Jump to content

Targaryen family tree and incest


Lady Winter Rose

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Megorova said:

I'm not saying that there was no incest between Targaryens prior the Doom

I'm not saying you said that.

14 hours ago, Megorova said:

what I'm saying is that it's likely that before the Doom the percentage of incestuous marriages between Targaryens was either lower than after the Doom or approximately the same as after the Doom

How? Those people are famous for fucking their siblings and riding dragons?

ESPECIALLY when some of them were polygamous: How would there be no sibling or halfsibling? Or cousins. It is controversial, because the more wives you had the more children you had as well. Why would they prefer someone else over their sibling, when that's their tradition? Aegon V intentionally did not marry his sibling, Daeron II's betrothal came from the truce eith Dorne that Baelor arranged, and Daeron's sons had no siblings to marry because during that era there were just so many male Targaryens.

14 hours ago, Megorova said:

What I'm saying is that it's highly unlikely that before the Doom, when in Valyria there were many other non-Targaryens dragonlords, there would have been a particular reason for Targaryens to ALWAYS marry with their siblings. Because it's after the Doom is when they were left without a choice. They were the only remaining dragonlords, so if they wanted to keep the blood of the dragons in their family's gene pool, then they had to frequently marry brother+sister

Dude, you're creating your fanfiction here, and expect people to consider it proven/canonical. We are told it's what they did whenever they just had the chance to do so.

The suggestion that they did it after the Doom to preserve their pure blood makes no sense. This tradition is already a few thousand-year-old thing, not something Targaryens came up with after the Doom.

The fact that we also have no indication of certain dragonlord houses being cadet branches of other dragonlord houses also suggests that these people kept their lines separated from others, and those who decided to leave and create their own lines remained without dragons. That's where the noble houses of the Free Cities come from.

14 hours ago, Megorova said:

It's a logical conclusion that the percentage of incestuous marriages in House Targaryen was not higher but instead nearly the same before and after the Doom, so approximately 7-out-of-19 ~ 37%.

Name me a single occasion when a Targaryen male had the chance to marry his sister but did not: It's Aegon V only, and he had heavy reasons not to do so.

Viserys III made his son Aegon marry Naerys even when:

1. Naerys did not want to marry at all.

2. Aemon would've been a better husband to her. (And Aegon could've married a cousin)

3. Aegon was a well-known monster at that point, clearly not suitable to s pious woman like Naerys.

You're making up things, and I don't even know why I bother explaining anything to you, as you're clearly ignoring:

1. What the book says about the Valyrian dragonlords. 

2. How incest and inbreeding works. (As if Valyrians know that)

Tho, what was I expecting? It's not the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no idea what exactly happened prior to the Doom, but what we do know as a general rule is that the dragonlords of Valyria as well as other members of the Valyrian elite married their siblings or, if there were no suitable siblings around, other close relations. And with there being about forty dragonlord families there would have always been scions of the blood of the dragon available if you couldn't find a spouse for your son or daughter among your own close kin. Then you would turn to distant cousins in other dragonlord families.

Exactly. Or turning to distant braches of your family, etc... What we don't know is how open these people were to marrying others into their own family.

I mean, as a prestigous dragonlord of the Freehold, who would you choose as your son's wife? A second or third cousin from a not-so-influential side of your own family, or a daughter of another dragonlord, who is a head of his house as well? I can see such marriages happening for alliances or other political reasons(I guess such things existed there as well), but ortherwise not really. We don't even know if only the first son inherited or not. And even if second sons were left out of succession, they still were carried great value: dragons, and the blood to ride dragons.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course, sibling incest was just the ideal. It couldn't and wouldn't have happened always. You need a sister or else you cannot marry her. And even if you have a sister there might be certain reasons why in this or that case such a marriage didn't take place.

But at this point we would assume that 80-90 per cent of the dragonlord marriages in Old Valyria would have been incestuous marriages - although not all necessarily sibling incest. The others could be love matches, marriages outside the family for this or that political reason, etc.

In those cases where some high-ranking Valyrian sorcerer prince practiced polygamy as well as incest it also stands to reason that not all of his wives would have been sisters or close kin. Instead, we would assume that such people did their duty to family by taking a sister as a first wife and then married for pleasure, love, or other reasons when they took a second or third wife

Just what I'm thinking of.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In addition, we have to imagine the Targaryens under Aenar on Dragonstone as a family clan rather than just a guy with two children. Aenar had wives, plural, meaning he could have had as many or more children as Jaehaerys and Alysanne, depending how fertile his wives were. The man also had siblings - meaning brothers and sisters (some of the latter but not all may have been among his wives) - and kin - which could include uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, and cousins of various degree.

Exactly. The reason House Targaryen shrinked in numbers by the time of Aegon I is the same as it was with Aerys II: The plot required it. (and probably George couldn't include other Targs for the time of the Conquest)

The pre-Conquest Targaryens mentioned are all either Lords of Dragonstone or women who earned to be mentioned (we know of that Targaryen who married a lesser noble only because her descendant/s presented their claims at the Great Council of 101, while Daenys was the Dreamer, and Ealena eas famous for co-ruling with Aegon).

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And considering especially the incestuous practices of the Ptolemies - who were Greek invaders coming from a place where incest was only practiced by the gods - one can only assume that this kind of thing was deeply ingrained in Egyptian culture in the 300s BCE, or else Ptolemy I would have never married his children to each other.

As far as I know the higher nobility of Egypt practiced incest as well from the very beginning, but not as much as royalty. Basically the degree of incest decreased with the level of nobility, but by the time of the Ptolemies, siblingmarriages or just incestuous ones happened among the commoners as well (of course on a smaller scale, but still).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But this doesn't mean that Maegon had no sons or daughters, nor that Aelyx and Baelon had no children - it just gives us the Lords of Dragonstone as they succeeded each other.

