(ADwD Spoilers) Dany the Mad Queen

[Gogossos]

But seriously, I just don't know, and I don't think any of us can fathom it out. Ned's honour is very vague as set out in the books. I'm sure Martin could explain the tenets if asked to though.

We know he's honourable because everyone tells us he is, but there's not enough information provided to make our own decisions on the matter. At least that's my take on it. I don't think we can have anything like a serious discussion about it like we can with knights like Jaime, Barristan, and the rest of the Kingsguard.

I think Ned's honour is self evident. He insists on beheading criminals himself because killing is not supposed to be easy. He visited his people all over the North because as their leader he wanted their views. He did not want to endorse Joffrey knowing what he knew, only the threat to Sansa's life changed that equation. We actually don't need other characters telling us about Ned's honour, we can see it ourselves from the man's actions and his effect on his children.

That may be, but here's the kicker: these flat characters are the ONLY characters she interacts with once Jorah leaves. She may be undergoing character development, but it's hard to tell when almost every other character around her has a one-dimensional personality.

I'm sorry but I don't understand this. How is the Shavepate one dimensional when there are debates about him whether he was the true poisoner or not. Do we know the Green Grace's true motives and allegiance? How about Missandei, the little girl that Barristan reckons is already smarter than him? I don't think loyalty, or even lack thereof, simply means the characters are flat. Maybe it's because the power structures haven't been explained properly, or perhaps the imagery of that society is more vague compared to Westeros but I seriously doubt that individual characters we've met like the Tattered Prince, Daario and even Xaro are cupboard cutouts.

[dark sister]

Cersei and Jaime in the end didn't bow to those laws either. And they were perfectly willing to kill to hide it (Bran, Robert, Ned and all his men,...).

Cersei and Jaime may not be "blood of the dragons", as far as arrogance goes even Viserys could learn a thing or 2 from them.

Your argument is ridiculous. C&J are NOT Targaryens and have never had dragons to intimidate the lords & populace. That's why Cersei says to Jaime "we are NOT Targaryens!" So of course they would kill to hide their secret. The problem with your arguments is that you ignore all the horrible Targs (Maegor the Cruel, Aerion the Monstrous, Aerys II, etc.) and put all the blame on C&J. I will not deny that they did evil things to hide their secret, but let's say they had been born Targaryens. Then there would have been no issue at all. The reason the Targs were allowed to act the way they did is b/c they had dragons. The Lannisters did not. C&J may be arrogant, but so too are many of the Targaryens. If they were born Targaryens, they would have nothing to hide.

I actually sympathize with Viserys (III). He spent his whole life trying to regain his seat on the Iron Throne through flattery and begging. Dany got one little taste of it in Qarth and she reflected how it would drive her mad too if she had to endure much more of it. That's all.

[ARYa_Nym]

Jamie and Cersei's problem wasn't the incest. It was that they tried to pass of their children as Robert's trueborn heirs. This was actually part of the reason why Daemon Blackfyre got support. There were rumors that Naerys passed off Aemon the Dragonknight's son as Aegon IV's heir.

[dark sister]

For people saying incest is overblown, look what happened to the royal families of Europe.

Hemophilia sprang up like a weed in the royal houses of Russia, Germany, England and Spain through Queen Victoria , causing more than half of European princes between 1400s and 1900s to die of blood loss before they could produce heirs. This was such a big deal that Alexei Romanov's hemophilia led to a chain of events that indirectly caused the downfall of the czars.

Then there was porphyria, a disease that leads to all kinds of terrible physical symptoms, and then madness, as seen in George III of England and several Spanish royals like Joanna the Mad who rode around with her husband's corpse in her carriage, and Charles II. Just to hammer the point home, here is a direct copy and paste from wikipedia on Charles:

Dating to approximately the year 1550,outbreeding in Charles II's lineage had ceased. From then on, all his ancestors were in one way or another descendants of Joanna the Mad and Phillip I of Castille, and among these just the royal houses of Spain, Austria and Bavaria. Charles II's genome was actually more homozygous than that of an average child whose parents are siblings. He was born physically and mentally disabled, and disfigured. Possibly through affliction with mandibular prognathism, he was unable to chew. His tongue was so large that his speech could barely be understood, and he frequently drooled. It has been suggested that he suffered from the endocrine disease acromegaly or his inbred lineage may have led to a combination of rare genetic disorders such as combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis.

