A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones Spoiler-Filled Discussion

[DarthPipes]

If Aerys sent there there, then they were obeying their oath. But choosing your prince over your king is betraying the oath.

[Venardhi]

Remember that by the time Ned got to the tower both Rhaegar and Aerys had been dead for months, as was baby Aegon(probably). The rightful king would have been Viserys who ran with the queen to Dragonstone. It isn't a question of why they were there, but why they stayed there after the two people who could have given them orders to be there were dead and their oath had transferred to someone else who needed their swords far more. The only explanation for them staying is if they were guarding someone with a better claim than Viserys.

[Anwar]

Or, they were waiting to make sure that the child was going to be a boy and not a girl so they'd know they hadn't wasted their time for all those months since they had already sent a fellow Knight to protect the other Royals (he was a brother of one of the dead KG, IIRC).

I'm wondering what they would've done when the child had been born. They'd be fools to think they could just raise another army around a baby, or that anyone would've recognized him as a legitimate child without proof. My guess is that once the baby was born they'd have taken him to Essos to be with Viserys and the Queen (not knowing she was dead).

It was a bad idea to hide in Dorne as well, because if anyone was going to be offended by what Rhaegar did as much as Robert and Ned, it was going to be the Martells. His selfishness cost the lives of Elia and her children.

[InklingStar]

Anwar wrote:

---

It was a bad idea to hide in Dorne as well, because if anyone was going to be offended by what Rhaegar did as much as Robert and Ned, it was going to be the Martells. His selfishness cost the lives of Elia and her children.

It wasn't necessarily selfishness. When Aegon, Rhaegar and Elia's second child, was born, he said "The dragon must have three heads." His interpretation of the prophecy demanded a third child, and Elia was too weak to give him one.

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Here's the character profile for Stannis:

[Anwar]

InklingStar wrote:

---

It wasn't necessarily selfishness. When Aegon, Rhaegar and Elia's second child, was born, he said "The dragon must have three heads." His interpretation of the prophecy demanded a third child, and Elia was too weak to give him one.

It is selfish, he was so obsessed with some prophecy he read in a book and he was so convinced it was about HIM that he set in motion events that destroyed his family. Yes, Aerys was more at fault for over-reacting to Brandon Stark's accusation but Rhaegar had his responsibility.

And Lyanna too for being a double-standard twit. She doesn't love Robert and knows he'll cheat on her, so she runs off with a MARRIED FATHER. Apparently, she doesn't care about adultery as long as she's the one hurting someone else (Elia). As a Northern Woman she wouldn't have had any respect for a Polygamous marriage in the first place.

EDIT: Having seen that feature, I think the show will portray Stannis in a more villainous light for this season so that when we get to the huge battle at the end of S2 we won't feel too bad that the Lannisters are still in power.

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

HBO gave Game of Thrones a 15% budget increase for the second season, going from $60 million to $69 million.

[CaptainCanada]

Anwar wrote:

---

And Lyanna too for being a double-standard twit. She doesn't love Robert and knows he'll cheat on her, so she runs off with a MARRIED FATHER. Apparently, she doesn't care about adultery as long as she's the one hurting someone else (Elia). As a Northern Woman she wouldn't have had any respect for a Polygamous marriage in the first place.

It's legal for the Targaryens to have more than one wife, so strictly speaking he wasn't cheating, and the Martells have in the past had no problem with that arrangement, seeing as it's happened many times before. As to Lyanna's attitudes, it would have been well-known and accepted that the royal family did things that way, so it's a stretch to assume that Lyanna would have had a problem with it.

[Anwar]

But polygamy throws the whole marriage-alliance system out of whack. What if the families of both wives end up in conflict and both want the political alliance benefits, whose side would the multiple-husband choose?

At least when the Targaryens did it, it was within their own family. There's no mention of any Targaryen King or Royal who married two non-Targaryen women.

If the rest of the Kingdoms looked down upon incest except for the Targaryens (because they had dragons to enforce their will, and by the time they died out everyone was too used to them in power), why would they be okay with polygamy for non-Targaryens?

[CaptainCanada]

Anwar wrote:

---

What if the families of both wives end up in conflict and both want the political alliance benefits, whose side would the multiple-husband choose?

The king sides with whomever he wants; marriages aren't a commitment like that, particularly since, under the Targaryens, they were thoroughly established on the throne and didn't need to guarantee the support of their great lords like that (before Robert's Rebellion, there had been 300 years of Targaryen monarchy and none of the lords paramount had even raised arms against the crown).

If the rest of the Kingdoms looked down upon incest except for the Targaryens (because they had dragons to enforce their will, and by the time they died out everyone was too used to them in power), why would they be okay with polygamy for non-Targaryens?

They were fine with the king having two wives. I really don't see why you think they would automatically object if neither of them were related to him. Once you've established the precedent that the royals can marry polygamously and marry outside of their own bloodline, having two non-sister wives seems like a pretty silly place to draw the line.

[Anwar]

I never understood that really, once the Dragons were gone I never got why no one really considered rebelling against the Targaryens since their only advantage was gone. The Targaryens lost their dragons like 150 years prior to the series so they had no advantages over the other Houses anymore.

They were fine with the Kings having multiple wives because the ones that did that had Dragons. Rhaegar had nothing to enforce his will with, and if enough people objected it would be a problem.

[CaptainCanada]

Anwar wrote:

---

They were fine with the Kings having multiple wives because the ones that did that had Dragons. Rhaegar had nothing to enforce his will with, and if enough people objected it would be a problem.

Or it had simply become an accepted cultural more for the monarchy, not dependent on force anymore (beyond which, they were still the kings and following tradition; there'd be little reason for most people to suddenly start objecting to something they had long came to accept).

[Venardhi]

There have been plenty of rebellions and wars in the past, but the rivalries between various houses usually mean that they never get very big. The Targaryens were special not only in that they had dragons but that they were in some ways above the fray when it came to the squabbles of the lesser houses. No one wanted any other house but their own to rule, buy the Targaryens weren't as bad because they were already in charge.

[InklingStar]

Venardhi wrote:

---

There have been plenty of rebellions and wars in the past, but the rivalries between various houses usually mean that they never get very big. The Targaryens were special not only in that they had dragons but that they were in some ways above the fray when it came to the squabbles of the lesser houses. No one wanted any other house but their own to rule, buy the Targaryens weren't as bad because they were already in charge.

This is an important factor. Having a Targaryan king meant that the other great houses such as the Starks, Lannisters, Baratheons, Martells, etc. were all equal. Like Varys says in ACoK, power exists where people believe it exists. As long as the Targaryans held the Iron Throne, they were in charge, dragons or no.

Once Robert rebelled, he upset that balance. Suddenly the great houses were not equal, the Baratheons became the royal family by conquest. Fourteen years was not enough time to establish their rule as a precedent. Why should Joffrey (even if he was Robert's son) rule? Why not Stannis or Renly? Why not Robb Stark or Balon Greyjoy? Once the Targaryans are out of the picture it becomes a free-for-all.

[Anwar]

Once the Targs are gone, some thinks it's possible to go back to the old independent Kingdoms (Robb is pretty much forced into this by his bannermen, Balon wanted this for a while) while others aren't happy with that and want the Iron Throne so they can have it all (Cersei, Tywin more-or-less, the Tyrells, Renly) and others want the old rulers back for whatever reason (Varys, the Dorne) and Stannis just wants the Throne because the law says he has to take it.