Exactly! Suceeded each other. Baelon suceeded his brother Aelyx, and then was suceeded by his brother Daemion, that's because Aelyx and Baelon died without children, like Beron Stark who suceeded leadership of his House after his older brother Rodwell, or Willam Stark who suceeded after his brother Donnor. Those Targaryens and Starks were suceeded by their siblings and not by their children because either they died still too young to have their own children, or they were old enough to have children but for whatever reason were still childless at the time of their death. Look at the Targaryen family tree - no Targaryen King (dragonlord) was suceeded by his sibling if there were his own children that were supposed to inherit (except Maegor the Cruel who overstepped his brother's children to get the crown for himself). Thus if those three Targaryen brothers suceeded after each other, then isn't it obvious that the first two were childless? That possibility is likely. Same as it's likely that during that period of time when Targaryens lived at Valyria, there were cases when the head of the House had no sisters to marry, and his own parent also was a single child, so there was no aunts nor uncles and thus no first cousins with whom he could have married instead of marrying with a sister. There could have been cases in which the lord of the House had only daughters, or only sons. There could have been cases when the lord died young and had no children who could have suceeded him, and thus the seat of the head passed to some distant relative, whose parents and grandparents and so on, didn't followed the tradition of incestuous marriages, so with addition of that new head into the House's gene-pool, they were given a total makover of their genetics. And all sorts of other cases. All that is a viable possibilities, so Targaryens did had occasional influx of new genes into their family, and that addition was sufficient enough for them to avoid looking like clones or suffering from severe genetic diseases caused by inbreeding.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But at this point we would assume that 80-90 per cent of the dragonlord marriages in Old Valyria would have been incestuous marriages - although not all necessarily sibling incest. The others could be love matches, marriages outside the family for this or that political reason, etc.

In the span of 414 years after the Doom there was 19 generations of Targaryens, out of those 19 there was only 7 marriages between siblings, and that's 37%.

37%, in conditions that there are no other dragonlord Houses besides Targaryens with whom Targaryens could have married. Before the Doom they had more varied choice with whom to marry. So it's logical and it's obvious that before the Doom the percentage of incestuous marriages in House Targaryen, when they married brother to sister, was NOT HIGHER than after the Doom, instead it was either approximately the same as after the Doom, ~37%, or - it was lower than that. But DEFINITELY not higher. NOT 80-90%. Sorry, but that's just ridiculous.

Let's say for example that Valyria is a restaurant with all sorts of cuisine (worldwide cuisine), while Westeros is McDonald's that serves mostly burgers (where burgers are incestuous marriages - brother+sister, and other cuisine are non-incestuous marriages of Targaryens with people who were not Targaryens). So Targaryens used to dine at that other Restaurant (Valyria) and then it was closed and they switched to eating at McDonald's. When they were eating at McDonald's, amongst their orders 37% were burgers and 63% were not burgers but other cuisine. But what you're saying is that while they were dining at that other Restaurant that served all sorts of dishes that ranged from Chinese food, Italian food, sushi, pasta, sea food, pizza, soups, all sorts of deserts and beverages, amongst all the food that Targaryens ever ordered while dining at that Restaurant, 80-90% of their orders were burgers, and then they migrated to McDonald's and the percentage of burgers in their orders dropped from 80-90% to 37%, and that's at McDonald's that serves mostly burgers. As I said - ridiculous.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no reason to believe that Myriah Martell or Betha Blackwood have a Targaryen/Valyrian background

Well, that is so, only if we will completely ignore the fact that somehow they had Valyrain-looking children, and that would have been possible only if they also were carriers of Valyrian genes, even though they themselves didn't had Valyrian looks, nevertheless they passed those Valyrian genes to some of their children, like Maekar and Egg and Egg's children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Name me a single occasion when a Targaryen male had the chance to marry his sister but did not: It's Aegon V only, and he had heavy reasons not to do so.

1. Duncan the Small and 2. his brother Daeron (there was Rhaelle for them to marry but they choose not to). 3. Egg (he had no specific reason not to marry with one of his sisters, he just didn't wanted, which proves the point - Targaryens didn't had specific inclinations/desires to marry with their siblings, they weren't driven in that aspect like Cersei and Jaime), 4. his brother Daeron the Drunken and 5. Aerion Brightflame. Jaehaerys' son 6. Vaegon who was supposed to marry with his sister Saera but instead preferred to become a maester. 7. Baelor the Blessed who did married with one of his sisters, though later annuled that marriage because he had no interest in his sister and the marriage was unconsummated. 8. Daeron I could have married either with Rhaena, or Elaena, or Daena the Defiant, he had three beautiful sisters but he was totally not interested. 9. Jaehaerys' Baelon wasn't interested to marry with his sister Viserra, even though she tried to seduce him and he at that time was already a widower. 10. Aemon the Dragonknight chose to become a Kingsguard, even though besides his sister Naerys, there were his first cousins available for marriage - Elaena, Rhaena and Daena. 11. Rhaegel's son Aelor did married with his sister, but their marriage remained unconsummated, he was totally not interested in her. 12. Viserys didn't married with Dany, even though he could have.

There were all sorts of reasons and circumstances for some Targaryens not to marry their sisters, before the Doom too, same as after the Doom. There is absolutely no reason to believe that prior the Doom the percentage of incestuous marriages between Targaryens was higher than after the Doom. And after the Doom it was only 37%. So before the Doom it was either the same 37% or lower, not higher. Let's wait for F&B V2, maybe GRRM will write there more enciclopedic information concerning the history of Valyria and Targaryens from the times of the First Long Night and to the Doom. Or maybe someone will ask GRRM concerning that info.

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

You're making up things, and I don't even know why I bother explaining anything to you, as you're clearly ignoring:

Tho, what was I expecting? It's not the first time.

I'm stating obvious/logical things and you're in denial. :rolleyes:

When Targaryens after the Doom remained the only dragonlords in existence, they still married with their siblings only 37% out of their House's total marriages. So it's logical that before the Doom, when the choices were more varied, they less frequently married with their sisters and more often married with girls from other dragonlord Houses. That's logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Megorova said:

1. Duncan the Small and 2. his brother Daeron (there was Rhaelle for them to marry but they choose not to). 3. Egg (he had no specific reason not to marry with one of his sisters, he just didn't wanted, which proves the point - Targaryens didn't had specific inclinations/desires to marry with their siblings, they weren't driven in that aspect like Cersei and Jaime), 4. his brother Daeron the Drunken and 5. Aerion Brightflame. Jaehaerys' son 6. Vaegon who was supposed to marry with his sister Saera but instead preferred to become a maester. 7. Baelor the Blessed who did married with one of his sisters, though later annuled that marriage because he had no interest in his sister and the marriage was unconsummated. 8. Daeron I could have married either with Rhaena, or Elaena, or Daena the Defiant, he had three beautiful sisters but he was totally not interested. 9. Jaehaerys' Baelon wasn't interested to marry with his sister Viserra, even though she tried to seduce him and he at that time was already a widower. 10. Aemon the Dragonknight chose to become a Kingsguard, even though besides his sister Naerys, there were his first cousins available for marriage - Elaena, Rhaena and Daena. 11. Rhaegel's son Aelor did married with his sister, but their marriage remained unconsummated, he was totally not interested in her. 12. Viserys didn't married with Dany, even though he could have

This became a joke, but let's see:

1. Duncan the Small wasn't pushed by his father to marry his sister/any of his sisters. He was betrothed to someone else, and broke it for Jenny.