By the way, these countless cases (of which I've only named a few) of craziness and deformity didn't result from sibling marriages, but more distant first and second cousin marriages over hundreds of years. Yes, one isolated case of sibling incest in a pedigree otherwise devoid of such things is pretty insignificant. But imagine what should realistically happen if actual siblings intermarried again and again and again over hundreds of year!

It's freaking amazing that the Targs managed to continue reproducing viably at all after four or five of those! In fact, what's the saying..a Targ is a coin flip, heads:insanity, tails:greatness? Fifty/Fifty are wonderful odds for a family with 300 years of incest in Westeros and who knows how much longer in Valyria. The reason actual royalty inbred was because they thought it was of the utmost importance to keep their blood pure with no dilution from common blood. This sounds awfully close to the hints of why Targs do it, what with the obsession with the "blood of the dragon."

The possibility of Dany's madness is a real and dangerous one. I personally don't think she is mad, but the story is far from over. Who knows what could happen, it's basically just a coin toss :devil:

Oh, one last thought. No, incest taboo is not just cultural. Studies have shown that there is a real genetic and biological basis for why humans almost universally think it's gross, or gross to a point, and that makes perfect sense considering what results you get if you engage in it over multiple generations.

THANK YOU for telling it like it is. I can't believe how ignorant people are when it comes to incest. It's just one of many examples of how Martin has played with readers' ideas of what is right and what is wrong. There are hundreds of studies citing the awful effects (mentally and physically) of incest. If any of you doubt the concept, why don't you all date an attractive brother or sister? (Not serious.) It's simply ridiculous to defend INCEST. Give me a f***ing break. My brother is super attractive...have I ever looked at him in a sexual way? HELL NO. And I don't care if it's a "fantasy" series, it's supposed to be real as real can be. Why do you think Martin bothered to include how many mad/physically weak/etc Targs there were in this series? Ye Gods...

[dark sister]

Jamie and Cersei's problem wasn't the incest. It was that they tried to pass of their children as Robert's trueborn heirs. This was actually part of the reason why Daemon Blackfyre got support. There were rumors that Naerys passed off Aemon the Dragonknight's son as Aegon IV's heir.

I recognize that. It has nothing to do with the dangers of incestuous relations. My point is that everyone is OK with Targ incest, but if any other house, or common people did it, they would be shunned or perhaps killed. And since we don't know the truth behind Naerys and Aemon, I don't think it's relevant.

btw: I love your line "Oberyn died for our sins"; it makes me laugh every time I see it. Who is the guy in the picture, btw? Is he actually saying that? I can't read lips too well.

[ARYa_Nym]

I recognize that. It has nothing to do with the dangers of incestuous relations. My point is that everyone is OK with Targ incest, but if any other house, or common people did it, they would be shunned or perhaps killed. And since we don't know the truth behind Naerys and Aemon, I don't think it's relevant.

It's relevant because the reason why Jaime and Cersei felt that they had to kill to hide their secret was mainly because of their children. They were committing high treason against King Robert. Even if they were Targaryens it would still be wrong.

EDIT: Thanks. :) My icon is of Harry Lloyd. He's saying something else, lol.

But anyways, in the last 100 years the Targs weren't that incestuous.

Daeron II married a Martell

Aerys I married a Targ

Maekar's wife is unnamed so she probably wasn't a Targaryen

Aegon V married for love.

Jaehaerys married for love. This could be a non Targ or a sister that he wasn't supposed to marry

Aerys II married a Targ.

[dark sister]

It's relevant because the reason why Jaime and Cersei felt that they had to kill to hide their secret was mainly because of their children. They were committing high treason against King Robert. Even if they were Targaryens it would still be wrong.

EDIT: Thanks. :) My icon is of Harry Lloyd. He's saying something else, lol.

