Do you think Rhaenyra named her son Aegon as a way to spite Alicent? Or what other intentions would Daemon and Rhaenyra had in the naming of their children?
Yes - indeed, Gyldayn explicitly suggests as much, at least according to one source:
And thus that dreadful year 120 AC ended as it begun, with a woman laboring in childbirth. Princess Rhaenyra’s pregnancy had a happier outcome than Lady Laena’s had. As the year waned, she brought forth a small but robust son, a pale princeling with dark purple eyes and pale silvery hair. She named him Aegon. Prince Daemon had at last a living son of his own blood ... [sic] and this new prince, unlike his three half-brothers, was plainly a Targaryen [sic].
In King’s Landing, however, Queen Alicent grew most wroth when she learned the babe had been named Aegon, taking that for a slight against her own son Aegon … [sic] which, according to The Testimony of Mushroom, it most certainly was.
I am certainly not aligned with Mushroom in all of his claims, but this particular one seems logical enough To say that the black and green factions had reached a new nadir of antagonism by the end of 120 AC is to state the obvious. This antagonism centered on the future of House Targaryen - and because the personal is political in Westeros' hereditary dynastic monarchies and aristocracies, both the black and the green dynasts acted and used the persons of their respective factions to express the sentiments of each faction. So when Queen Alicent gave birth to a son in 107 AC, Gyldayn reports that the queen "nam[ed] him Aegon, after the Conqueror" - an open declaration that her firstborn son was the heir to the patriarch of the dynasty, and by extension the leadership of the dynasty itself. Likewise, as Rhaenyra gave birth to the sons surnamed "Velaryon" but almost certainly fathered by Ser Harwin, the greens held it as what Gyldayn terms an "article of faith" that "the father of Rhaenyra's sons was not her husband, Laenor Velaryon, but her champion, Harwin Strong". Nor did the green faction restrict this sniping to Alicent's backhanded sympathy to Laenor at the birth of Prince Lucerys: when Aemond mocked the Velaryon boys as "Strongs", Aegon the Elder defended telling Aemond as much because "[e]veryone [sic] knows. Just look at them". The green faction had drawn a distinction through names between itself and the black faction: "Aegon" and the legacy of the Conqueror for the greens, "Strong" and the (in Westerosi view) taint of bastardy for the blacks.
The slights against Rhaenyra and the black faction, of course, would not go unanswered by Rhaenyra herself, and like Alicent, Rhaenyra utilized her son's name to do so. By calling her first son with Daemon "Aegon", Rhaenyra undermined the green faction's attempt to seize Aegon the Conqueror's prestige for the greens alone. Rhaenyra was suggesting not only that her newborn son, as much as Aegon the Elder, had the right to bear the name of that most illustrious of Targaryen ancestors, but also that her faction had as much right to claim inheritance from the Conqueror. Moreover, because the new baby "was plainly a Targaryen", emphasis Gyldayn's own, Rhaenyra's choice of name countered that allegation of bastardy most recently voiced by Aegon the Elder; if Alicent's son would insult the black faction's older princes by teaching his brother to call them "Strongs", he would now be forced to acknowledge that his newborn nephew was not only legitimate, but as much of a Targaryen, with as storied a Targaryen name, as he had.
I have a question about woman's rights and even the widow's law that I've been trying to wrap my head around and just can't figure out.
Westeros doesn't seem to have a jointure or even dower lands, right? At least I don't think there is any reference.
Cersei doesn't get any pension or lands as a widowed. Myranda Royce was married to an elderly lord and returned to her father's home afterwards, and doesn't seem to speak of it. But she does speak of how she would have liked to have had a son by him (and the lord already had sons) so I imagine she would probably get a pension from him (maybe even a country manse) if she had a son?
Barbrey Dustin seems to have inherited her husbands lands. Dustin name seemed to have died with her husband, and it is very possible Barbrey's mother was a Dustin by birth. We don't know, of course, but it could be very possible.
But it says the widow's law that: "his heir could and would often expel the newly widowed wife, reducing her to penury; in the case of lords, the heirs might strip away the widow's prerogatives, incomes and servants, reducing her to no more than an impoverished boarder"... do this means there is a dower?
I ask this because of someone like Jocelyn Baratheon. She outlives her husband and by that time her daughter is already married. In George's fashion, she disapears from the narrative, but she is powerful dynastic person, as the widower of the crown prince (and she is supposedly a Joan of Kent).
Would she live out of the kindness of her family? Did she get some money of her own? Lands? Did she remarried in hopes of stability?
Again, Cersei didn't seem to get anything as a dowager queen. But there is dower lands like the widow's law seems to indicate, how aren't she and Margaery fighting over it?
For a long time I just imagined George just made Westeros into the still very famous misconception that women had no rights or have lands they inherited by marriage/parents/etc... But then he made a widow's law that speaks of prerogatives and incomes, and I can't wrapped my head around it.
I wish I had better answers for some of this, but I do get to talk about GRRM's sometimes problematic writing of female characters, so why not! (more under the cut)
Number one - and this is not specifically a female character problem - GRRM tends to avoid even mildly complex property questions in Westeros. No matter their rank, aristocratic families, even the greatest, tend to own a single seat, and it is notable when a House (like the Peakes) claims more than one castle, specifically more than one in the hands of the main ruling branch. (Don't even start with families or individuals holding seats across geopolitical borders.) I cannot entirely blame him in this decision - if you have even a passing familiarity with medieval England you understand how convoluted and arcane, especially to modern eyes, property law of that place and time can seem - but the consequence is that property disputes never get more complicated than, say, Tytos Blackwood surrendering some villages and mills to the newly pro-Lannister Brackens in ADWD. There are no manors or castles or lands for widows and ruling lords to haggle over because, at least as a matter of property law and inheritance, these holdings do not exist, certainly not in the author’s interest. Likewise, given the rather vague state of Westerosi jurisprudence, and the apparent lack of lawyers and law courts (other than my speculation on law-specialist maesters, which would not be quite the same thing anyway), we will likely never see the sort of legal property disputes that occurred IRL.
Number two - and this is a specifically female character problem - GRRM has paid very little attention, certainly beyond the surface level, to the question of dowries. Indeed, GRRM does not even seem to know, and/or care, that there can be (albeit not always) a distinction between “dowry” and “dower”, much less that “dower” can (though again, not always) mean that provision given to a wife for her widowhood. GRRM almost always uses “dower” as simply a synonym for “dowry”, to mean what a bride’s family will give to the prospective husband and his family ahead of or at the time of the marriage being brokered. (I suppose you could argue that when Jaime remembers Cersei telling him that Tywin “had gone so far as to invite Lord Hoster to the city to discuss dower” when negotiation the Lysa marriage, Tywin and Hoster were preparing to discuss Lysa’s widow portion. However, even if that were the case, we certainly never hear about these discussions again.) Moreover, very few dowries we learn about in ASOIAF carry any sort of details, and certainly not including anything we might recognize as jointure. So “dowry” and “dower” for GRRM are not terms associated with widowhood and the rights/incomes of widows, but instead descriptors of prenuptial marriage arrangements.