2. Prince Daeron was gay.

3. Egg wanted to leave behind the tradition, that's why he betrothed all of his children to unrelated people. Intentionally. She had two sisters to marry with the right age but choose not to (he broke his betrothal with Daella), because he found it "harmful", and tried to force the same pattern at his children as well.

4. He did not have a sister to marry who was his age as well.

5. Same. 

6. Vaegon did not want to marry Daella because he for some reason wasn't interested in any women (doesn't mean he was gay tho) until the age he was offered to go to the Citadel. He also pretty much found the match unsuitable for him, as she was dumb according to her. 

7. Baelor annuled his marriage with Daena because he was so pious. And after all, her sisters stayed in a tower so that he won't desire them when he doesn't see them. That's pretty obvious.

8. Daeron for some reason wasn't betrothed to any of his sisters at the age of 15. He died at that age. You'll never know why he choose not to, or why wasn't he pushed to. But he most certainly wasn't betrothed or married to anyone else either. George fucked this up, I think, but whatever.

9. Prince Baelon chose not to remarry. He wasn't in a need of sons/heirs, and he did not desire another woman after the death of his sisterwife.

10. Aemon the Dragonknight became a Kingsguard after he realised he'll never get his sister, whom he desired. Obviously. It tells so much about his character that he choose celibacy, altough he could've arranged his brother's deatd, become king and marry his sister.

11. There is no such information about Prince Aelor. The fact that her sister Aelora went mad after she accidentally killed him instead proves the opposite: that the two likely had a close relationship.

12. Illyrio Mopatis literally fucking tells Tyrion that it was so hard for Viserys to give Daenerys to Khal Drogo.

As you see, there's only a single occasion when someone intentionally went against a siblingmarriage: Aegon V. You can see how the Targaryens got sober with this tradition as time passed. 

Up until the Dance (when Targaryens actually arranged marriages for alliances as well) Viserys I was the only male who married a woman who wasn't related to him, and that's also because the only option was a twelve year-old Laena. And his previous marriage was also a cousinmarriage, the closest possible.

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

There were all sorts of reasons and circumstances for some Targaryens not to marry their sisters, before the Doom too, same as after the Doom. There is absolutely no reason to believe that prior the Doom the percentage of incestuous marriages between Targaryens was higher than after the Doom. And after the Doom it was only 37%. So before the Doom it was either the same 37% or lower, not higher. Let's wait for F&B V2, maybe GRRM will write there more enciclopedic information concerning the history of Valyria and Targaryens from the times of the First Long Night and to the Doom. Or maybe someone will ask GRRM concerning that info.

 

There are reasons to believe the dragonlords of Valyria choose a siblingmarriage over any other match. Especially in the main branch, unless something really messed things up and they needed alliance with other houses, or I dunno.

Dude, it's written down in the book. What do you expect me, to quote it? You would go against it still, I imagine.

You also did not count in the occasions when these people had no siblings and married their closest kin (cousin or uncle). You fucking make your shit up again (It's what you always do), and I dare call it that.

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

I'm stating obvious/logical things and you're in denial. :rolleyes:

Aigh, Captain.

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

When Targaryens after the Doom remained the only dragonlords in existence, they still married with their siblings only 37% out of their House's total marriages. So it's logical that before the Doom, when the choices were more varied, they less frequently married with their sisters and more often married with girls from other dragonlord Houses. That's logical.

Quote

In the Valyrian Freehold, it was custom among the dragonlords to marry brother to sister, or, if that was not possible, an uncle to a niece, or an aunt to a nephew.

CUSTOM=

1. a habitual practice; the usual way of acting in given circumstances.

2.habits or usages collectively; convention.

3.a practice so long established that it has the force of law.

4.such practices collectively.

I mean honestly. Haven't you heard about cultural conversion? It's that when you live somewhere and you start having the same habits and traditions the locals have. See what happened with poligamy? It ended with Maegor. What happened with siblingmarriages? It would've faded away, if Jaehaerys II didn't marry his sister and also marry his children to each other.

You're just unable to conceive anything as a possibility outside your headcanon (which often turns into fanfiction), and 80% (maybe more) of the people think the same. You can ask them, you don't have to believe me (Altough I think you know it's true).

Good day to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Megorova said:

When Targaryens after the Doom remained the only dragonlords in existence, they still married with their siblings only 37% out of their House's total marriages. So it's logical that before the Doom, when the choices were more varied, they less frequently married with their sisters and more often married with girls from other dragonlord Houses. That's logical.

Is it really logical? Dragons are powerful weapons, incest would allow such weapons to remain under their control, while marrying other dragonlords would only give another dragon to a potential rival family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Exactly. Or turning to distant braches of your family, etc... What we don't know is how open these people were to marrying others into their own family.

The fact that a YiTish emperor took a female dragonlord as one of his wives and kept a dragon at his court indicates that the Valyrian elite deemed the blood of the Imperial family of Yi Ti to be good enough for their own. This could indicate that YiTish royalty and similar highborn folk - say, Rhoynar princes before the final war or Sarnori royalty - also rarely intermarried with the dragonlords. One imagines that this would have happened as part of big alliances, trade deals and the like.

We can also say that the dragonlords apparently flourished and multiplied despite their incestuous marriages. The Volantene elite are repeatedly called the cousins and kin of the dragonlords, meaning it seems as if some dragonlord families at least had more children than dragons, and those folks then became the Valyrian adventurers who founded other colonies. One would also imagine that some of the scions of cadet branches of the dragonlord families ended up moving to the colonies and later to Free Cities to make careers there. This could have led to a continuous influx of dragonlord blood in Volantis and other colonies.

6 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I mean, as a prestigous dragonlord of the Freehold, who would you choose as your son's wife? A second or third cousin from a not-so-influential side of your own family, or a daughter of another dragonlord, who is a head of his house as well? I can see such marriages happening for alliances or other political reasons(I guess such things existed there as well), but ortherwise not really. We don't even know if only the first son inherited or not. And even if second sons were left out of succession, they still were carried great value: dragons, and the blood to ride dragons.

