#thenightsmellsofjasmine

For the record, I don’t only despise Rhaenys-Corlys and Rhaegar-Lyanna because of their ages, though that is obviously a main factor. I also despise them because of their actions (Maron’s, or lack thereof, are discussed below) and the power imbalance. Rhaenys was granddaughter of a king, yes, but Corlys had literally a generation’s worth of experience on her and since their marriage was a ~love match~ yet Rhaenys was married at just 16, that means he groomed, and lusted after, a CHILD. The imbalance, minus the grooming part, is even more pronounced in Rhaegar-Lyanna, but I’ve gone over that at length before.

Now, for the rest ...

One:

Never once are we told Maron’s age. Mariah was likely born in 153 or 154, given that she and Daeron were decreed to wed “when they were of age,” which is 16. I personally peg Maron being born in 165-167, which would put him at 21-23 at the time of his marriage, 5-7 years older than Daenerys. My supposition is that there was at least one child born between Mariah and Maron who died in infancy or childhood.

Why? Because there’s no reason for the Prince of Dorne and his consort to agree to marry off one of their two children away so early. There’s no reason for them to make the gamble that Maron would not only survive childhood but have a fruitful marriage to a woman yet to be decided. Why is it not much more probable that they had at least one other child besides Mariah and Maron, thus being more confident that her being married to the Targaryens wouldn’t be detrimental to the Dornish succession?

We are told Mariah and Daeron were children when their father made the treaty with Baelor, which allows for a wide range of ages, up to the age of 16. Cases in point: Ned refers to Lyanna as a “child-woman” at 16, Kevan and Tyrion refer to Jeyne Westerling as a child at 16, Yandel and others in Casterly Rock refer to 10-year-old Tywin as a child, etc.

Because “of age” in this series is said to be 16, anything younger than that would be considered a child. In other words, it would be perfectly reasonable for the treaty to have been done when Maron was an infant, Mariah around 13, and their other sibling(s) somewhere in the middle. And no, a 13-year (or more) age gap between eldest and youngest siblings isn’t remotely unusual. For example:

Rhaena Targaryen and Jocelyn Baratheon: 31 years apart

Jon Waters and Joy Penrose: Anywhere from 11-29 years apart

Rhaegar and Daenerys Targaryen: 25 years apart

Daeron II and Daenerys Targaryen: 19 years apart

Robert and Renly Baratheon: 15 years apart

Robb and Rickon Stark: 12 years apart

(This is just including the same women through all pregnancies, of course. If you include a man having kids by multiple women, such as Walder Frey, Leyton Hightower, or Aegon IV, the divide gets even larger)

Two:

Daenerys is said to have been two years younger than Daemon Blackfyre, who was born in 170, putting her born at 172. Her wedding being in 188 (and thus her being 16) is supported by two remarks in the world book. One, it says “how is it that eight years passed [since the wedding] before the rebellion loomed?” The rebellion didn’t occur until 196, and 196-8=188. Daenerys was 16.

Secondly, the world book says Maron agreed to be betrothed when Daenerys was of age and that they were wed the following year. So if we take the wording literally, that means that Daenerys actually could have been born at least a year earlier, and thus was 17 at her wedding (two years of negotiation + one year until Daenerys was of age + one more year until the wedding). Most likely the wording is just awkward and they were actually betrothed and married in the same year. Nevertheless, it’s possible that there’s a math error there and Daenerys was meant to only be one year younger than Daemon (and/or Daemon was meant to be born in 171, not 170), making her 17 at her wedding.

Either way, she was NOT 15.

Three:

Maron barely knew Daenerys, and their marriage was arranged. It was nothing like the Corlys-Rhaenys situation.

Four:

He treated her astronomically well, to the point of building her a PALACE. He never cheated on her so far as we’re aware, and they clearly had a lovely marriage, considering they had multiple children, she adored the Water Gardens wherein she started the tradition of children of all classes coming together, a portrait was commissioned of her that still hangs there today, she was “never aught but a loyal wife,” etc.

Five:

Maron is clearly contrasted with Daemon Blackfyre: Whereas Maron never once insulted Daenerys, Daemon had no qualms about not only egregiously insulting his wife, but Daenerys herself. And despite claiming to love Daenerys, he clearly wasn’t all that broken up about her marriage, considering he had at least NINE children with his wife over twelve years (that’s almost a kid a year!). Too, he held no regard for established rule of law — he wanted to marry Daenerys while still married to Rohanne, despite polygamy being outlawed and its last practicer being Maegor the Cruel. For Daenerys’s part specifically, she “left no trace” of anything regarding Daemon, implying she was more than content in her own marriage.