Number three, I think GRRM only focuses on the above two topics when he has a plot point or story to tell with them. I understand that GRRM is an author primarily writing novels (and novellas) set in this universe; while TWOIAF and F&B exist, I would not call these GRRM’s first area of focus. I can acknowledge that while I, and probably at least some readers, would find discussions of jointure and widows’ property rights fascinating, I also understand that GRRM has a story, or stories, he wants to tell. So instead of, say, having Cersei and Margery squabble over royal manors, both are vying over being young King Tommen’s primary influence. Likewise, Myranda Royce, while still a very interesting character, is presented as less interested in enjoying whatever lands and/or manors might have come to her through her late husband and more keen on holding court for her father until and unless she marries again. Barbrey’s status as the Lady - or, as she wryly answers Theon, “widow of Barrowton”, emphasis Barbrey’s own - seems to be less the product of clear politico-dynastic calculus and more an expression of GRRM’s love for a smart, sassy, confident older widow character (especially in a portion of the story with fewer female characters overall).
None of the above is an excuse, to be very clear. I still find it utterly baffling and frustrating, for example, that Jocelyn Baratheon ceases to be a character (even more than the thinly detailed figure she was prior to Aemon’s death) after her husband’s assassination. F&B instead treats Jocelyn Baratheon as a walking womb, whose only importance in the narrative was to be born as Queen Alyssa died and then to give birth to Aemon’s daughter in turn, and she completely disappears almost as soon as Aemon dies. Too, the debate between Cersei and her father (and then Uncle Kevan) in her widowhood is not which (again, nonexistent) royal manor(s) Cersei would inherit but which prospective groom (like Oberyn Martell) would be her next husband and whether she would return to Casterly Rock. Indeed, even Rohanne Webber in "The Sworn Sword" focuses entirely on her position as Lady of Coldmoat in her own right, with no mention of any inheritance from her prior husbands - understandable in the context of a short(er) story about a plucky ruling lady in a patriarchal society, but frustrating in the context of this legal question. In other words, simply because we have not seen GRRM address these issues does not mean he could not have chosen, or could not choose in the future, to do so; every story he tells, or does not, is his choice to tell, or not.
Now, you are correct to point out the general weirdness, in terms of narrative purpose as well as in-world application, of the Widow’s Law. I myself still do not have a clear idea as to why GRRM included the Widow’s Law in F&B, and given that we have not received any published material from the author since F&B, the importance or narrative use of the Widow’s Law remains an open question. The best answer I have come up with is that the Widow’s Law is GRRM’s version of the Salic law, specifically (it me) as depicted in The Accursed Kings - in other words, less a piece of property legislation than a flimsy (by authorial design) basis for politico-dynastic maneuvering. While it is certainly possibly future stories will use the Widow’s Law as a way to discuss jointure and widowhood incomes, I more anticipate that the Widow’s Law is going to come into play when, say, the various Stark descendants of “The She-Wolves of Winterfell” (or whatever its final title ends up being) start bickering over inheritance rights, or the Freys dynastically implode in the near future.
I wish we would see more about jointure and widow portions in the future. I kind of doubt we will. I'd love to be proven wrong!
So as you're pretty good with thematic connections in ASOIAF Houses here's a question that might seem a bit odd. Which House do you think would work as producing Argella Durrandon's mother? A Stormlander House would be most likely. Penrose considering her refusal to give up Storm's End? Tarth, considering that produced a strong Stormlander woman in the present day, though that seems a stretch? Caron, considering Rolland Storm? Someone else?
Lady Stark Durrandon. She died.
I don't mean to sound flip (at least at the ask itself), but my inability to speculate on her identity is a reflection of GRRM's lack of interest not just in this figure specifically, but in (some) maternal figures more generally. GRRM had no greater interest in naming or expanding upon Argella's mother than he did, say, naming Alicent Hightower's mother or providing any detail on Ned Stark's mother. Given how deeply problematic the Argella story is itself, and indeed how Argella herself falls off the face of Westeros immediately after being compelled to marry Orys Baratheon, it probably should not surprise me that Argella is given no maternal dynastic background in the already-thin information provided on her. Likewise, given GRRM's own acknowledgement that he has never bothered to name the Unnamed Princess of Dorne, and his rather dismissive reply when asked again about Lyarra Stark, I would anticipate that he has never thought of an identity for Argella's mother in the aftermath of F&B.
Hello! Syria Forel mentions that he was the First Sword of Braavos for 9 years, but has apparently been replaced. Given your earlier expressed strong thoughts about the old and sickly Sealord, why do you imagine he was let go? Is First Sword a lifetime position? A fixed term? Thank you for your consideration.
I think it was as simple as Syrio worked for a Sealord who served prior to the tenure of the current Sealord. The fact that the current Sealord is old and sickly does not mean that he has necessarily been in power for decades. Indeed, assuming that the Sealord of Braavos is in no small part based on and/or inspired by the Doge of Venice, it's worth noting that the average age of a medieval or early modern Doge at the time of his election was around 72 years old (with some even in their 80s!). Therefore, it would not surprise me if the Sealords may semi-regularly or regularly be elected at an older age, die out in office, and be replaced by older men in their turn.
That level of turnover may then extend to figures like the First Sword of Braavos. Given that, according to Yandel, the First Sword "commands the personal guard of the Sealord and protects his person at all public events", the office, and the loyalty of each officeholder, are both inextricably linked to each individual Sealord. Yet given the non-hereditary nature of Braavosi leadership, along with the unofficial but oft-observed violent transfer of power, it would make sense to me that each new Sealord would appoint his own champion and guard from among his own supporters and aristocratic faction.
Hello and I hope that you're doing well! I'm not sure if this is a silly question but unless I'm forgetting something do you think Barbrey Dustin (in-universe) elected to skip the harvest feast in Clash? (I'm not sure if the real reason is that GRRM hadn't come up with her character by that point because I don't think she was in the book apoendix at that point.) but if in-universe Barbrey herself just chose not to show up, would there be political or social consequences for that? Could she have been accused of not being loyal/patriotic to the North? (I know we have no way of knowing this but I wish we could have known what Ned and Catelyn thought about her, or if they were aware of her dislike.) thank you and have a great one!