Considering the framework of Valyrian society it stands to reason that the various dragonlord factions would have also formed alliances and united houses, etc. by occasionally arranging marriages outside the own family. This would have been especially the case for families on the rise who weren't yet at the top.

The fact that it did happen that a single dragonlord house ruled Valyria - although only rarely - without the society being transformed into a monarchy would also imply that such dragonlord houses must have been really big clans with there being enough members so the house can dominate the Freehold by taking over crucial offices and control enough wealth and power to rig elections and buy votes. Against such dominance lesser houses may have founded powerful alliances to eventually topple the folks who thought they could run the show on their own.

6 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Exactly. The reason House Targaryen shrinked in numbers by the time of Aegon I is the same as it was with Aerys II: The plot required it. (and probably George couldn't include other Targs for the time of the Conquest)

I don't really think the plot required it that Aegon and his sister-wives were the only Targaryens during the Conquest. Their mother could have still been around, they could have already had children, and there could have been uncles, aunts, and cousins. What we can say the plot sort of implied is that there were only the three big dragons, but it wouldn't have been a retcon if it had turned out that Aegon had a lazy old uncle with a dragon back on Dragonstone who sat out the Conquest, or if there had been a young cousin on a swift young dragon who helped coordinate the campaigns by racing back and forth between the various Targaryen armies.

8 hours ago, Megorova said:

Exactly! Suceeded each other. Baelon suceeded his brother Aelyx, and then was suceeded by his brother Daemion, that's because Aelyx and Baelon died without children, like Beron Stark who suceeded leadership of his House after his older brother Rodwell, or Willam Stark who suceeded after his brother Donnor. Those Targaryens and Starks were suceeded by their siblings and not by their children because either they died still too young to have their own children, or they were old enough to have children but for whatever reason were still childless at the time of their death. Look at the Targaryen family tree - no Targaryen King (dragonlord) was suceeded by his sibling if there were his own children that were supposed to inherit (except Maegor the Cruel who overstepped his brother's children to get the crown for himself). Thus if those three Targaryen brothers suceeded after each other, then isn't it obvious that the first two were childless? That possibility is likely. Same as it's likely that during that period of time when Targaryens lived at Valyria, there were cases when the head of the House had no sisters to marry, and his own parent also was a single child, so there was no aunts nor uncles and thus no first cousins with whom he could have married instead of marrying with a sister. There could have been cases in which the lord of the House had only daughters, or only sons. There could have been cases when the lord died young and had no children who could have suceeded him, and thus the seat of the head passed to some distant relative, whose parents and grandparents and so on, didn't followed the tradition of incestuous marriages, so with addition of that new head into the House's gene-pool, they were given a total makover of their genetics. And all sorts of other cases. All that is a viable possibilities, so Targaryens did had occasional influx of new genes into their family, and that addition was sufficient enough for them to avoid looking like clones or suffering from severe genetic diseases caused by inbreeding.

You are comparing apples with oranges here. We have no information how those successions worked. There could have been children who were passed over for this or that reason, not to mention that there could have been an assassination of an elder brother along with his children.

8 hours ago, Megorova said:

In the span of 414 years after the Doom there was 19 generations of Targaryens, out of those 19 there was only 7 marriages between siblings, and that's 37%.

Basically all the Targaryen marriages up to the Dance count as following the standard marriage customs of the family which stipulate that you marry inside the family if there are no siblings available. That means that all the Velaryon and Baratheon marriages were marriages within the extended family and viewed as such.

Other prospects only are entertained when there are no close relations available - like was the case with Maegor, some of Jaehaerys' daughters, etc. - or when it is decided for whatever reason that the incest option is off the table - as was the case when Alyssa and Rogar discussed the marriages of Alysanne and Jaehaerys.

8 hours ago, Megorova said:

37%, in conditions that there are no other dragonlord Houses besides Targaryens with whom Targaryens could have married. Before the Doom they had more varied choice with whom to marry. So it's logical and it's obvious that before the Doom the percentage of incestuous marriages in House Targaryen, when they married brother to sister, was NOT HIGHER than after the Doom, instead it was either approximately the same as after the Doom, ~37%, or - it was lower than that. But DEFINITELY not higher. NOT 80-90%. Sorry, but that's just ridiculous.

Back in Valyria the blood of the dragon was under no pressure at all to marry outside their own circles - just as the Old Blood of Volantis isn't right now. The Targaryens turned from a minor ruling family in the most powerful empire of the world into the royal dynasty of a backwater continent. They did not evolve, they actually declined. And as the rulers of the savage continent they had to even fight to continue their traditional marriage practices, appease the Faith and their subjects, even forge alliances with them like both the Blacks and Greens had to do during the Dance. Which is why they occasionally intermarried with them.

6 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

What happened with siblingmarriages? It would've faded away, if Jaehaerys II didn't marry his sister and also marry his children to each other.

I'm not so sure about that. On the one hand, it is kind of odd that Jaehaerys II even had this thing for his sister - she was his sister, after all, and Egg and Betha not wanting their children to marry each other meant that nobody would have raised them so they expected they would marry a sibling - unlike Egg for whom incest is still the most natural thing in the world in TSS when he casually mentions that he is to marry his sister Daella. I mean, who the hell gave Jaehaerys the notion to be a traditional Targaryen marrying his own sister? Did he read about that in books?

On the other hand there is the fact that incest is still the dominant Targaryen marriage practice during Egg's life and later reign. Aelor and Aelora are twins married to each other, and then we also have Aerion married to his first cousin Daenora. So Jaehaerys II had living people or their children as examples of 'the old way' of House Targaryen.

If Aegon V had gone through with his arranged marriages then that's no guarantee that his grandchildren and great-grandchildren would have followed his path.

And it is still kind of odd to imagine how Jaehaerys II could convince his father to permit the Aerys-Rhaella match if Aegon V was against incest matches. He must have known they didn't want to marry, and it is not that Jaehaerys II was an iron-willed fellow who could force his father to see or do things his way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not so sure about that. On the one hand, it is kind of odd that Jaehaerys II even had this thing for his sister - she was his sister, after all, and Egg and Betha not wanting their children to marry each other meant that nobody would have raised them so they expected they would marry a sibling - unlike Egg for whom incest is still the most natural thing in the world in TSS when he casually mentions that he is to marry his sister Daella. I mean, who the hell gave Jaehaerys the notion to be a traditional Targaryen marrying his own sister? Did he read about that in books?

On the other hand there is the fact that incest is still the dominant Targaryen marriage practice during Egg's life and later reign. Aelor and Aelora are twins married to each other, and then we also have Aerion married to his first cousin Daenora. So Jaehaerys II had living people or their children as examples of 'the old way' of House Targaryen.

