliation, like that on Gargon?, asks Queen Alyssanne.  "More than I care to say", admits Lord Benifer.  Funny how these evil rapists keep coming to bad ends if no mortal man or woman has a problem with their behavior. 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I think the First Night continued because it was and remained an accepted practice in the lands and regions where it was practiced until it was forbidden.

Well, ain't that just magical!  Nobody had any problem with this whatsoever until Queen Alyssanne nagged King Jahaerys.  Now, suddenly, it is not accepted.  Because there just ain't no authority higher than a Lord, except a Dragon King.  Might Makes Right, and Lords are mightier than peasants.  But Dragon Kings are mightier than Lords.  Is that it?

Quote

This is not lords and kings breaking the laws or defying divine command - it is them doing what was their right.

It was their right?  Whose opinion is that?  The opinion of the evil rapists themselves?  Your opinion?

It's certainly not my opinion, I'll tell you that for free!

Septon Barth did cite the Seven Pointed Star, in support of his argument that this was a violation of divine command.  But never mind that.  He probably made up the quote, on instructions from Queen Alyssanne.  And then the Seven Pointed Star was reedited later to incorporate the new doctrine.  Is that the theory?

Quote

In those regions where the First Night was a thing a lord or king was obviously not raping a woman when he visited her in her wedding night.

Under what theory was this not "rape".  Might makes right?

[The She-Wolf25]

I can't remember the passage from TWOIAF but there is a passage that states that Lord Hightower "put aside" his wife of twenty years to marry an Andal maiden because war is bad for trade.  Whether he had children with that first wife or how his new marriage affected the legitimacy of the children from the previous marriage was not discussed.  As with all things, the strength of a marriage and whether it can be dissolved is political.  Robert may have hated Cersei but he couldn't put aside that marriage because of Tywin, and the massive amount of gold he owes to Casterly Rock.  Even if it got out that her children were not his and he would have had every right to put her aside with the support of the Faith and the other Lords of Westeros, he would have a war with Tywin on his hands.  Throughout history, kings have had or tried to have unwanted marriages set aside with varying degrees of success.  The two reasons used were either non-consummation or consanguinity.  The most common example is Henry VIII, who couldn't get his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled, because it politically inconvenient for the Pope to do so.  She was the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor, who also spent a lot of time warring in Italy; the Pope couldn't make an enemy of Charles V.  Kings who succeeded in getting an annulment were typically ones who didn't have children with their wives.  Henry IV of Castile, known as the Impotent, got an annulment from his first marriage to Blanche of Navarre on grounds of non-consummation.  He claimed that he could not consummate the marriage because of witchcraft, and had two prostitutes testify that he was capable of sexual intercourse.  Louis XII of France got annulment for his marriage of Joan of Valois, who was supposedly infertile, so he could marry Anne of Brittany.  Even though it would have been easy to claim consanguinity (they were too closely related), he instead claimed that she was so deformed that he couldn't consummate the marriage.  It still was not easy to get the annulment and Pope Alexander VI granted it because he wanted to stay on Louis's good side.  Joan of Valois later entered a convent.  Its thought that Catherine of Aragon was urged to join a convent of her own free will, but she refused.  The only instance is can think of in history of a marriage being annulled and it not affecting the legitimacy of the children is Louis VII of France and Eleanor of Aquitaine.  After fifteen years of marriage they only two daughters, so the Pope granted annulment on grounds of consanguinity.  Their daughters maintained their legitimacy, and Louis got custody of them.  Its interesting to note however, that she went on marry Henry Duke of Anjou, later Henry II of England, who she was even closer to in relation.  History shows us that where there's a will there's a way, and if someone can come up with an excuse that everyone can agree to and no one will fight it there's a way to get out of marriage vows.  Even though the strength of marriage vows is not the focus of ASOIAF, if a lord or a king really wanted to, he could find a way to get out of a marriage he didn't want.  After all, Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church to get rid Catherine of Aragon.

[Lord Varys]

On 6/30/2019 at 7:56 PM, Platypus Rex said:

I guess Alyssanne was just telling a pack of lies, as an clever means of social engineering.  And I guess the only reason Septon Barth supported her, by telling all the lies he told, is because she bribed him, as part of her clever social engineering scheme.  

I'd say Barth supported Alysanne because she liked her even more than her royal brother-husband.