Whether or not GRRM had dreamed up Barbrey Dustin as of ACOK - he had certainly thought of the Dustins, but did not name Barbrey herself until the Appendix of AFFC - I think the Barbrey he did put on page in ADWD would not have been remotely interested in attending a harvest feast hosted by the Starks. Babrey's bitterness toward the Starks, specifically Ned and Catelyn, forms a major part of her character. So much had Barbrey resented Catelyn (in Barbrey's mind) taking both Brandon and Ned away from her and Ned for (in Barbrey's mind) leading her husband to death in the south and not even bothering to bring back his bones that she deliberately withheld as much aid from Winterfell as she thought she could at the outbreak of the War of the Five Kings. The same woman who had bragged to Theon that she would feed Ned's bones to her dogs was hardly likely to make the not-inconsiderable journey (more on that in a minute) from Barrowton to Winterfell to bend the knee to Ned Stark's son.
Still, the harvest feast was not some sort of Stark loyalty test where Bran's de facto regency council was looking to no-shows as targets of retribution. Indeed, Roderick Cassel explained to Bran that while "[t]he feast makes a pleasant pretext ... a man does not cross a hundred leagues for a sliver of duck and a sip of wine", and that "[o]nly those who have matters of import to set before us are like to make the journey". Even outside the obvious context of the war, there were certain vassals with logical reasons for missing: as Bran noted, the ravens brought news that "the Mormonts and Karstarks had all gone south with Robb, Lord Locke was too old to dare the journey, Lady Flint was heavy with child, [and] there was sickness at Widow's Watch". Given that, according to Bran, "all of the principal vassals of House Stark" were eventually heard from, I would guess that Babrey gave a cool but diplomatic refusal. Maybe Barbrey emphasized that the journey was too far for her to hazard; maybe she played into Westerosi misogynistic tropes and claimed that as a poor older widow, with her men (at least those she felt compelled to send with Robb), all in the south, she could not possibly risk such a journey to Winterfell. Whether or not Roderick Cassel, Maester Luwin, and/or anyone else at Winterfell believed her - and I don't think they necessarily had reason not to - there were, metaphorically as well as literally, bigger fish to fry for Bran and his advisors than worrying about the non-appearance of the Widow of Barrowton.
Kinda of two questions at once but they cover the same topic, do marriage alliances actually work both in ASOIAF and real life? Because it seems like regardless of familial ties everybody seems to go to war with each other and being related doesn't stop them. Is this just humans being hypocritical or is there something else going on because why have marriages when you are going to break the alliance later?
Oh no, what if hereditary dynastic aristocracy/monarchy which operates through political marriages is not the most effective form of government?
In all seriousness, I think a core issue of dynastic marriages in Westeros (and in various examples from real-world history) is that individual marriage alliances cannot dictate lasting policies because of the changes in personal leadership and/or political circumstances. This is not to say dynastic marriages cannot bring important symbolic and/or material advantages, especially more immediately - more on that in a moment - only that characters are not necessarily going to act in XYZ way because that character is from or married into or related to XYZ House, or feel bound to support or defend ABC House because that character’s spouse or nuptial relative is from ABC House. Harmund II Hoare may have been an ironborn xenophile who embraced a marriage to a Lannister princess to promote the outward thinking begun with his own fostering at Casterly Rock, but that attitude did not transfer to their younger son, Hagon Hoare, who had his mother mutilated and exiled and the Faith expelled from the Iron Islands. King Arlan III Durrandon had invaded the Riverlands intending to put his father-in-law, Roderick Blackwood, on the throne instead of the Teagues - but when Lord Roderick was killed, King Arlan did not simply crown his daughter-in-law Shiera Blackwood as queen, swallowing the Riverlands as an imperial conquest instead. Lord Walder may have genuinely wanted an alliance with Raventree Hall at the time he married Lady Alyssa, but as Lord Tytos ruefully observed after the Red Wedding, old nuptial ties counted for little against the treacherous agreement the Freys had made with Tywin. The Cersei-Robert marriage may have been perfectly sensible on paper - uniting the king newly triumphant in Robert’s Rebellion with the daughter of the richest and most powerful (albeit latecoming) rebel ally, especially when none of the other major rebel allies had eligible daughters - but as a personal matter, the union was, to put it mildly, a complete disaster. There is almost certainly no dynastic marriage which can or would cement peace or alliance or mutual advantage for all time; if the Bracken-Blackwood conflict is any indication, the personal ambitions and motivations and desires and concerns of individual characters will ultimately outweigh any given marriage contract.
At the same time, I would not say that dynastic marriages are completely meaningless. There is a reason, after all, why so many aristocratic girls and women attended the Maiden’s Day Ball in 133 AC; Unwin Peake was not alone in recognizing that the family which married its daughter to the king could also influence or dictate the font of favor at court. The annals of Westerosi history contain innumerable examples of families receiving the submission of rivals or future vassals by, in part, a marriage between the ruler and a daughter of the conquered: King Duran “the Fair” marrying the Evenstar’s daughter, for example, or King Rickard Stark “the Laughing Wolf” marrying the daughter of the Marsh King, or King Tommen I Lannister marrying the daughter of the last Farman king. Dynastic marriages provided the foundation of Dorne formally coming into the Targaryens’ kingdom: Myriah Martell did not make the future King Daeron II Prince of Dorne jure uxoris (probably by the design of the Unnamed Prince of Dorne), but it did foster the pro-Dorne court of Daeron’s rule, and paved the way for the marriage of Daeron’s sister Daenerys to Myriah’s brother Maron along with Maron’s submission to King Daeron. The double wedding at Riverrun during Robert’s Rebellion provided all the (male) parties involved with immediate advantages: the Stark-Arryn army gained the “swords and spears of House Tully”, the Tullys aligned themselves with the faction opposing the royal tyranny that oversaw Jeffory Mallister’s murder, Hoster saw both of his daughters (including the “soiled” Lysa) married to great lords, and Jon Arryn gained a young wife assumed capable of giving him the male heir he needed. Even looking to the future in the main novels, Littlefinger’s plan for Sansa hinges on her marriage to Harry Hardyng rallying the chivalry of the Vale behind her. These are not exhaustive examples, of course - the point is that dynastic marriages have historically been key elements of Westerosi politics, even if the intended outcomes of those marriages do not last forever.
I don't know if you've already answered a question about this, but what importance do you think the Clans of the Vale will have in the future of the saga? Both those in the Vale and those in the Kingswood.
I imagine Shagga will be important to Tyrion in some way; but I wonder if, just as we have Jon uniting the clans with the rest of the "south" (north) and perhaps Arya with the Brotherhood Without Banners and Rickon with Skagosis, we will have Sansa managing to make contact with these Vale clans (like ending up being attacked, etc.) and perhaps uniting them to her side. But I don't know how astutely political she will be at that point in the story. Do you think it's possible? I believe that, since George still gives them some prominence (regarding attacks, being armed with steel, etc.) and they've seen Sansa before, this could become important in the future for the Vale of Arryn arc.