If Aegon V had gone through with his arranged marriages then that's no guarantee that his grandchildren and great-grandchildren would have followed his path.

And it is still kind of odd to imagine how Jaehaerys II could convince his father to permit the Aerys-Rhaella match if Aegon V was against incest matches. He must have known they didn't want to marry, and it is not that Jaehaerys II was an iron-willed fellow who could force his father to see or do things his way

I'm not sure if Betha and Aegon V were able to hide the family's incestuous past from their children.

As you said, there were such people living in their time, and even if that didn't I'm more than sure that they heard about their gransire who married both his sisters, or about Jaehaerys I (this actually is a paralell, as both Jaehaeryses married their sister despite the opposition from their parents' side, and it might be the actual thing what made Jaehaerys II do the same), or about the infamous Aegon IV, and one can imagine they heard about stories of the Dance, ehen dragons fought each other, etc...

I mean, it was kind of impossible to hide it. And the thing came from Shaera's side as well. It kind of means they grew up with this knowledge in their hands.

But I still stand beside my argument, tho.

If not for him, Aerys would've married someone else. And we are told that his marriage with Rhaella wasn't even to follow the tradition, but because of what his father heard from the Ghost of High Heart. Unless Jaehaerys used this as an excuse to do it. After all, his father was interested in bringing dragons back to life, and he might have taught that this PTWP might have to do something with dragons, or I dunno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't really think the plot required it that Aegon and his sister-wives were the only Targaryens during the Conquest. Their mother could have still been around, they could have already had children, and there could have been uncles, aunts, and cousins. What we can say the plot sort of implied is that there were only the three big dragons, but it wouldn't have been a retcon if it had turned out that Aegon had a lazy old uncle with a dragon back on Dragonstone who sat out the Conquest, or if there had been a young cousin on a swift young dragon who helped coordinate the campaigns by racing back and forth between the various Targaryen armies.

Well, the reasons are pretty simple:

1. It would've required another dragon. Not necesarilly, if there were no more around, but it actually seems there were.

2. Aegon's bastard halfbrother Orys and Dragonstone's master-at-arms, XY (I don't know his name) Qoherys received land. That means a trueborn sibling or halfsibling would've received lands as well. For example Highgarden, because the Gardeners died out. But house Tully was a thing at some point.

3. A living sibling (younger brother) would've meant a heir to the throne for Aegon.

4. Such a person likely would've reproduce, and then Aenys or Maegor would've had cousins to marry (I know Alyssa was a cousin as well). And even if not, it would've meant a totally new line of Targaryens, unless George kills them off as well. (And the number of Targaryens George had to kill because the plot required it was already pretty high. These people were just so unlucky)

4. A third sister would've meant a match to Aenys or Maegor as well.

5. The dragon's three head symbolism was already forged by that time. In the first book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just remind everyone that I open the thread to answer would comparing Dany and Jon DNA answer any confusion whether or not Aerys or Rhaegar is father of Jon, as some people in this forum theorized is possible. This started to go way off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lady Winter Rose said:

I would just remind everyone that I open the thread to answer would comparing Dany and Jon DNA answer any confusion whether or not Aerys or Rhaegar is father of Jon, as some people in this forum theorized is possible. This started to go way off topic.

That question has been answered already, no? No reason why the discussion cannot continue after that, don't you think?

9 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I'm not sure if Betha and Aegon V were able to hide the family's incestuous past from their children.

As you said, there were such people living in their time, and even if that didn't I'm more than sure that they heard about their gransire who married both his sisters, or about Jaehaerys I (this actually is a paralell, as both Jaehaeryses married their sister despite the opposition from their parents' side, and it might be the actual thing what made Jaehaerys II do the same), or about the infamous Aegon IV, and one can imagine they heard about stories of the Dance, ehen dragons fought each other, etc...

I mean, it was kind of impossible to hide it. And the thing came from Shaera's side as well. It kind of means they grew up with this knowledge in their hands.

Of course, but it is still odd that siblings would actually fall in love or develop the notion they should marry. That is something that only happens in an environment where people are expected to behave in this manner. We get very few genuine incestuous love matches among the Targaryens, and even those who seem this way may have to do more with sibling love than romantic love.

Jaehaerys and Shaera have to be pretty weird to really fall for each other in a romantic way. And I guess there is a very interesting story behind this for Dunk & Egg.

9 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

If not for him, Aerys would've married someone else. And we are told that his marriage with Rhaella wasn't even to follow the tradition, but because of what his father heard from the Ghost of High Heart. Unless Jaehaerys used this as an excuse to do it. After all, his father was interested in bringing dragons back to life, and he might have taught that this PTWP might have to do something with dragons, or I dunno.

Since Aegon V thought he could and would bring the dragons back he cannot have cared much about the promised prince stuff. And regardless what Jaehaerys wanted, his father was the king, so it is very odd that Aerys and Rhaella couldn't persuade their grandfather to allow them to marry outside the family.

Aegon V is very rare in the sense that he allowed two sibling incest matches to happen, which we cannot say about many kings.

12 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

1. It would've required another dragon. Not necesarilly, if there were no more around, but it actually seems there were.

Such dragons wouldn't have been that difficult to invent.

12 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

2. Aegon's bastard halfbrother Orys and Dragonstone's master-at-arms, XY (I don't know his name) Qoherys received land. That means a trueborn sibling or halfsibling would've received lands as well. For example Highgarden, because the Gardeners died out. But house Tully was a thing at some point.

That is true but not really a problem. We all expected that if there had been cadet branches of House Targaryen that the men of such branches would have been given lands and titles and castles. The idea would have been that the Dance would have taken care of most of those castles/branches, cutting the family tree down to Rhaenyra's two male branches.

After all, now the Dance is pretty much a joke as a war considering that the dragons destroyed only very few places.

12 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

3. A living sibling (younger brother) would've meant a heir to the throne for Aegon.

A younger brother wouldn't have worked, I think, since the implication always was that the core Targaryen family were just Aegon and his sister-wives (and then also Orys, sort of). But uncles, aunts, and cousins definitely would have worked.

12 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

4. Such a person likely would've reproduce, and then Aenys or Maegor would've had cousins to marry (I know Alyssa was a cousin as well). And even if not, it would've meant a totally new line of Targaryens, unless George kills them off as well. (And the number of Targaryens George had to kill because the plot required it was already pretty high. These people were just so unlucky)

If an uncle or first cousin of Aegon's had only produced sons then Aenys and Maegor wouldn't have had female cousins to marry. But there could also have been female cousins who were too old or too young to work as good matches for either Aenys or Maegor.