Well, I do believe that CERSEI was intent on hiding their secret, but as for Jaime, I think he was manipulated to the nth degree by his lover. She told him many times never to show any affection to his children, and that is part of the reason he felt no grief when Joffrey died. As for high treason, one of the things I've come to learn about this series of books is that treason is in the eyes of the beholder, much like beauty is. In the Dawn Age, the COTF "ruled" Westeros (altho I'm sure to them it was more of living in harmony with the land). Then the First Men came, and THEY were the rulers. Then the Andals came, and THEY were the rulers b/c of superior weaponry and the like. Finally, the Targaryens came with their dragons, and ruled for a relatively short period of time - not even 300 years [close, but not quite 300] - and then Robert took the throne. In this game of thrones, I think one has to look at it from Cersei (and perhaps) Jaime's point of view. Robert would have surely killed all of them - Jaime, Cersei, even the little children...just as Rhaenys and "Pisswater Bend" Aegon was killed. And Elia, as innocent as the babe at her breast. THAT'S why Ned gave Cers the chance to flee, because he knew what Robert would do. I think that Varys said a very true thing to Ned in the black cells “The High Septon once told me that as we sin, so do we suffer. If that’s true, Lord Eddard, tell me ...why is it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones?" The children, no matter how they were born, would have been killed. Usuper after usuper has tried to rule the 7 Kingdoms. I don't think high treason really matters too much here. I admit that Cersei is certainly evil, but when it comes to her children, she loves them more than anything.

Also, if they were Targaryens, they would have been wed, and had "trueborn children"...how would that be wrong? If you are speaking of having bastards, Daena the Defiant fathered Daemon Blackfyre by Aegon IV. No one killed or even chastised her b/c of it!

[ARYa_Nym]

Well, I do believe that CERSEI was intent on hiding their secret, but as for Jaime, I think he was manipulated to the nth degree by his lover. She told him many times never to show any affection to his children, and that is part of the reason he felt no grief when Joffrey died. As for high treason, one of the things I've come to learn about this series of books is that treason is in the eyes of the beholder, much like beauty is. In the Dawn Age, the COTF "ruled" Westeros (altho I'm sure to them it was more of living in harmony with the land). Then the First Men came, and THEY were the rulers. Then the Andals came, and THEY were the rulers b/c of superior weaponry and the like. Finally, the Targaryens came with their dragons, and ruled for a relatively short period of time - not even 300 years [close, but not quite 300] - and then Robert took the throne. In this game of thrones, I think one has to look at it from Cersei (and perhaps) Jaime's point of view. Robert would have surely killed all of them - Jaime, Cersei, even the little children...just as Rhaenys and "Pisswater Bend" Aegon was killed. And Elia, as innocent as the babe at her breast. THAT'S why Ned gave Cers the chance to flee, because he knew what Robert would do. I think that Varys said a very true thing to Ned in the black cells “The High Septon once told me that as we sin, so do we suffer. If that’s true, Lord Eddard, tell me ...why is it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones?" The children, no matter how they were born, would have been killed. Usuper after usuper has tried to rule the 7 Kingdoms. I don't think high treason really matters too much here. I admit that Cersei is certainly evil, but when it comes to her children, she loves them more than anything.

Also, if they were Targaryens, they would have been wed, and had "trueborn children"...how would that be wrong? If you are speaking of having bastards, Daena the Defiant fathered Daemon Blackfyre by Aegon IV. No one killed or even chastised her b/c of it!

I don't think Jaime cared about his children but I do think that he was arrogant so he thought that he could get away with anything. Plus, he has to be the worst KG in history so he would see no problem with treason against the king. I think it matters because if they were Robert's children Ned wouldn't have had anything to tell Robert. Stannis wouldn't feel that he's the rightful heir. Renly still would have been a problem though but that's an isolated case.

& the Aegon IV example is what I was getting at. Daemon Blackfyre had support because he was Aegon's son for sure. There were rumors about Daeron II. It may or may not have been true but they allowed the rebels to gain support.

[iamthedave]

Well, I do believe that CERSEI was intent on hiding their secret, but as for Jaime, I think he was manipulated to the nth degree by his lover. She told him many times never to show any affection to his children, and that is part of the reason he felt no grief when Joffrey died. As for high treason, one of the things I've come to learn about this series of books is that treason is in the eyes of the beholder, much like beauty is.

Well, maybe not so much. Treason is still treason. A king may forgive someone for doing it, but it's still there. I can't think of many instances of someone committing high treason and everyone just going 'oh yeah, cool!'

After all, one of the prime plot points right now centers on a twinned treason charge (Margaery and Cersei), and part of the catalyst for the entire series is Cersei committing multiple treasons with her bro.

It's certainly a crime taken extremely seriously in the series. But a big enough army definitely has the ability to take the edge off one's crimes, as it were, or at least make sure the headsman's sword misses by a wide margin.

I don't think Jaime cared about his children but I do think that he was arrogant so he thought that he could get away with anything. Plus, he has to be the worst KG in history so he would see no problem with treason against the king.