I tend to doubt the clans of the Vale will be involved in Sansa’s story. Remember that winter has officially arrived, and while the Vale proper may still be enjoying autumnal good weather, Brienne had already heard in AFFC that the road into the Vale from the west was blocked by snow. Even if the mountain clans had the minds to travel in the worst season to do so, they would still need to pass through the Bloody Gate - a feat whose impossibility is suggested by the name itself. Nor would Sansa, or any of the rest of the Vale aristocracy for that matter, seem likely to pass westward toward the lands of the Vale clans: with Littlefinger aiming to have Sansa acclaimed as the rightful Lady of Winterfell, with an army and a Hardyng-turned-Arryn husband behind her, it would make no sense for him to push overland through impassable roads (not to mention war zones in the Riverlands and Neck) instead of sailing up the Narrow Sea toward White Harbor. (There will be drama around Sansa’s Vale story, but I think that’s more to do with Ser Shadrich and his attempt to kidnap Sansa.)
Where I could very much see a reappearance of Vale clansmen may be in Tyrion’s story, or perhaps even Arianne’s. It’s worth noting that the only Vale clan leader give additional details in the appendices of AFFC and ADWD is Shagga of the Stone Crows, who is “presently leading a band in the kingswood”. Given the sort of rough camaraderie between Shagga and Tyrion, I would not at all be surprised if, when Tyrion returns to Westeros, he reunites with the Stone Crows and rallies them behind Daenerys. It’s also possible, and not mutually exclusive, that Arianne, firmly in the camp of our Aegon, will encounter, or hear about, the Stone Crows as Aegon’s army moves toward King’s Landing - recalling both the plot by Cersei to have Trystane murdered, supposedly by Tyrion, somewhere in the Kingswood as well as Elia Martell’s encounter with the Kingswood Brotherhood (perhaps on her way to her own Targaryen wedding).
Why didn't any of the kings except Joffrey kept a real Small Council? Only Stannis has a Hand, only Renly and Robb special bodyguards...
I think there are a few points to make here.
Number one, when talking about the War of the Five Kings, it is important to distinguish Robb politically from Joffrey, Stannis, and Renly. Robb’s stated goal was not the Iron Throne but the establishment (or, rather, quasi-reestablishment) of the Kingdom of the North (with fealty over the Riverlands). As a consequence, it would be inappropriate to graft the structure of the Targaryen, and subsequently Baratheon, royal government in King’s Landing onto the new political entity being created by Robb. There was no ancestral place in a Stark government for a Hand or a formal small council or a Kingsguard, while Robb certainly had advisors and a personal guard, his kingdom’s ceremonial and bureaucratic structure differed fundamentally from that of the Iron Throne’s kingdom.
As for Renly, he did also have a Hand; Mace Tyrell is listed as such in the ACOK Appendix. We don’t get a sense of whether Renly tried to create his own small council - more on that in a moment - though even without any mention of such being made in that Appendix, our real-time interaction as readers with Renly’s would-be court is somewhat limited - just a small handful of chapters through Catelyn’s eyes. However, Renly’s creation of the Rainbow Guard represented a deliberate break from the Kingsguard: as Cressen noted, this new guard was “just the sort of notion that would appeal to Renly”, to create “a splendid new order of knighthood, with gorgeous new raiment to proclaim it”. Just as Renly failed to appreciate the politico-dynastic turbulence his bid for the throne represented - nothing less than a military coup opening the Iron Throne to whatever strongman had the big enough army to seize it - so Renly also blithely cast aside the symbolic royal aura afforded by the Kingsguard for the sake of his newly invented order of knighthood.
Stannis likewise has had two Hands, though he too does not seem to have adopted an official small council. Yet he, unlike Renly, resisted the temptation of creating his own Kingsguard, perhaps following the logic of his ancestor Jaehaerys I. More to the point - and this goes for both Stannis and Renly - I think it is important to acknowledge the positions they held relative to the Baratheon-Lannister government in King’s Landing. While the Hand of the King is an office with historically broad executive powers, including leadership in war, the small council was a creation of a post-Conquest monarchy, one established in the business of ruling. The aim of both Stannis and Renly was not to sit on Dragonstone or in Highgarden, respectively, but to move actively toward taking the capital and sitting the Iron Throne as king. Both Stannis and Renly may have intended (and for the former, may still intend) to set up full governments, with full small councils, in the capital once the crown was theirs, but the important focus was on capturing the throne first.
If Maeker Targaryen had been born a woman, do you think Daeron II would have arranged a marriage between Baelor and Maeker? I lean towards no because of the many political advantages of the Baelor/Jena marriage. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts!
I tend to doubt it. While Jeor Mormont did, obviously incorrectly, state that the future King Aerys I wed his own sister, I do not see any evidence that Daeron II would have been so supportive of incestuous marriages for his own sons. After all, the example of Daeron’s own parents would have hardly served to encourage belief in the merit of brother-sister marriages, given Aegon IV’s long history of abuse toward Naerys (to whom Daeron always seems to have been close). Naerys herself, moreover, appears to have considered marriage and brother-sister relationships mutually exclusive, given her plea to then-Prince Aegon to live with him “as brother and sister” once their son was born. This belief reflects my own theory that during the first fully post-Dance generation of Targaryens, Baelor, Naerys, and likely to some extent Aemon and Rhaena, saw the Doctrine of Exceptionalism, and by extension the Targaryen incestuous tradition it promoted, as a heresy which had incurred the wrath of the Seven and thus needed to be reversed rather than continued. With Daeron literally and figuratively the product of this most pious segment of any Targaryen generation - the son of Naerys, the nephew of Aemon, and the spiritual successor (and maybe actual heir-designate) of Baelor - I think it’s possible Daeron himself expressed an aversion to Targaryen incestuous marriages.
On a more practical level, I also think King Daeron would have viewed a daughter as more diplomatically useful as a marriage pawn than as merely the bride of his eldest son - indeed, a son whose marriage was of key political importance. As I discussed before, Baelor’s marriage to Jena Dondarrion was, I believe intended to undermine potential marcher lord support for Daemon Blackfyre and encourage marcher loyalty to Daeron II’s government. A Targaryen sister would not have curried favor with a proud and prickly marcher lord faction, at a time when Daeron II was himself showing huge amounts of favor to Dornish at his court (and thus could use a counterbalance of favor toward the marcher lords). (Whether or not Daeron II would have arranged for his daughter to marry her uncle Maron Martell is an interesting consideration; our Maekar seems to have been a few years younger than Daenerys, but given the comparative lack of pushback toward uncle-niece marriages (other than from a self-interested High Septon) and Daeron’s obvious desire to cement the bond between Dorne and the Iron Throne, it’s possible a daughter, rather than the sister, of the king would have been the bride who brought Dorne into the realm.)
