Game of Thrones begins....

[crazy canuck]

I agree with Berkut's assessment re Sansa

Otherwise - the way the season ended it is hard to see how they are going to make the Targ Reconquista interesting.  She has the dragons, dothraki hordes, unsullied, two of the strongest and richest Houses, the "yara" fleet, Varys and his bag of tricks.  Cersei has her own house (minus poor Kevan), an alliance with the now leaderless and unmartial Freys, and . . . that's about all folks, unless a few stormlander lords stay loyal.  How is this not going to be a cakewalk?

The real baddies are still north of the wall

[viper37]

Did women really had a choice whom to marry in medieval times?

In real life? Theoretically it was against Church law to force anybody to marry against their will. So the woman had to consent to the marriage. Of course your family had several carrots and sticks they could deploy whether you were a man or woman.

yeah, well, "Marry him or enter the convent" does not categorize as free will for me

Could a noble woman really pick the man of her choice?  I doubt it.

It's pretty much established in Westeros it ain't that way.  Lady Tyrell tells it herself she never married out of love.

[Razgovory]

William the Conqueror inherited Normandy despite being a bastard.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious, but Bastard Bill was an exception in Christian Europe, not the norm.  Bastardy was quite common, and in some countries Bastards were given special titles.  Sometimes they could be legitimized by legal fiat, but if they were expected to inherent then a civil war was likely.

[Siege]

I just finished watching it.
Wow.

[The Minsky Moment]

One thing about ASOIF is that while "blood" is transmitted, genes apparently do not exist, as incest seems to have no negative effects beyond occasional madness in progeny.  Example - Zero genetic defects in the three children of fraternal twins.  If the Thutmosids had been in Martin's universe, they still would be ruling Egypt.

[Razgovory]

One thing about ASOIF is that while "blood" is transmitted, genes apparently do not exist, as incest seems to have no negative effects beyond occasional madness in progeny.  Example - Zero genetic defects in the three children of fraternal twins.  If the Thutmosids had been in Martin's universe, they still would be ruling Egypt.

I'm not sure how much inbreeding is necessary to see noticeable genetic defects.  Most people in the middle ages were inbred due to cousin marriage, and much of the Arab world is now for the same reason.

[grumbler]

William the Conqueror inherited Normandy despite being a bastard.

He was legitimized.

[grumbler]

Jon Snow was not legitimized, he was just acknowledged.  To be acknowledged by a noble parent removes the stigma of being baseborn, but doesn't make you legitimate (i.e. an heir).

Jon sis King of the North by acclamation, not by inheritance.  Much as Robert Baratheon became King of the Seven Kingdoms.

[Josquius]

Learn something new every day - I was not aware of the multiple marriages bit. That would make things rather interesting, now wouldn't it?

Although....

Jon would not have been born when Rhaegar was killed. Would he be in line, since presumably a child in the womb is not an heir (seeing as you would not even know the sex, much less that it even exists potentially).

I can't remember the time line....but was jons  birth after the mad kings death too?
A unborn kid being king seems iffy (though there are historic examples) but an unborn heir seems quite standard, even if it is a grandson rather than a son.

[The Larch]

Learn something new every day - I was not aware of the multiple marriages bit. That would make things rather interesting, now wouldn't it?

Although....

Jon would not have been born when Rhaegar was killed. Would he be in line, since presumably a child in the womb is not an heir (seeing as you would not even know the sex, much less that it even exists potentially).

I can't remember the time line....but was jons  birth after the mad kings death too?
A unborn kid being king seems iffy (though there are historic examples) but an unborn heir seems quite standard, even if it is a grandson rather than a son.

Both Jon and Daenerys were born after Aerys' death.

[Valmy]

yeah, well, "Marry him or enter the convent" does not categorize as free will for me

Well they couldn't force them to enter a convent either. But they could be disinherited.

Could a noble woman really pick the man of her choice?  I doubt it.

It's complicated. But I never said 'pick' I said 'consent'. But remember these noble women were people of their time. For the most part they wanted to do what their societies expected them to do.

It's pretty much established in Westeros it ain't that way.  Lady Tyrell tells it herself she never married out of love.

Marrying for love is kind of a 19th century thing anyway. Which is also when people started getting disinherited alot for marrying out of love come to think of it.

Besides you are acting like noblemen did marry out of love. Marriage was negotiated between families.

[Berkut]

I guess I just imagine inheritance, at least in theory, being kind of an instantaneous thing.

King dies, at that moment his heir is the new king, even if he hasn't been officially crowned yet.

But you might be right - Rhaegar was dead *before* his father. So how does that work?

If the king has two sons, and his sons both have sons, and the eldest son dies before the king, the next son becomes the heir, right? Not the son (grandson of the king) of the prince?

[Valmy]

Typically the grandson would.

But, you know, these things were not written in stone.

[Josquius]

Yes.... surely there's been a historic example of this?
King dies.  Son 2 becomes king.... then son 1s kid is born.
Is son 1s kid the heir of son 2? (Until son 2 has kids? Forever?) Is he totally out of the succession?

[The Larch]

I guess I just imagine inheritance, at least in theory, being kind of an instantaneous thing.

King dies, at that moment his heir is the new king, even if he hasn't been officially crowned yet.

But you might be right - Rhaegar was dead *before* his father. So how does that work?

If the king has two sons, and his sons both have sons, and the eldest son dies before the king, the next son becomes the heir, right? Not the son (grandson of the king) of the prince?

Nope, grandson first, younger sons afterwards. That's the "traditional" way, but there were lots of mixed formulas for inheritance.