12 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

4. A third sister would've meant a match to Aenys or Maegor as well.

Not necessarily. What could have worked great, in my opinion, would have been if Aegon already had a young daughter when the Conquest began. Such a girl could have then been married to Aethan or Daemon Velaryon or even to Orys Baratheon's eldest son. In any case, they would have arranged a marriage for such a child before Aenys was even conceived if George kept 7 AC as his year of birth. Aenys wouldn't have been married to a sister 10+ years older than he himself was.

12 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

5. The dragon's three head symbolism was already forged by that time. In the first book.

That is a pretty good point, actually, but there could have been ways around that by having a fourth Targaryen claim a dragon shortly after the banner was made. Or them making it explicit that the banner would only depict Aegon and his sister-wives and not all Targaryens with dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Such dragons wouldn't have been that difficult to invent.

Surely not. But wouldn't it be weird for a 4th dragonrider to suddenly pop up from nowhere? 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is true but not really a problem. We all expected that if there had been cadet branches of House Targaryen that the men of such branches would have been given lands and titles and castles. The idea would have been that the Dance would have taken care of most of those castles/branches, cutting the family tree down to Rhaenyra's two male branches.

After all, now the Dance is pretty much a joke as a war considering that the dragons destroyed only very few places.

If Aegon would've had to land a relative and dynasty member, it would've been Highgarden. I intended to mention the Tyrells, but I wrote Tullys for some reason. Either way, Aegon's move to give Highgarden to stewards wasn't a good move. Imagine the same thing with a living sibling/dynasty member who isn't expected to inherit a single thing as soon as you have an heir. You surely wouldn't give him minor titles, even Harrenhall was given to that Qoherys guy. In thst case, it should've been Highgarden, but House Tyrell's backstory was already written down on paper. They came after the Gardeners. End of story, no place for Targaryens.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

A younger brother wouldn't have worked, I think, since the implication always was that the core Targaryen family were just Aegon and his sister-wives (and then also Orys, sort of). But uncles, aunts, and cousins definitely would have worked

Surely, yes. But not as dragonriders, and we are both suggesting here that there were more than 3 dragons around during the Conquest(you know, the three heads of the dragon and those kind of stuff). A dragonrider is a huge thing, with or without lordship.

 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If an uncle or first cousin of Aegon's had only produced sons then Aenys and Maegor wouldn't have had female cousins to marry. But there could also have been female cousins who were too old or too young to work as good matches for either Aenys or Maegor.

That would've been cliché at that point. And just new people George has to kill off (or their descendants) because the plot requires it. Maegor killed all sons of Aerys except for Jaehaerys. He would've had to kill his cousins as well, or that would've meant an earlier dance as well (those cousins siding eith ir against him).

Or even if not with Maegor, but when Jaehaerys had daughters for sale, this offbranch would've made an appearance, solving or complicating things. 

And he did not want to make the family bigger. He intentionally made it small until Viserys' reign (when the Dance made its foundations).

Just think of the fact that Aemon had only one daughter, Alyssa Targaryen died in complications from childbirth, and he dealt with so many daughters of Jaehaerys just so then Daemon will not have an aunt to marry (The Rogue Prince, Princess and the Queen and TWOIAF restricted him at that point).

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not necessarily. What could have worked great, in my opinion, would have been if Aegon already had a young daughter when the Conquest began. Such a girl could have then been married to Aethan or Daemon Velaryon or even to Orys Baratheon's eldest son. In any case, they would have arranged a marriage for such a child before Aenys was even conceived if George kept 7 AC as his year of birth. Aenys wouldn't have been married to a sister 10+ years older than he himself was.

Now, Targaryen children would've made some sense I admit. Be it a daughter to Aegon, a nephew or niece or a distant cousin at a young-young age wouldn't have thrown up the "balance".

 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is a pretty good point, actually, but there could have been ways around that by having a fourth Targaryen claim a dragon shortly after the banner was made. Or them making it explicit that the banner would only depict Aegon and his sister-wives and not all Targaryens with dragons.

This sounds a little lame to me. Unless that given person was a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Surely not. But wouldn't it be weird for a 4th dragonrider to suddenly pop up from nowhere?

All the other dragonriders also pop up from nowhere. And such folks could have also been distant Targaryen cousins, say, folks descended from a cadet branch going back to Aenar's siblings or other kin.

4 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

If Aegon would've had to land a relative and dynasty member, it would've been Highgarden. I intended to mention the Tyrells, but I wrote Tullys for some reason. Either way, Aegon's move to give Highgarden to stewards wasn't a good move. Imagine the same thing with a living sibling/dynasty member who isn't expected to inherit a single thing as soon as you have an heir. You surely wouldn't give him minor titles, even Harrenhall was given to that Qoherys guy. In thst case, it should've been Highgarden, but House Tyrell's backstory was already written down on paper. They came after the Gardeners. End of story, no place for Targaryens.

Well, it seems to me the Tyrell move was pretty smart, a reward for a fellow who handed Highgarden over without a fight. Aegon certainly had other close relatives and friends he could have granted Highgarden - like, say, the Velaryons, Celtigars, etc. - but he didn't. A Targaryen cousin he could have decided to keep close and grant other lands and titles in the Crownlands.

Or George could have just invented some additional castles in the Reach and the Riverlands, say, summer castles of the Gardeners, which he granted to his own kin.

4 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Surely, yes. But not as dragonriders, and we are both suggesting here that there were more than 3 dragons around during the Conquest(you know, the three heads of the dragon and those kind of stuff). A dragonrider is a huge thing, with or without lordship.

There must have been more than three dragons around at that time, anyway, considering how they multiplied during Aegon's reign. But it seems there were only three dragonriders.

4 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

That would've been cliché at that point. And just new people George has to kill off (or their descendants) because the plot requires it. Maegor killed all sons of Aerys except for Jaehaerys. He would've had to kill his cousins as well, or that would've meant an earlier dance as well (those cousins siding eith ir against him).

Maegor would be in no need to kill off his cousins, although some of them could have died in the battles during his reign. Maegor only targeted Aenys' sons because they had better claims to the throne than he did.