After reading @turtle-paced's response (well-written, as usual) to the question of the future importance of the Sealord of Braavos, I wanted to add some thoughts of mine on the potential narrative impact of the current Braavosi political situation. I very much agree that the Sealord, as an individual, will likely not be a central character in the third act, so to speak, of ASOIAF; the novels’ primary focus on Westeros and Westerosi characters, along with the escalation of events both politically and apocalyptically in Westeros, undermine both the time and opportunity the story has to spend with the Sealord himself. Nevertheless, I do think that GRRM has signaled his interest in storylines culminating in Braavos, including the identity of the Sealord. Therefore, I believe it is very likely that the Sealord will be directly involved in plot developments early in TWOW, and I even think we as readers may meet the Sealord himself. (Long, more under the cut)
Indeed, AFFC and ADWD include points of both politico-economic tension and collaboration between Braavos and Westeros, as well as suggestions of internal Braavosi conflict. When Cersei meets with Noho Dimittis, she blithely ignored Pycelle’s earlier warning - “The Iron Bank will have its due” - and instead confirms that the Iron Throne will not repay the Iron Bank until “this rebellion has been put down”. With expected mercenary swiftness, Noho Dimittis then (per the WOIAF app) “convinces the Iron Bank to demand loan repayment from many merchants in the Seven Kingdoms and to refuse to extend any more credit to those same merchants” (a situation Cersei learns of once those merchants petition her, in vain). Meanwhile, another Iron Bank representative, Tycho Nestoris, meets with Stannis in the hope of treating with a rival royal claimant who could honor the debts very obviously being ignored by the Baratheon-Lannister regime. At the same time, across the Narrow Sea, Arya’s directive to gather information for the kindly man has highlighted internal Braavosi politics: while Arya acknowledges the rumors that the Sealord is sick or dying and that there is active speculation on his potential successor, she also reports that the Sealord was active enough to seize the Lyseni slaver ships Elephant and Goodheart.
Moreover, GRRM has continued to develop these storylines in the Arya and Theon TWOW preview chapters. In “Theon I” TWOW, Tycho and Stannis sign an agreement by which Stannis pledges to repay the Iron Throne’s debts to the Iron Bank in exchange for the support of the Iron Bank in claiming the Iron Throne. Upon signing the agreement, Stannis dispatches Justin Massey (and Jeyne-as-Arya, of course) to Braavos to draw funds from the Iron Bank and hire sellswords (little guessing that his preferred choice of the Golden Company is otherwise occupied). Arya, for her part, uses the coming of Ser Harys Swyft - the envoy of the Iron Throne sent by (the now late) Kevan Lannister to negotiate with the Iron Bank in person - to remove Raff the Sweetling, recently made one of Ser Harys’ guards, from her list by killing him - a move she understands, using the parlance of her Mercy character, “would make trouble for the Sealord and the envoy with the chicken on his chest”. We have yet to see it of course, but I’ve already speculated that Justin Massey and Jeyne-as-Arya, detouring away from the chaos at Castle Black, will literally and figuratively run into Arya herself on the streets of Braavos.
All of this is to say that as TWOW opens, whoever the new Sealord is - and I do believe there will be a new one, given the mentions of the old one being in failing health- will have to make some pretty immediate decisions with direct impact on Westerosi and our Westerosi characters. Bumbling, nervous Harys Swyft will, I think, undoubtedly complain to the Sealord’s court that his guard was murdered - but with the Iron Bank openly turning its back on the Baratheon-Lannister regime, I doubt the new Sealord would favor Cersei’s government and its envoy over the interests of his own Iron Bank. The arrival of Justin Massey may instead prove quite the political opportunity for the new Sealord: with Justin already in the city to draw on the credit extended by the Iron Bank to Stannis (and thereby hire sellswords for his king), the Sealord may decide that the time has come to commit Braavos militarily as well as economically to Stannis’ cause, against the Baratheon-Lannister government. At the same time, with a legitimate claimant to Winterfell in Braavos (at least believed by Justin Massety to be the only remaining living, extant, legitimate child of Ned and Catelyn), the new Sealord also has the chance to rid himself of the freefolk unexpectedly arrived on the impounded Goodheart, placing them under the charge of the “rightful” Lady of Winterfell. (We'll have to leave it to Dany to free those on the Elephant.)
I could in turn see TWOW including an Arya chapter featuring a meeting between the new Sealord, Arya, and Justin Massey (and maybe Jeyne Poole and Alysane Mormont too, who knows). Perhaps this is wish fulfillment as much as speculation, but I want to see Arya enter the Sealord’s Palace and remember Syrio telling her about his own interview with the then-Sealord that made him First Sword. I want GRRM to fulfill Jon’s wish to rescue the refugees at Hardhome through his own beloved little sister, using Braavosi resources Jon himself unsuccessfully tried to utilize for the mission. I want to underline that connection between Arya and Nymeria begun with the naming of her wolf - to have Arya be another princess rescuing people fleeing slavery by leading them to a homeland in Westeros. I want the Sealord to smooth over the transitions for Arya’s story, not only away from Braavos (and, presumably, the Faceless Men) but also back to Winterfell (and reunion with her siblings). I want to get a glimpse into the highest echelons of Braavosi power, and more worldbuilding in this corner of the world in which GRRM clearly loves playing. All I'm saying is, if "Arya II" or "Arya III" TWOW features a conference with the Sealord, I will feel validated.
Per this Quote from the hedge knight “"Not clever enough?" The speaker wore a black cloak bordered in scarlet satin, but underneath was raiment bright as flame, all reds and yellows and golds. Slim and straight as a dirk, though only of middling height, he was near Dunk's own age. Curls of silver-gold hair framed a face sculpted and imperious; high brow and sharp cheekbones, straight nose, pale smooth skin without blemish. His eyes were a deep violet color. "If you cannot manage a horse, fetch me some wine and a pretty wench”
When they said wench does that mean that when the targs go to a castle they get servants to get them a whore or since it’s wench the servant girls are pressured? Or?
Both! Servants have been dispatched to fetch young women for the purposes of entertainment. Maybe these women will be expected to hang on someone's side for an evening and laugh at their jokes. Maybe they'll be expected to do more. If there's not outright coercion involved, there's serious imbalance in social and financial status that does not aid consent. These women will have to think very carefully whether they can say no or set boundaries, or if they do find the courage, how they say it.
But nobody placing that order (and it's not just Targaryens) cares if these women are ordinary castle staff or full-time sex workers. Only that they're female and pretty.