In conclusion:

Oh, trust me, it’s not at all a stupid question. @racefortheironthrone believes it’s a reference to the sigil of House Gardener, the former Kings of the Reach:

That is, the land is the “reach” of the hand of House Gardener.

Another option may be the geographical term “reach”, referring to the length of the River Mander and the lands surrounding it. See also definition #25 here, “a continuous stretch or extent of something”.

And a final possibility may be that it’s a Common Tongue-sounding word that’s actually a derivation of an older language (see also Dorne, because what does “Dorne” mean? we don’t know) – and that GRRM was making a reference to the German “Reich”, which means “realm”.

Not to spund rude, but Brynden's hair is white (he's albino) not Targaryen platinum

Anonymous said to gotgifsandmusings:

3 words: Albus Severus Potter. Named after a manipulative asshole who was willing to groom and leave to die a child, and a wizard nazi who liked that one girl, but not enough to not join the wizard nazis that literally wanted her dead.

^the above is definitely a large part of it. I also think it lacks imagination when people end up with the people they dated in school like that. There was a the forced hetero aspect to all of it, and it was just such a neat little fanficy bow.

What kills me is that thematically it was superfluous. “All was well” is fine I guess, but Harry’s line “I’ve had enough trouble for a lifetime” already captured that spirit. 

thenightsmellsofjasmine

replied to your post

“samwpmarleau replied to your post “thenightsmellsofjasmine replied...”

This is... bad. The one good thing about Rogar and Alyssa's story - Rhaena calling him out on his bullshit - is supposed to reflect bad on Rhaena, and not Rogar?

The icing on the cake is that Rhaena’s presence in this scene is solely so that she could deliver that denunciation of Rogar’s actions. If that denunciation wasn’t actually a denunciation, why is she even there? To be wrong? By saying that Rhaena was wrong and unfair in her denunciation, not only does this scene lose its point, it makes the entire purpose of the scene be to frame Rhaena’s wrongness. That Rhaena was too hurt that she unfairly blamed Rogar. So, the point is basically that Rhaena was too emotional to rationally judge the situation and blamed the most convenient target in sight, which sounds really similar to when Alysanne blamed Jaehaerys and Rodrik Arryn for Daella’s death and was dismissed by Gyldayn on account of her grief in an instance where a woman’s judgement was also deemed irrational and unfair because of her emotions. But having emotions doesn’t inherently undermine the validity of your judgement or opinions no matter how hard men try to pretend otherwise, and I don’t appreciate being presented with Elio’s reading that leans into this idea.

By claiming that Rhaena was the one in the wrong in this scene, Elio is also affirming and validating Rogar Baratheon’s view that she was crazy to blame him for Alyssa’s death. Is this really what he wants us to take away from this scene? Is Elio honestly arguing that we’re supposed to take Rogar’s side in this? The man who has been thoroughly established as a villainous misogynistic figure who had a pattern of cruelly using women’s bodies (hello Golden Wedding) and who clearly only cared about his “son” and very little about Alyssa that Jaehaerys literally had to wrestle him into the room (and of course, when said son turned out to be a girl, he was quick to pass off her responsibility onto other people, first his sisters-in-law then Jaehaerys and Alysanne). The man who reacted to his wife’s death by throwing a feast in the honor of his daughter’s birth. The man who had previously humiliated Alyssa and demonstrated how little he thought of her. This is the man whose side Elio wants us to take.

And I have to say that it’s really rich for him to argue that Rhaena dismissed Alyssa’s agency considering that Alyssa’s voice was removed by the narrative itself way back when she fought with Rogar in the small council. We don’t know what Alyssa thought about her pregnancy because the narrative didn’t deign to let us know. But sure, let’s pretend that it was Rhaena who didn’t consider Alyssa’s agency.

Elio’s stance is clearly unsupported by the narrative though. He can tell me all he wants that Rhaena was supposed to be wrong but I’m certainly not giving his words more credence than the actual text that frames Rhaena’s condemnation as both correct and earned. As I’ve said, this is one of few bright spots in the writing of women in this book. When I weigh Elio’s opinion against how the text set up Alyssa’s demise, against how it is reported that Alyssa never recovered from Boremund’s birth, against Septon Barth’s concern over Alyssa’s ability to carry another child to term, against Rogar’s careless dismissal of such concerns and his behavior when Jaehaerys and Alysanne arrived and even after Alyssa died, against how this scene was set up with Rhaena specifically present to call Rogar out and Rogar trying shakily to laugh it off, it’s abundantly clear that the text is on Rhaena’s side, not Rogar’s. Elio can claim otherwise all he wants but unless he wants to argue that all this set up was for shits and giggles and was meant to have absolutely no payoff, I don’t know how to take him seriously. I am not going to take him seriously. The text is my starting and ending point, and I have heard plenty from Elio Garcia to disregard his oh so enlightening opinions about how something should be read. 