I think Barristan still takes it. He's served under... five kings, is it? No Kingsguard should outlive five kings. Ever. Barristan certainly never broke his oath the way Jaime did, but he sure as heck didn't do a good job of fulfilling them.

[ARYa_Nym]

Well, maybe not so much. Treason is still treason. A king may forgive someone for doing it, but it's still there. I can't think of many instances of someone committing high treason and everyone just going 'oh yeah, cool!'

After all, one of the prime plot points right now centers on a twinned treason charge (Margaery and Cersei), and part of the catalyst for the entire series is Cersei committing multiple treasons with her bro.

It's certainly a crime taken extremely seriously in the series. But a big enough army definitely has the ability to take the edge off one's crimes, as it were, or at least make sure the headsman's sword misses by a wide margin.

I think Barristan still takes it. He's served under... five kings, is it? No Kingsguard should outlive five kings. Ever. Barristan certainly never broke his oath the way Jaime did, but he sure as heck didn't do a good job of fulfilling them.

Barriston is a follower. Jaime to me is as well. He just followed Cersei until he realized she wasn't exclusive with him. He kills his first king, sleeps with the next king's wife, and as far as he knows he set the killer of the king after that free.

[dark sister]

Well actually, I think that after Jaime undergoes his transformation (i.e. losing his sword hand) he starts to care about his children. I think he recognized Joff for what he was (a craven psychopath -- a strange mixture, to be sure) and when Tommen retches at Tywin's funeral, he tries to comfort the lad. Right when Tommen is about to reveal some sort of secret about Joff (about which I've always been curious) Cersei intercedes and scolds Tommen for not acting like Joff...which is so fucked up. As for his being the worst KG in history, I both agree and disagree with you. Yes, he killed the king he was sworn to protect -- but this was the same king who savaged his wife, burned men alive, and, finally, planned to obliterate KL with wildfire. A question: what would an honorable knight like Selmy have done in this situation? Followed orders? Something else? However, one thing I DO wonder at is whether Jaime's killing the pyromancer was all that was needed. If he had not killed the king, then perhaps one of the KG who remained, or even one of the royal guardsmen, would have followed Aerys' orders. I think it is safe to say that Jaime did not kill Aerys for glory. He was young and foolish, but in this act I think he saved the city and much of the surrounding area, b/c wildfire burns like crazy.

I agree that Jaime thought he was arrogant enough to get away with anything...esp when it came to his sister's "honor". When they conceived Joff, Robert was fucking an Estermont lass (I think) and Jaime asked Cersei if she wanted him to kill Robert. Cersei said she's give him horns instead. Note that all these things he did or planned to do was for his blind love for his sister. The same could be said for Aemon and Naerys (altho we still don't know the truth).

As for the whole series of events that happened with Stannis and Renly, Ned only did what he thought was right, and in truth, if Robert was now considered the "rightful" king of the 7 kingdoms, then Stannis would be heir. Renly would not be heir, but he took Robert's view and decided that might is right i.e. wins the throne.

Daemon Blackfyre got support more b/c Aegon IV gave him Aegon the Conqueror's sword; I think that mattered much more than his being Aegon's true son.

[ARYa_Nym]

Daemon had support for several reasons like being attractive and charismatic, etc. The rumors about Daeron's legitimacy just helped his cause.

[dark sister]

Barriston is a follower. Jaime to me is as well. He just followed Cersei until he realized she wasn't exclusive with him. He kills his first king, sleeps with the next king's wife, and as far as he knows he set the killer of the king after that free.

I agree with iamthedave. Barristan is flips and flops like a fish out of water! And I can't blame Jaime for feeling the way he did. Cersei lied to him, basically had sex with men of power to get whatever she wanted (or men NOT of power, but whom she needed) -- how was her twin/lover to feel?

As far as "treason is still treason", I am reminded of Henry VIII and his queen Anne Boleyn. Yes, she was manipulative and proud, but that was b/c she knew that the king had had her older sister as a lover, then cast her aside when he grew bored with her. She waited seven years to become queen. Then, when the king tired of her, mostly b/c she was unable to give him a son, he let Cromwell fabricate a story of incest with her brother and many other courtiers, even a baseborn singer. There are many parallels here, I think. Finally he had her beheaded, and married Jane Seymoure two days hence. Cersei is evil, no doubt, but my point is that she never wanted to marry Robert, and other noble ladies who were forced to marry (Lysa Arryn, anyone?) paid their husbands back in kind. I am not defending Cersei by any means, but I AM giving her a thimble full of pity in wanting to protect her children. Also, I think it is strange to support Targ incest babies and not other incest-born babes. The Targs were allowed to do this b/c of their dragons, as I said. No other reason. Oh, you may talk of the customs of old Valyria, but what does that matter when they supposedly worship the Seven of Westeros? Their DRAGONS matter, that's what.