On 6/30/2019 at 7:56 PM, Platypus Rex said:

So I guess there was no element of poetic justice in the gruesome execution of Gargon the Guest.  And I guess the man who opened Gargon's gates for Harren the Red, has reasons of his own, which had nothing whatsoever with Gargon's deflowering of his maiden daughter on her wedding night, which of course he had no problem with whatsoever.  And I guess when Archmaester Gyldayne describes Gargon the Guest as "infamous", he is only projecting back in time the attitudes of his own age.

Gargon overdid the First Night. And nobody said it was particularly popular anywhere in Westeros, not even in the North where it was practiced the most. Just that the lords practicing it did have the right on their side up until the point it was forbidden.

The fact that it was successfully outlawed (some twisted Northmen rapists aside) can perhaps be seen as a sign that popular opinion stood with Queen Alysanne rather than against her.

In the case of Gargon one also may take into account that the Riverlands had just been recently freed from the yoke of the Ironborn - and that Harwyn Hardhand and his successors might have reintroduced or strengthened the First Night in the Riverlands as a means to discipline and humiliate the Riverlanders. It is the kind of thing the Ironborn would do.

On 6/30/2019 at 7:56 PM, Platypus Rex said:

Well, ain't that just magical!  Nobody had any problem with this whatsoever until Queen Alyssanne nagged King Jahaerys.  Now, suddenly, it is not accepted.  Because there just ain't no authority higher than a Lord, except a Dragon King.  Might Makes Right, and Lords are mightier than peasants.  But Dragon Kings are mightier than Lords.  Is that it?
 

The idea that many a man avenged his wife, daughter, or sister who was used/raped in a First Night doesn't strike me as odd. It would depend on the case, one imagines, as well as the means of the man in question to strike back at the lord or king in question. If a king slept with the highborn bride of a great lord in her wedding night than the chances for repercussions would have been higher than if a lord took the maidenhead of the bride of some poor farmhand. Just as doing this kind of things to people living, working, and serving at your own castle (say, with a steward's wife, or even a groom's or sworn sword's bride) would have been much more dangerous than doing it while you are on a progress through your land a hundred miles away from your castle - because it would give the people in question ample opportunity to strike back.

However, on a legal level there would have been nothing you could do. A lord and lady harmed by the First Night could not declare that the king had done something wrong while the First Night was still an accepted practice. The danger would have been more personal, meaning attacks and murders on the basis of personal injury that was not acknowledged as such by the society at large.

On 6/30/2019 at 7:56 PM, Platypus Rex said:

Septon Barth did cite the Seven Pointed Star, in support of his argument that this was a violation of divine command.  But never mind that.  He probably made up the quote, on instructions from Queen Alyssanne.  And then the Seven Pointed Star was reedited later to incorporate the new doctrine.  Is that the theory?

Under what theory was this not "rape".  Might makes right?

Obviously all the Seven Kingdoms where the First Night was a thing cared more about the First Night being a thing than whatever is written in the Seven-pointed Star. Else there wouldn't have been a First Night in the Seven Kingdoms.

 

[Platypus Rex]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Gargon overdid the First Night.

LOL.  I guess he must have raped the bride AND groom, and the host as well.  Otherwise, everyone would have been okay with it?  

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And nobody said it was particularly popular anywhere in Westeros, not even in the North where it was practiced the most. Just that the lords practicing it did have the right on their side up until the point it was forbidden.

You mis-spelled "might".  It is spelt with an "m", not an "r".

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The fact that it was successfully outlawed (some twisted Northmen rapists aside) can perhaps be seen as a sign that popular opinion stood with Queen Alysanne rather than against her.

Right.  So what are you arguing about?  Does their opinion not count because they are only smallfolk?

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that many a man avenged his wife, daughter, or sister who was used/raped in a First Night doesn't strike me as odd.

It does not strike me as odd either.  You're the one with some kind of issue here.

[Lord Varys]

29 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

LOL.  I guess he must have raped the bride AND groom, and the host as well.  Otherwise, everyone would have been okay with it?

No, overdoing it means that Gargon overdid it. He apparently went to every wedding in his lands just to bang the bride in her wedding night, and treated his own sworn men in the same fashion. That kind of thing does not make you popular, especially if - as we can assume - Gargon's lordly neighbors do not torment their people in the same fashion.

29 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

You mis-spelled "might".  It is spelt with an "m", not an "r".

Right.  So what are you arguing about?  Does their opinion not count because they are only smallfolk?