Indeed. As Theon internally notes in “The Prince of Winterfell”, there is a functional lack of distinction in Westeros (certainly from his aristocratic, and formerly arrogantly so, perspective) between “washerwomen”, “camp followers”, and “whores”, all of whom are presumed to provide sex. When Tyrion found himself at war in AGOT, he took comfort in the fact that “[w]herever you have a camp, you are certain to have camp followers”, and that as a particularly high-ranking and wealth aristocrat he could send his agent to “find him a likely whore”. Even if Tyrion imagined that the woman Bronn would have found him an “official” sex worker, whatever that term could even mean in context (and I’m not sure Tyron would have made any more of a distinction than Theon does in ADWD), Shae’s own backstory underlines how easily men in Westeros can and do assume that “kitchen wench” automatically also means “whore”.
Nor are these assumptions always limited to “camp followers” in military or tourney camps. Female domestic servants in noble Westerosi households can also become the targets of sexual exploitation by high-ranking men. Those twins fathered by Robert whom Cersei had killed were born to “a serving wench at Casterly Rock” (Cersei perhaps little knowing that her maternal grandfather Jason fathered his own daughter on a serving girl, allegedly also at Casterly Rock). Franklyn Flowers of the Golden Company bluntly explains his own existence by saying that “[m]y mother was a washerwoman at Cider Hall till one of milord's sons raped her”. Roose Bolton considers the peasants on his estate to be his slaves, to be sexually available to him at his command.
All of this is to say that @turtle-paced is correct in Aerion’s broad usage of “wench”. Aerion is a particularly cruel, sadistic person, but the evils of this social system extend far beyond Aerion himself. Aerion likely assumes that, by virtue of his station, lower-born women will simply be available to him - as “camp followers”, as domestic servants, or both.
In asoiaf what are you supposed to do with a prophecy? Rhaegar follows his and gets killed, Jon ignores Melisandre and gets killed, Cersei has screwed herself trying to stop it and Daenerys has been trying to observe hers with no real benefit beyond paranoia What is GRRM saying they should do?
In my opinion, there are three quotes that most reflect how GRRM feels about prophecy - two in-world, one by the author himself.
First, from Archmaester Marwyn in AFFC:
["]Gorghan of Old Ghis once wrote that a prophecy is like a treacherous woman. She takes your member in her mouth, and you moan with the pleasure of it and think, how sweet, how fine, how good this is … [sic] and then her teeth snap shut and your moans turn to screams. That is the nature of prophecy, said Gorghan. Prophecy will bite your prick off every time.”
Then Tyrion in ADWD:
“Prophecy is like a half-trained mule," he complained to Jorah Mormont. "It looks as though it might be useful, but the moment you trust in it, it kicks you in the head.["]
Finally GRRM himself from this (archived) interview:
Prophecies are, you know, a double edge sword. You have to handle them very carefully; I mean, they can add depth and interest to a book, but you don’t want to be too literal or too easy ... [sic] In the Wars of the Roses, that you mentioned, there was one Lord who had been prophesied he would die beneath the walls of a certain castle and he was superstitious at that sort of walls, so he never came anyway near that castle. He stayed thousands of leagues away from that particular castle because of the prophecy. However, he was killed in the first battle of St. Paul de Vence and when they found him dead he was outside of an inn whose sign was the picture of that castle! [Laughs] So you know? That’s the way prophecies come true in unexpected ways. The more you try to avoid them, the more you are making them true, and I make a little fun with that.
In sum, I would characterize GRRM’s attitude toward prophecy in ASOIAF as at best suspicious, if not overtly distrustful. Throughout the series, including in the quotes above (and his interview quote as well), GRRM emphasizes the universal inability for anyone, no matter their mystical appearance or ability, to truly understand or accurately interpret any given prophecy. In part, this inability derives from the vague nature of many of GRRM’s prophecies: when the subject is, say, daggers in the dark, or three treasons, or a dragon, the opportunity for interpretation is almost limitless (as indeed the very length and breadth of meta fan analysis demonstrate). At the same time, and not mutually exclusively, the biases of those interpreting these prophecies have throughout the novels led characters astray from other possible conclusions, to their detriment. Daemon “the Younger” Blackfyre was so intent to use a hatchling dragon as the rallying point of a Second Blackfyre Rebellion that he never considered the possibility that the dragon of Whitewalls might be symbolic rather than literal; “dumb as a stump” Victarion is so gratified to hear that Moqorro has seen “the glory that awaits you” in his fires that he does not realize the likelihood of his own fiery end in Moqorro's words; even Maester Aemon, another wise commentator, laments the gendered blinkers at play that "no one ever looked for a girl” when foretelling the coming of the prince that was promised. With such open-ended possibilities, and human bias suffusing all characters’ thoughts and actions (as well as that apocryphal medieval knight the author described), GRRM seems to suggest, through his smart, cynical favorites Tyrion and Marwyn, that there is little to gain from prophecy on the whole.
In turn, I think the novels generally portray unfavorably those characters who set themselves upon a specific interpretation of a given prophecy, even to the point of incurring real-world consequences based on those interpretations. Rhaegar seems to have assumed not only that “the dragon must have three heads” equated to the children of his body, but also that Lyanna was a vessel for at least one of those children - decisions which not only helped ignite a civil war (in which hehimselr was killed), but also put his wife and elder children in ultimately fatal danger. Cersei’s narrow focus on Margaery and Tyrion as her prophetic antagonists has led to gross political missteps, torture, and murder, just to name a few - all while the (IMO) far more likely queen and valonqar never even enter her thoughts. Melisandre has admitted her own limitations in correctly decoding her own prophetic visions, even to the point of acknowledging the influence of her audience in her declarations (as when she named Eastwatch while privately doubting that idea).
However, I do also think that cynicism is not the end point of GRRM’s writing, including on prophecy. It is not prophecy that defines heroes and villains, or prophecy that determines the destiny of a character, but the choices and actions of each character instead. Jon is not a hero because a prophecy said he should be a hero, but because (among other reasons) he is a person who stands up for his friends and cares about his family and tries to rescue those that are suffering. Dany is not a hero because a prophecy said she should be a hero, but because (among other reasons) she is the Breaker of Chains, a passionate opponent of slavery. Those who will save Westeros from the Others are not heroes because a prophecy said so, but because (among other reasons) they will choose the cause of humanity and indeed all living things against the cause of slavery and death. GRRM’s heroes are made, not born, and they’re made from their own choices, especially in the face of seemingly impossible odds.
I’m sorry if this is a silly question, but Kevan said that he holds no lands but that he feeds 200 knights. Wouldn’t that mean that he has a castle of his own? Or does he feed and otherwise provide for them, while Tywin houses them?