[dark sister]

Daemon had support for several reasons like being attractive and charismatic, etc. The rumors about Daeron's legitimacy just helped his cause.

That's true, but I think Daeron II wasn't called Daeron the Good for no reason. Even GRRM described him as wise and a good ruler. Looks and charisma, in the end, have nothing to do with being a good ruler. Look at Renly: I think he is a strong parallel to Daemon in that way (being attractive, charismatic, being granted Storm's End [similar to being granted the sword Blackfyre]). But Donal Noye, who served as the smith at Storm's End, said that Robert was the true steel, Stannis iron, and Renly copper, pretty to look at but not strong. Of course, I don't necessarily trust his opinion, b/c I don't particularly have a great opinion of Rob, and I think Stannis is underrated (altho I highly disapprove of his use of sorcery to gain victory), but he seemed at least to be a brave and wise man who might have even been LC of the NW.

[ARYa_Nym]

I agree with iamthedave. Barristan is flips and flops like a fish out of water! And I can't blame Jaime for feeling the way he did. Cersei lied to him, basically had sex with men of power to get whatever she wanted (or men NOT of power, but whom she needed) -- how was her twin/lover to feel?

As far as "treason is still treason", I am reminded of Henry VIII and his queen Anne Boleyn. Yes, she was manipulative and proud, but that was b/c she knew that the king had had her older sister as a lover, then cast her aside when he grew bored with her. She waited seven years to become queen. Then, when the king tired of her, mostly b/c she was unable to give him a son, he let Cromwell fabricate a story of incest with her brother and many other courtiers, even a baseborn singer. There are many parallels here, I think. Finally he had her beheaded, and married Jane Seymoure two days hence. Cersei is evil, no doubt, but my point is that she never wanted to marry Robert, and other noble ladies who were forced to marry (Lysa Arryn, anyone?) paid their husbands back in kind. I am not defending Cersei by any means, but I AM giving her a thimble full of pity in wanting to protect her children. Also, I think it is strange to support Targ incest babies and not other incest-born babes. The Targs were allowed to do this b/c of their dragons, as I said. No other reason. Oh, you may talk of the customs of old Valyria, but what does that matter when they supposedly worship the Seven of Westeros? Their DRAGONS matter, that's what.

I don't support what Jamie and Cersei did because of the treasonous aspect there. If they wanted to have sex fine. If she doesn't want to have Robert's children fine. Let him set you aside for being unable to provide heirs. She wanted to have Jaime and be a queen though. Rhaella for example was supposed to have Aerys' children. I personally think that Jaime was a fool. Cersei had no reason to be loyal to him and I think he's mentally disturbed because the only woman that he slept with was Cersei. I think all of Tywin's children are "off" though.

[iamthedave]

Well actually, I think that after Jaime undergoes his transformation (i.e. losing his sword hand) he starts to care about his children. I think he recognized Joff for what he was (a craven psychopath -- a strange mixture, to be sure)

I seem to recall Jaime was planning on going to Kings Landing and telling the world about what he'd been doing with Cersei, an action which would have gotten Tommen killed if not for Brienne turning up. I'm not holding out on any father of the year awards going to Jaime.

A question: what would an honorable knight like Selmy have done in this situation? Followed orders? Something else? However, one thing I DO wonder at is whether Jaime's killing the pyromancer was all that was needed. If he had not killed the king, then perhaps one of the KG who remained, or even one of the royal guardsmen, would have followed Aerys' orders. I think it is safe to say that Jaime did not kill Aerys for glory. He was young and foolish, but in this act I think he saved the city and much of the surrounding area, b/c wildfire burns like crazy.

It's such a crazy stressful situation that it's impossible to tell what he would have done, but I imagine he would have tried to restrain him. As Jaime himself says, the oath does include protecting the king from himself. Probably knocking him unconscious and trying - and failing - to get him out of the city.

I can't see Barristan or indeed many other Knights breaking their oath so egregiously.

In Jaime's case it's important to bear in mind he already resented Aerys and was bitter about the fact the only reason he was made Kingsguard was to spite his father. Those feelings played an important role in Jaime's eventual actions I think.