And of course if Aegon I had had cousins then the girls could have been reabsorbed into the main branch - some of them could have married Maegor, others could have been Baratheon and Velaryon brides. And some men could have taken the black, joined the Faith, the Kingsguard, or become maesters. It is kind of odd that no Targaryen but Aemon ever took the black - and he didn't really volunteer -, only one joined the KG, and none but Baelor became a septon while we do have three Targaryen septas and one who was given to the Faith and ran away.

Also, there would be the possibility that some of those folks just died out naturally, continuing the incest till there was just one branch which then could have married outside the family or being absorbed back in.

Otto and Alicent could easily have been female branches of the extended royal family.

4 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Or even if not with Maegor, but when Jaehaerys had daughters for sale, this offbranch would've made an appearance, solving or complicating things. 

Something like that would have made more sense than Viserra being betrothed to an old Manderly lord.

4 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

And he did not want to make the family bigger. He intentionally made it small until Viserys' reign (when the Dance made its foundations).

The problem with that thing that it is really a joke that a guy with thirteen children just has four living grandchildren. And the Targaryens during the Dance are a joke, too, because they are mostly children ... something that could have been prevented if Viserys I had a bunch of siblings and first and second cousins.

I imagine the court of Viserys I being full of Targaryens from different branches, with the Small Council not being dominated not so much by noblemen but by royal princes who were cousins of different degree to the king.

4 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Just think of the fact that Aemon had only one daughter, Alyssa Targaryen died in complications from childbirth, and he dealt with so many daughters of Jaehaerys just so then Daemon will not have an aunt to marry (The Rogue Prince, Princess and the Queen and TWOIAF restricted him at that point).

That Rhea idea was pretty weird in any case, considering Daemon still had an aunt to marry in Gael. She was just a year older than Daemon. It is actually a joke that Viserys married Aemma, a cousin born in 82 AC, when he had an aunt who was closer in age to his.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That Rhea idea was pretty weird in any case, considering Daemon still had an aunt to marry in Gael. She was just a year older than Daemon. It is actually a joke that Viserys married Aemma, a cousin born in 82 AC, when he had an aunt who was closer in age to his.

Well, at that time Rhea Royce was the heir to Runestone, later the lady of it as well. If Daemon would've had a child with her, he and his descendants would've continued the Royce line. It sounds like what a RL monarch would do, not the Targaryens, especially when Daemon married Rhea when Gael was already grown up (I think she was 1 or two years older than him?)

But the thing is, she died at the age of 19, after a pregnancy. How did she reach such an age without a betrothal? Either Viserys, Daemon or even someone else.

I guess the Viserys-Aemma match made some sense because Viserys at that point was expected to become king after Baelon, but for Gael to remain unmarried? Especially when there were other Targaryens around?

The same applies on Viserra as well. We know Baelon did not want to remarry, but surely Jaehaerys and Alysanne weren't bothered by age difference (which was somewhat more than 10 years, right?), considering they wanted to give her to an old Lord Manderly. I mean, I somewhat get Alysanne was afraid because her daughter was an opportunist and aimed for the highest, but in the case of a marriage to Baelon, let's say she gives birth to children. So what? Daemon and Viserys would've been ahead of her children, no? Baelon wasn't a fool either, and she would've had power just as long her spouse is king. Makes no sense. Especially considering how much Alysanne bothered with Daella to be happy.

As I said, he just had to fit things into his already written story (the Dance).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Well, at that time Rhea Royce was the heir to Runestone, later the lady of it as well. If Daemon would've had a child with her, he and his descendants would've continued the Royce line. It sounds like what a RL monarch would do, not the Targaryens, especially when Daemon married Rhea when Gael was already grown up (I think she was 1 or two years older than him?)

Oh, of course, Daemon lacking a sister would need another bride. And an heiress certainly makes sense. The problem is more that Rhea didn't have Targaryen ancestors. If she had had them then this would have made more sense. The marriage policy favored marriages within the family if there were no sisters around, so Daemon should technically marry a Baratheon or a Velaryon before they would turn to a comparatively minor house like the Royces.

But there was one aunt available for Daemon, which makes this thing just weird. The best way to make sense of it, I guess, is to assume that Baelon and Jaehaerys/Alysanne had realized that Daemon wasn't a very stable guy so this marriage was basically a way to rid the court of him and force him to live a more or less quiet life in the Vale. If Viserys I hadn't called him back to court Daemon Targaryen may have been just a footnote in Westerosi history.

And I'm pretty sure Daemon's children by Rhea would have gone by the Targaryen name. He was their father and the dragonriding brother of a king. They would have become the Targaryens of Runestone.

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

But the thing is, she died at the age of 19, after a pregnancy. How did she reach such an age without a betrothal? Either Viserys, Daemon or even someone else.

Yes, that's just odd.

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I guess the Viserys-Aemma match made some sense because Viserys at that point was expected to become king after Baelon, but for Gael to remain unmarried? Especially when there were other Targaryens around?

Gael would have been a better bride for Viserys I. She was born in 80 AC, Daemon in 81 AC, and Aemma in 82 AC. Aemma was five years younger than Viserys and only eleven at her wedding in 93 AC. Gael was only three years younger than Viserys, so technically Gael should have been Viserys' bride while Aemma should have been Daemon's.

Although the obvious match would have been Rhaenys-Viserys and there is just no explanation why that never happened.

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

The same applies on Viserra as well. We know Baelon did not want to remarry, but surely Jaehaerys and Alysanne weren't bothered by age difference (which was somewhat more than 10 years, right?), considering they wanted to give her to an old Lord Manderly. I mean, I somewhat get Alysanne was afraid because her daughter was an opportunist and aimed for the highest, but in the case of a marriage to Baelon, let's say she gives birth to children. So what? Daemon and Viserys would've been ahead of her children, no? Baelon wasn't a fool either, and she would've had power just as long her spouse is king. Makes no sense. Especially considering how much Alysanne bothered with Daella to be happy.

The problem with the 'Viserra wanted to be queen' idea is that Baelon wasn't even the Heir Apparent when she was hitting on him, so Viserra didn't really have a chance to be queen by marrying Baelon nor, as you point out, make her children immediate heirs to the throne in light of the fact that Baelon had two sons.

It is also odd that she wouldn't have targeted Viserys after Baelon rejected her advances. If her brother didn't want her and she was after power then the next best thing would be to marry Baelon's eldest son - who, to our knowledge, wasn't betrothed in the late 80s.

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

As I said, he just had to fit things into his already written story (the Dance).