It’s not a silly question, but I think it requires placing Kevan in his politico-dynastic context. Remember, after all, that Casterly Rock is almost a city unto itself, not just in terms of size - over 2,000 feet tall and two leagues, or about seven miles, long - but almost certainly in terms of administration and industry as well - not just all the usual features of a Westerosi castle to manage, magnified to colossal scale, but active mining and shipping operations happening within Casterly Rock itself. In keeping with its size, Casterly Rock has played host not only to the immediate families of ruling Lannister lords but also extended Lannister relations and associates. Genna Lannister, her husband Emmon Frey, and their children lived in Casterly Rock (until Emmon’s recent promotion as Lord of Riverrun); Ellyn Reyne infamously “fill[ed] the Rock with artists, mummers, musicians [sic] … and Reynes” during Gerold Lannister’s rule as lord; and of course, Tywin oversaw the move of the entire royal court to Casterly Rock early in Aerys II’s reign. The Rock is, in other words, perfectly capable of hosting not just many different aristocrats, but the households of these aristocrats as well - including, presumably, Kevan’s.
Kevan, of course, would need some means to maintain his own household, but he clearly has income streams, as he explains to Cersei. We unfortunately do not get a specific sense of the source of Kevan’s money - just that he has “certain incomes, and chests of coin set aside” (though the late great Steven Attewell speculated that Kevan might have received anything from direct allowances from his father and/or brother to the right to the profits of various Lannister industries); the point, I think, is that Kevan is (or was) more than comfortable as the head of an aristocratic household, including his knightly retainers.
In other words, I tend to view Casterly Rock as having something vaguely like castles within castles - separate palatial spaces set aside for those various family branches who maintain their own households there at the invitation of the ruling Lannister. In that sense, I wouldn’t phrase it as Tywin housing Kevan’s household knights exactly, but rather as Kevan housing his own knights within the “city” of Casterly Rock, much as Emmon Frey might do with his household knights or the Targaryen courtiers of Aerys II’s day might have. Kevan would, presumably, use his own income to pay them (or hire more), and these men would follow Kevan’s banner and command should he go to war. (Whether or not their daily living expenses are paid by the Casterly Rock expense book, so to speak, or Kevan directly is an intriguing level of detail I doubt we’ll ever learn from GRRM.)
Do you think Tywin was actually serious about having Tyrion and his future children being the Lords of Winterfell? Because I always viewed it as him getting rid of two problems at once and that he couldn't care less about what happened to the North.
Tywin? Not care about the geopolitical future of a huge swath of Westeros being in the control of the Lannisters? Seven forfend!
This is, after all, the same Tywin who vigorously pursued advantageous marital arrangements for various Lannister relations (while, of course, deliberately and hypocritically remaining a widower himself). The marriages of Tyrek to the toddler Lady Hayford and Lancel to Amerei Frey represented direct attempts by Tywin to control open lordships via Lannister nephews. The unrealized betrothals of Cersei to first Willas Tyrell and then Oberyn Martell, and Jaime to Margaery Tyrell, reflected Tywin’s desires both to court and to check the power of the Tyrell faction (as did the short-lived marriage of Joffrey and Margaery herself). The engagement of Daven Lannister to a daughter of House Frey (along with Joy Hill to a Frey bastard) helped to seal the arrangement between the Baratheon-Lannister regime and the Freys against the latter’s late overlord, Robb Stark. So Tywin was not one to throw away his Lannister relatives, nuptially speaking, without some sort of advantage to House Lannister.
With respect to the Tyrion-Sansa marriage specifically, Tywin emphasized its importance on multiple occasions. When first revealing the news of the proposed Willas-Sansa match to his children (and Kevan), Tywin bluntly stated that he would “not have the rose and the direwolf in bed together” - an acknowledgment of Sansa’s value as a marital pawn, to allow the Tyrells geopolitical options beyond strict Lannister allegiance. Likewise, when Tywin discusses the matter with Tyrion (and, again, Kevan), Tywin is emphatic that “[o]ur alliances in the south may be as solid as Casterly Rock, but there remains the north to win, and the key to the north is Sansa Stark” and that Sansa “must marry a Lannister, and soon”. Even Kevan advocates for the marriage, informing Tyrion that “[t]he man who weds Sansa Stark can claim Winterfell in her name”. Tywin in fact then doubles down on the dynastic importance of Sansa, explaining that “[w]hen you bring Eddard Stark’s grandson home to claim his birthright, lords and little folk alike will rise as one to place him on the high seat of his ancestors” - a point Tywin believes he can confidently make, given the recent news Tywn shares of the Robb-Jeyne Westerling marriage.
Even after Tyrion marries Sansa, Tywin reminds his son of the politico-dynastic importance of the marriage. In discussing the fallout of the Red Wedding with Tyrion, Tywin informs him that after the Lannisters “allow the Dreadfort to fight the ironborn for a few years” to “bring Stark’s other bannermen to heel”, the Lannisters will sweep in with spring, when “all of them should be at the end of their strength and ready to bend the knee”. Lest Tyrion miss the point, Tywin is explicit: “The north will go to your son by Sansa Stark … [sic] if you ever find enough manhood in you to breed one”. Tywin, well aware that the girl offered to Roose was not the real Arya (hence his coy allusion to Renly’s “ghost” at the Blackwater), has already set that portion of his plan in motion; by encouraging Tyrion to father a son on Sansa, Tywin is certainly hoping to set up this grandson well enough to be puppeteered as a good little Lannister Lord of Winterfell come the following spring.
Tywin loathed Tyrion, to be absolutely clear. Tywin consistently abused and humiliated Tyrion throughout the latter’s life. However, I do think Tywin was willing, in certain circumstances, to employ Tyrion as a useful agent of Lannister interests - and with no other Lannister options around and able, Tywin settled on Tyrion to secure Sansa’s claim to the North.
Could you elaborate on the reasons Baelor chose to side with Duncan in the novella? I pretty much think he joined his side because it was the right thing to do but I'm seeing so much discourse about his position that I'm wondering if I'm missing something...🤔
To be clear, I only write about the books (and other written semi-canon information) and not about any shows; please do not bring the shows into this Tumblr.
Anyway, I think Baelor's own explanation, immediately before the trial, is a good place to start:
"Brother, have you taken leave of your senses?" He pointed a mailed finger at Dunk. "This man attacked my son."
"This man protected the weak, as every true knight must," replied Prince Baelor. "Let the gods determine if he was right or wrong." He gave a tug on his reins, turned Valarr's huge black destrier, and trotted to the south end of the field.
I do think that Baelor really believed these words. After all, Yandel would go on to describe Baelor as "the heart of chivalry" and "all that could be wished in a knight, lord, or heir". We also see in "The Hedge Knight" that Baelor took his own performance of knighthood very seriously: Dunk repeats Yandel's later assessment (as passed on by Ser Arlan) and recalls that Baelor took no ransom from his defeated master. Baelor had also gained a reputation for justice and bravery: Yandel would also call Baelor "as open-handed and just as his father", and Dunk refers to Ser Arlan's oft-repeated phrase "[a]s brave as Baelor Breakspear". For a man who believed in the true performance of knighthood, and who saw both that Dunk had lived the vows of knighthood and would lose by default without a final champion, it may have seemed only right to join Dunk's cause.