[dark sister]

I seem to recall Jaime was planning on going to Kings Landing and telling the world about what he'd been doing with Cersei, an action which would have gotten Tommen killed if not for Brienne turning up. I'm not holding out on any father of the year awards going to Jaime.

It's such a crazy stressful situation that it's impossible to tell what he would have done, but I imagine he would have tried to restrain him. As Jaime himself says, the oath does include protecting the king from himself. Probably knocking him unconscious and trying - and failing - to get him out of the city.

I can't see Barristan or indeed many other Knights breaking their oath so egregiously.

In Jaime's case it's important to bear in mind he already resented Aerys and was bitter about the fact the only reason he was made Kingsguard was to spite his father. Those feelings played an important role in Jaime's eventual actions I think.

Well, I think that Jaime suggested it to Cersei, who automatically rejected it. At that point, the whole realm know that Joff and his siblings weren't Baratheons, so what's the point? It seems to me like Cersei has him whipped, so when she said no, he tried to be a father to Tommen in AFFC. At that point I think he realized it would never happen the way he wanted it to, so he would just try to a father figure to his children, now that Robert was gone. So I'll concede that point to you. I think he was just sick ofthe lies, as he said.

I don't think Selmy would have struck Aerys unconscious. To strike one of the blood royal meant losing the offending hand (or foot)th, so for one of the KG to do it would probably have even more dire consequences. Even restraining him might have earned him his death. Aerys was so crazy by then that he would have regarded Selmy as an enemy. Yes, Jaime was bitter. I don't blame him for that. Aerys was playing his little cruel joke on a boy of fifteen to piss off his father. However, I don't think it was his bitterness that made him kill the king, it was his mad plan to burn the city. In his own POV, he says this was the reason, and he was feverish and drunk on milk of poppy besides.

[dark sister]

But anyways, in the last 100 years the Targs weren't that incestuous.

Daeron II married a Martell

Aerys I married a Targ

Maekar's wife is unnamed so she probably wasn't a Targaryen

Aegon V married for love.

Jaehaerys married for love. This could be a non Targ or a sister that he wasn't supposed to marry

Aerys II married a Targ.

I agree that we don't know whom each married, and that some of the queens were either Arryns, Velaryons, or a Hightower (as I recall) but with the others we don't know, they could easily have been Targs. In one of the D&E stories, Aegon talks about his sisters Rhae and Daella; Rhae put a "love potion" in his drink so that he would love her better than Daella. That implies to me that he had a preference for Daella. We have no idea who Maekar married, but all of his sons except Daeron had Targ features. As for the rest, we just don't know. but the amount of incest in the family is enough to have a large number of them mad or mentally challenged. That clinches it for me.

[ARYa_Nym]

I agree that we don't know whom each married, and that some of the queens were either Arryns, Velaryons, or a Hightower (as I recall) but with the others we don't know, they could easily have been Targs. In one of the D&E stories, Aegon talks about his sisters Rhae and Daella; Rhae put a "love potion" in his drink so that he would love her better than Daella. That implies to me that he had a preference for Daella. We have no idea who Maekar married, but all of his sons except Daeron had Targ features. As for the rest, we just don't know. but the amount of incest in the family is enough to have a large number of them mad or mentally challenged. That clinches it for me.

I think despite being less incestuous they have had some of their most insane family members more recently. Aerys was over the top. I don't feel like going through each one but I think the majority weren't crazy but they've had too many that were. The surviving Targs would just have to raise their children to marry for love instead of expecting them to marry their siblings. If Jon or Dany only have one child though there wouldn't be a sibling to marry anyway so maybe the problem will fix itself.

[dark sister]

Like you and I PM'd to each other, we both love the Targs. In fact, I wish I could have multiple icons of all the Targ girls I love! Hehe.

hil

However, one thing about the Jon/Dany thing bugs me...if Jon were to learn the truth that he were in fact a Targ (which, while it seems obvious, may not be true - but let's assume it is) don't you think he would have a big problem marrying his aunt? Or half-aunt, whatever. Being raised as a Stark, I can't imagine him ever going for that! Also, assuming he is honor-bound to be the LC for the rest of his life (I personally don't think he's dead) how would that allow him to marry, father children, and become a noble? (I'm not gonna assume he'll sit the Iron throne). Speaking of which...would it be irony of ironies if Dany never even made it to Westeros? Oh jeez, I can just imagine fans grinding their teeth like Stannis.