Oh, he could have still changed some things there. I mean, the easiest way to have more dragonriders there would have been to give more riders to dragons we already know - Dreamfyre, Balerion, Meleys, Caraxes - or to tweak certain lines about Seasmoke and Syrax and Sunfyre and Tassarion. They could easily enough have had riders prior to Laenor, Rhaenyra, Aegon II, and Daeron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The problem with the 'Viserra wanted to be queen' idea is that Baelon wasn't even the Heir Apparent when she was hitting on him, so Viserra didn't really have a chance to be queen by marrying Baelon nor, as you point out, make her children immediate heirs to the throne in light of the fact that Baelon had two sons.

It is also odd that she wouldn't have targeted Viserys after Baelon rejected her advances. If her brother didn't want her and she was after power then the next best thing would be to marry Baelon's eldest son - who, to our knowledge, wasn't betrothed in the late 80s.

I just had to look up for that, because I couldn't believe it but you're right. Aemon died only 5 years after Viserra.

Now I don't get how Viserra's actions towards Baelon made her wanting to be queen unless Viserra expected Aemon to not have any children and Baelon (who she could not guess at that point if outlives Aemon or not) to inherit the kingship after his brother.

But this now makes no sense, as Alysanne had no point of believing Viserra was an opportunist who aimed for queenship, since Aemon was alive and had a daughter: Rhaenys. In Alysanne's head Baelon was only third in the line of succession. This now entirely makes no sense unless Alysanne was wrong and Viserra only wanted a brother to marry (or a dragonrider, who obviously wields power without titles/lordship), or was just obsessed with Baelon. 

Now I'm confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I just had to look up for that, because I couldn't believe it but you're right. Aemon died only 5 years after Viserra.

Now I don't get how Viserra's actions towards Baelon made her wanting to be queen unless Viserra expected Aemon to not have any children and Baelon (who she could not guess at that point if outlives Aemon or not) to inherit the kingship after his brother.

But this now makes no sense, as Alysanne had no point of believing Viserra was an opportunist who aimed for queenship, since Aemon was alive and had a daughter: Rhaenys. In Alysanne's head Baelon was only third in the line of succession. This now entirely makes no sense unless Alysanne was wrong and Viserra only wanted a brother to marry (or a dragonrider, who obviously wields power without titles/lordship), or was just obsessed with Baelon. 

Now I'm confused.

It is that weirdo setting that made most of us dismiss this entire narrative as nonsense when we first discussed this thing in detail.

If George had wanted to make Viserra this power-hungry bitch then she should have targeted Aemon not Baelon, trying to seduce him so she could convince him to either take her as a second wife or set aside Jocelyn for her. This could have been an interesting narrative since Aemon and Jocelyn had only one child, Rhaenys. The apparent infertility of Jocelyn could have become a challenge in their later marriage, especially if Aemon wanted sons and the king expected that Aemon would be succeeded by his son rather than a daughter.

Such an attempt could have really enraged both Jaehaerys and Alysanne since Jocelyn was actually their half-sister, so it could make sense that they would take Jocelyn's side in such an affair and Viserra trying to harm Jocelyn could have led to serious punishment (not to mention to keep in mind that Boremund was the Lord of Storm's End). Viserra just trying to hook up with her widowed brother shouldn't have been a big deal at all.

The Baelon scenario would have only made sense if George had made Viserra as young or nearly as young as Gael - they could have been twins, say - so that Viserra was only fifteen after Aemon's death. If she had tried to seduce Baelon in 93-95 AC things could have made more sense.

And as you say, the internal motivation for Alysanne thinking Viserra wanted to be queen on the basis of her trying to seduce a brother who isn't first in line to the throne is also quite weird. We do know Alysanne viewed Rhaenys as Aemon's heir - and it seems that this was the general view until Aemon's death, or else Corlys would have never expected that a child of his would one day sit on the Iron Throne - so she shouldn't have thought Viserra expected Baelon would take the throne in the future.

This is why the best way to make sense of things is to not buy this idea that Viserra was power-hungry at all but was merely viewed as this seductive siren by the people - especially the men - around her, including her own mother. If you look at Viserra's actual behavior then all she does is to play around with the boys and men around her, testing how far she can go with them. That is something that pretty much any adolescent girl her age would do. It is not her fault that she was the most beautiful young woman of her generation ... nor is she to be blamed if her looks turned the men around her into fools.

Her interest in Baelon also seems to have been more a genuine crush rather than some calculating attempt to seduce him. She sneaked into his bedchamber and then got drunk there. A truly calculating woman wouldn't have gotten drunk herself ... she would have rather tried to get Baelon drunk to seduce him. Also, the way she dies also indicates she was more a party girl who loved fun and excitement rather than a woman who was deadset on becoming queen.

But even in light of all that this weird obsession of Alysanne's to marry her to old Lord Theomore Manderly just doesn't make much sense. It is unnecessarily cruel, completely out of character for her in light of the fact that she had already lost Daenerys, Daella, Alyssa, and Saera at that time - and two of them to death in childbirth, and it makes pretty much no sense dynastically, since any child Viserra might give Theomore wouldn't inherit anything. I mean, we are to believe Alysanne insisted that Viserra marry Theomore to the point that the king himself chose to not get involved in the entire affair while Alysanne blamed her husband at the same time for the death of their daughter Daella and the loss of their daughter Saera which Jaehaerys did not want to bring back home. That doesn't go together very well.

It is also a very weird move to marry an ambitious and very beautiful woman to an old guy since his eventual death would free her to make a match more to her own liking. For instance, if Viserra truly wanted power then she could use her time at White Harbor to seduce Theomore's heir to set herself up as his wife after Theomore's death. Or she could target the Lord/heir of Winterfell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This is why the best way to make sense of things is to not buy this idea that Viserra was power-hungry at all but was merely viewed as this seductive siren by the people - especially the men - around her, including her own mother. If you look at Viserra's actual behavior then all she does is to play around with the boys and men around her, testing how far she can go with them. That is something that pretty much any adolescent girl her age would do. It is not her fault that she was the most beautiful young woman of her generation ... nor is she to be blamed if her looks turned the men around her into fools.

At this point this is either entirely true, or George miscalculated as well, thinking this took place after Aemon's death. I see that as a possibility, as Alysanne's actions really do not make any sense (this pretty much was a punishment to Viserra, lol).

Now I don't think what should I consider canon (as I can see with my closed eyes how George might have made this mistake), but I initially had a tought that Viserra wasn't led by power hunger when I read she got drunk in her desperate situation as well.

If I'd attend an interview with George when the crowd can ask (I say this because there were such events where George attended), I'd definitely ask this to just make it clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...