Reading between the lines, I think Baelor was frustrated by his nephew Aerion's cruelties but had been unable, and to some extent unwilling, to punish him too severely or publicly. It was Baelor who counseled Lord Ashford to give Aerion's horse to Ser Humfrey and the declare the latter the winner - a punishment strictly within the bounds of chivalric performance, and one which did not remove either Aerion himself or his capacity for sadism. Even if Baelor expressed sympathy for Dunk's actions against Aerion to save Tanselle, Baelor wearily admitted that "I am a prince of the realm, not a hedge knight" - an impassable difference in rank leading to an inherently unfair result weighted in Aerion's favor. Baelor admitted to Dunk that while his, Baelor's, word, as heir to the Iron Throne and Hand of the King, would carry weight among Dunk's judges, Baelor could only say so much against the paternal fury of his own brother. As the chief Targaryen representative at Ashford, and a considerate brother to Maekar, Baelor had to walk a fine line - mindful of the reputation of his dynasty, especially after a devastating civil war, but aware that one of that dynasty's (grand)sons had severely violated the code of knighthood Baelor himself had taken to heart.
So when Aerion demanded a trial of seven, Baelor had, I think, received the justification he needed to put Aerion in his place, literally and judicially. As Baelor himself explained to Dunk, the trial of seven was originally designed so that "the gods, being thus honored [i.e. by the inclusion of seven champions], would be more like to take a hand and see that a just result was achieved". Aerion had turned the judgment of the accusation over to the Seven themselves; if Baelor entered on Dunk's side, he could be said to be acting as he believed the gods intended him to act, an agent of heaven rather than a mere human magistrate. Here was the opportunity Baelor had not had when Dunk beat and kicked Aerion during the puppet show disaster - to bring lance and steel against his nephew in a legally justified manner, teaching Aerion how to respect the expression of knighthood if he was going to exploit its privileges.
Of course, the other part of this equation is Baelor's, I think, genuine affection for Dunk. In their very first meeting, Baelor had gently encouraged Dunk's appeal to participate, offering his personal memory of Ser Arlan and a simple quiz to bypass the classist barriers to his entry. It was Baelor who had all but instructed Dunk on the merits of asking for a trial by combat - his right as a knight (or assumed to be, anyway), and a sensible option without the spiteful twist insisted on by Aerion. As one who clearly agreed with the spirit behind Dunk's defense of Tanselle, if not the exact expression, Baelor was not going to give up his opportunity to do what he regretted to Dunk he had not been able to before, especially when he might have (correctly) guessed Dunk would be without six champions of his own.
Why do you think Margaery influenced Tommen to name one of his dromonds "Lord Renly"? Was it to continue the depiction of Renly as someone who posthumously repented of his ambition and supported the Lannisters, or to please Loras?
These things aren't mutually exclusive. It's true, the Tyrells need to rehabilitate Renly to a degree in order to validate their own choices at the start of the war. They really have to do that - they need a narrative to support their own actions. Something explainable.
And if that means Loras can express a degree of pride in his friendship with Renly (obviously not the romantic relationship, the closet's not going anywhere), rather than push Renly down the memory hole entirely, something that's likelier to help Loras deal with his grief better than just suppressing everything? If it means Loras can at least speak of Renly kindly in public? So much the better.
The Tyrells generally aren't cruel when there's a kinder way to get what they want, and they look after their own.
In addition to these (correct) points, I think the choice of name also recognizes the value of specifically identifying Tommen’s late “uncle” in his pre-war style. “Lord Renly” was the title Renly used during Robert’s reign, a reflection of his standing as Lord of Storm’s End and a senior member of the Westerosi aristocracy. If, as Tywin had bluntly reminded the shall council in ASOS, there had never been a “King Renly” - only “traitors and pretenders” - then this choice of ship name was underlining the retroactive continuity applied to the (officially) Baratheon royal dynasty - one “son” of the late Baratheon king honoring one late lordly Baratheon uncle. (Notably absent, of course, is that other troublesome Baratheon uncle, who
More immediately, too, the name of “Lord Renly” carries the idea of almost miraculous salvation for the Baratheon-Lannister regime. The image of the late Lord Renly in his famous green armor, leading the vanguard against Stannis’ forces, becomes both a wondrous talking point for veterans and onlookers and the subject of sings; Margaery herself weeps at her wedding to Joffrey to hear Hamish the Harper perform “Lord Renly’s Ride”. By naming the new ship “Lord Renly”, the propaganda victory of reappropriating Renly for the benefit of the Baratheon-Lannister regime could be translated into future military action: just as the late Lord Renly had, in Hamish’s dramatic retelling, “repent[ed] his attempt to usurp his nephew's crown … and crossed back to the land of the living to defend the realm against his brother”, so Lord Renly the ship would continue to defend Renly’s other “nephew” on the seas.
Hi, I'm curious. Do you think Ned and Catelyn had ever planned any sort of marriage for Theon? When his father died, was he supposed to take back a Northern bride (albeit not a Stark)?
No. I've spoken about this topic in the context of Sansa and Arya specifically, but even outside of the immediate Stark family, I don't think Ned and Catelyn would have considered it appropriate, must less advantageous, to marry off Theon. While Ned raised Theon with basic Westeros aristocratic courtesy, Theon was a hostage rather than a simple ward. Whatever Ned thought he might be able to do for or on behalf of Theon in a crisis, Ned was officially responsible for executing Theon if Balon rebelled again. It would in turn be quite an awkward situation if Ned and Catelyn encouraged a union between Theon and, say, the daughter of a Winterfell vassal, then learned of a new rebellion undertaken by Balon and had to face beheading the bridegroom (and their vassal's new son-in-law). Indeed, given Catelyn's commentary on Balon's later invasion of the North - that "Lord Balon might still have chanced war", since "[t]he last time he reached for a crown, it cost him two sons" and Balon "might have thought it a bargain to lose only one" in his next rebellion - Ned and Catelyn may even have suspected that marrying Theon to a vassal's daughter would have emboldened Balon to rebel again, or at least not worked to stay Balon's hand.
Now, what Theon's future would have looked like if Balon had died a natural (or "natural" *cough* Euon *cough*) died is far less clear. I tend to think that the Baratheon regime and Ned assumed that Theon would assume the lordship of the Iron Islands on his father's death, and that at that time he would simply be sent home. Whether or not Ned and Catelyn would have subsequently encouraged Theon to find or assisted Theon in finding a northern (or even Riverlands) bride at that moment is possible, but I think perhaps not a requirement; Theon's long stay at Winterfell may have been presumed enough to ensure that he would not follow his father in rebellion. (It's worth pointing out anyway, though, that Balon was always planning to rebel and invade the North, making this speculation somewhat moot.)