Sure, it doesn't. This is a world where common people are crushed beneath the heels of the nobility. They have no power and no voice in the story.

If you ask my own opinion then George's world is disgusting for a number of reasons, and the First Night is actually one of those - others are the arranged marriages (which are essentially marital rape and at best only slightly better than the First Night), age of legal adulthood, marital age, and rapes as a plot device.

But within the framework of the story nobody asked the smallfolk whether they were okay with the First Night ... until Queen Alysanne had her women courts.

29 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

It does not strike me as odd either.  You're the one with some kind of issue here.

What kind of issue would that be? I just point out how the world works - that it is unrealistic that people would accept as hilarious a concept as the First Night is George's problem. I didn't come up with that.

[Platypus Rex]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

No, overdoing it means that Gargon overdid it.

So, if I lived in Westeros, I would be okay with Gorgon raping my daughter.  It's raping that other guy's daughter in the next village that would push me over the edge?

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

This is a world where common people are crushed beneath the heels of the nobility. 

So what?   Might makes right, in other words?  It seems to me, you are merely arguing your own philosophy.  

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

If you ask my own opinion then George's world is disgusting for a number of reasons ...

There are rapists in the real world too.

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

So, if I lived in Westeros, I would be okay with Gorgon raping my daughter.  It's raping that other guy's daughter in the next village that would push me over the edge?

You would be living in a world that shaped your morals and your understanding of your (inferior/insignficant) place in the world you lived in. You would know that lords and kings had claimed the First Night for thousands of years. It is not particularly likely that you would have the same moral code that you have as a real person in that setting.

But still ... various people would still be pissed to various degrees. It is a barbaric custom.

19 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

So what?   Might makes right, in other words?  It seems to me, you are merely arguing your own philosophy.

The point is that might has long ago made right in Westeros. The smallfolk essentially are sheep. They don't try to stand up or cast down their lords and kings. They obediently do as they are told. Even Gargon's folk don't rise up and cast him down - they need an outlaw pretender and his band to move against him.

19 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

There are rapists in the real world too.

And you think I don't know that? The point is that the First Night is not seen as 'rape' in Westeros - because what's seen as rape in Westeros is actually a crime that's punished by castration (at least according to Stannis). But no lord or king claiming the First Night is accused of or convicted for rape as far as I know - at least not while the First Night is still a lordly privilege.

You cannot take your moral code and then equate it with the moral code of the series. That doesn't work. But I'd of course agree that the First Night is an utterly despicable concept and constitutes rape by our standards - just as sex (involving minors) who cannot consent/are forced into marriages effectively constitutes rape.

[Minsc]

On 6/21/2019 at 9:22 PM, Son of Man said:

Notice, Walder did not push Robb to annul his marriage with Jeyne.

Walder likely didn't push for it because the insult had already been done and Robb's cause was done by them with the Tyrells joining the Lannisters.

[Platypus Rex]

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You would be living in a world that shaped your morals and your understanding of your (inferior/insignficant) place in the world you lived in. 

How do you know that?  How do you know, that if I lived in Westeros, my mom, dad and septon would all be pro-rape?  

The ideal of the True Knight, beloved by the small-folk, is that the True Knight defends the weak.  But according to you, if I lived in Westeros, I would be raised to believe that the True Knight rapes the weak, by my mom, my dad, my septon, and any wandering minstrel who happened by.

Quote

You would know that lords and kings had claimed the First Night for thousands of years.

How is that different from the real world, in which Lords and Kings have claimed the right to murder whoever they wished for thousands of years?  

Such folk have always existed.  So have folk who disagreed with them.  Whose side are you on?

Quote

The smallfolk essentially are sheep.

Uh … if you say so.  I assume this is no different from your real-world philosophy as well.

Quote

The point is that the First Night is not seen as 'rape' in Westeros -

Of course it is seen as rape.  What an absurd thing to say. 

Quote

because what's seen as rape in Westeros is actually a crime that's punished by castration

Which, by funny bizarre coincidence, is one of the punishments inflicted on Gargon the Guest.

Quote

You cannot take your moral code and then equate it with the moral code of the series.

"Moral code of the series?"  What does that even mean?  It's not the moral code of Ned Stark.  It is not the moral code of Duncan the Tall.  It's not the moral code of Queen Alysanne.  It's not the moral code of Septon Barth.   It's not the moral code of any character who is also a decent human being.

Quote

That doesn't work.

Of course it works.