But the thing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth (as if everything else he said doesn’t make me want to break something) is that it makes my opinion of the writing of this book take a further hit, which is saying something considering I wrote thousands of words on how problematic the writing of Fire and Blood is. But that scene with Rhaena was something I praised and gave GRRM credit for. It was one example where I could see the rousing challenge to in-universe misogyny that Martin delivers in the main novels in a book severely lacking in this regard. But now Elio is telling me that the critique in this scene was accidental and wasn’t even meant as a critique but as yet another instance on the long list of problems this book has. I don’t know how involved Elio was in the production of this book but he is a known collaborator of Martin and someone who has spoken on Martin’s behalf many a time so he is not presenting his opinion as simply a fan of the product but as someone who is involved in the process of creating this world. So now I don’t know if this scene was actually intended as a pushback against the patriarchal power that Westerosi men have over their wives’ bodies and their careless and cruel use of female bodies, or if this is another instance of Martin not realizing how he actually wrote comes across. I do not know what to do with that.

Edit: @nobodysuspectsthebutterfly said:

Elio didn't write F&B, this is purely his own interpretation. He probably did read GRRM's earlier notes prior to publication, though, as much was excerpted for TWOIAF. Though I recall reading the J&A stuff is mostly new, it differs from TWOIAF in some details, among other things.

@corseque​ replied to your post “This might sound stupid, and I am not a native english speaker... but...”

I assumed it was the geographical term, I’d heard that before asoiaf so maybe germ did too

Could be!

@crocordile​ replied:

the notoriously horrible PT BR translation uses "campina" for "reach", meaning 'the fields' , 'meadow' or something like that

@reticent-shade replied:

@crocordile​ Honestly, the quality itself is not that horrid, considering how unusual the vocabulary in ASoIaF can be; "Campina" is a kind of word that one would link to earth and flora, something that quite suits the Reach's geography and overall aesthetics (although it's also kinda ironic, since a "campina" is actually a very poor type of soil, and the Reach is the most fertile area of Westeros).

@crocordile​ replied:

@reticent-shade I didn't mean to say it was a bad translation in this particular case; I'm not sure what they were going for, but the image of a rural, meadow-like region suits the Reach very well

@mrsjadecurtiss​ replied:

Apparently the german name is "Die Weite", which means something like "the expanse" or "a very expansive place"

(the German translation was also sent in by an anon)

@hersked​ replied:

In spanish it's called "El Dominio" (The dominion)

@nessa511 replied:

In French it's "le bief" which can be translated as canal or river bed.

@ashaqueens​ said:

So I had to look up what my country's translation for "the Reach" was (because I've only read the English originals) and apparently our Swedish translator sucks because it's called "the Wastelands"/"desolate lands". To be fair it's quite hard to translate per verbatim but I'm certain that another more accurate word could have been used, lmao.

Interesting, and yeah.

So to sum up (plus some of my own research, for languages listed here or if their wiki had a description of Westeros):

“A continuous stretch of land” (geographic term “reach”): German (Die Weite - “the Wide / Expanse”); French (Le Bief - “the Reach”); Dutch (Het Bereik - “The Range”); Russian (Простора - “The Expanse”); Turkish (Menzil - “The Range”)

Geographical land types: Portugese (A Campina - “The Meadow”); Swedish (Ödemarkern - “the wilderness / wasteland”); Italian (L'Altopiano - “The Plateau”); Chinese (河湾王國 - “River Bay Kingdom”); Czech (Rovina - “The Plain”); Hungarian (A Síkvidék - “The Plains”); Japanese (河間 平野 - “Kawama Plains”); Arabic (المرعى - “The Pasture”)

It’s the breadbasket of Westeros: Hebrew (ארצות השפע - “Lands of Plenty”)

The translator thought “Reach=Reich”: Spanish (El Dominio - “the Dominion”)

Transliteration: Korean (리치 - “Richi”)

Shiera’s mother, Serenei of Lys, was the last daughter of an ancient Valyrian house – she had no other family. And she died in childbirth, leaving Shiera an orphan. Aegon certainly wasn’t going to do anything for his bastard infant daughter (can’t fuck her, can’t use her against Daeron), so it’s no wonder that Daeron stepped up and took responsibility for his half-sister, probably raising her with his family for the few years before Aegon’s death and afterwards. (Though it’s also possible she was raised in a motherhouse or with some other family paid to raise her, but as GRRM doesn’t mention that idea anywhere, it’s more likely that Shiera was raised in the court.) Daeron wasn’t doing it out of any political rationale, but because he was nice (he got “the Good” as his title for a reason) and didn’t want to abandon a baby girl with no other family.