Characters of ASOIAF and their historical counterparts

[SeanF]

Does anyone see any similarity between Cersei and Queen Isabella? I know not much about her but I thought her portrayal in The Iron King had a lot of Cersei vibes. Or perhaps she's more like Margaery with the possibly gay husband.

Yes (I suggested it upthread). Isabella was a noted beauty, whose relationship with her husband steadily deteriorated. She may eventually have had him murdered (although the story of death by red hot poker is almost certainly a fabrication). She then ruled as Queen Regent, before being overthrown (by her son, rather than the Church). She seems to have been an exceptionally strong-willed and ruthless woman, but proved incompetent in power.

One revealing anecdote about her is that she and her ladies-in-waiting enjoyed wine and snacks while watching her enemy, Hugh De Spenser the Younger, being hanged, cut down while still living, castrated, and eviscerated. Not even Cersei has matched that yet.

[the conquering bastard 25]

Yes (I suggested it upthread). Isabella was a noted beauty, whose relationship with her husband steadily deteriorated. She may eventually have had him murdered (although the story of death by red hot poker is almost certainly a fabrication). She then ruled as Queen Regent, before being overthrown (by her son, rather than the Church). She seems to have been an exceptionally strong-willed and ruthless woman, but proved incompetent in power.

One revealing anecdote about her is that she and her ladies-in-waiting enjoyed wine and snacks while watching her enemy, Hugh De Spenser the Younger, being hanged, cut down while still living, castrated, and eviscerated. Not even Cersei has matched that yet.

While I agree with most of this statement, she politically smart enough to overthrow her husband an anointed king. Her problem she got greedy and the lords started to resent her lover and all the rewards heaped on him

[SeanF]

While I agree with most of this statement, she politically smart enough to overthrow her husband an anointed king. Her problem she got greedy and the lords started to resent her lover and all the rewards heaped on him

For a time, she was the richest woman (and second richest person after John of Gaunt) in medieval England. She accumulated lands worth £13,000 p,a, as Queen (the total royal income in peacetime was c.£40,000 p.a.). After her overthrow, her son allowed her an income of £3,000 p.a. (still enormous by contemporary standards). She enjoyed a very comfortable retirement, but was never allowed anywhere near power again.

The popular story is that her son imprisoned her in Castle Rising and she went mad, but there's no truth in that.

Her life story ended a good deal better than Cersei's is likely to (and probably a good deal better than she deserved).

[the conquering bastard 25]

For a time, she was the richest woman (and second richest person after John of Gaunt) in medieval England. She accumulated lands worth £13,000 p,a, as Queen (the total royal income in peacetime was c.£40,000 p.a.). After her overthrow, her son allowed her an income of £3,000 p.a. (still enormous by contemporary standards). She enjoyed a very comfortable retirement, but was never allowed anywhere near power again.

The popular story is that her son imprisoned her in Castle Rising and she went mad, but there's no truth in that.

Her life story ended a good deal better than Cersei's is likely to (and probably a good deal better than she deserved).

I learned something today, I did not know she was the second riches woman or person after Gaunt as he goes down as the tenth in history and richest in England.

Thank you. I love English history but I'm more familiar with War of the Roses and Tudor period as per my argument with those that shan't be named

[Keyser94]

The Conquering Bastard 25 - Let me guess, you have selective reading and dont notice the part were I HATE PHILLIPA GREGORY.

Now if you would continue with your bullshit and continue to denied that Henry VII claim is very shaky, his bloodline is questionable, and continue be a Tudor loverboy, you would realize that MOST OF THE SCIENTIST AGREE THAT HENRY VII CLAIM IS PURE BULLSHIT, HELL, EVEN ELIZABETH OF YORK HAVE MUCH BETTER CLAIM THAN HIM.

[Reginald blackfield]

Garth Greenhand-Niall of the nine hostages, both had many children and many Irish/Reachmen families claim descent from him, also the Sigil of house Gardener.

Daenerys/Aegon-James VIII Stuart, the Jacobite pretender.

Stannis-Oliver Cromwell, very serious, somewhat miserable in tone, also belongs to an obscure religion and is intolerant of all others.

Renly- Charles I.

Robar Royce-King Arthur (the real one).

Osgood Shett-Vortigern.

Khal Mengo-Genghis Khan.

Mance Rayder-Wolfe Tone, they were Nights watchmen/Protestants, who led Wildlings/Irish Catholics against their own kind.

[the conquering bastard 25]

The Conquering Bastard 25 - Let me guess, you have selective reading and dont notice the part were I HATE PHILLIPA GREGORY.

Now if you would continue with your bullshit and continue to denied that Henry VII claim is very shaky, his bloodline is questionable, and continue be a Tudor loverboy, you would realize that MOST OF THE SCIENTIST AGREE THAT HENRY VII CLAIM IS PURE BULLSHIT, HELL, EVEN ELIZABETH OF YORK HAVE MUCH BETTER CLAIM THAN HIM.

My oh my, someone has their panties, boxer or briefs in a twist.

The politics surrounding Hernys claim was shaky yes, but not the actual tie or bloodlink that doesn't change the fact he was still the last male Lancaster.

You may hate Phillipa but some of the things she wrote aren't that far off base. Henry Tudor had the most to gain with the Princes in the Tower, not Richard. Having already removed a king from the threat Hus nephews weren't that big of a deal. However,Beaufort had been scheming and plotting for Tudors ascension since before Henry VI lost his throne the first time. Oh no I got that you don't like her but...well, yeah whatever.

I'm done, this is only a great passion of mine, thinking of teaching this, have only been studying Tudor England for bout ten yrs now but what do I know right. Only several other ppl have agreed with me or pointed out that Henry Tudor had royal blood coming out of the ass, we all must be wrong dumb and crazy,

@Apple and James Arryn we need a ruling bout Henry Tudor and his claim to the English throne.

[James Arryn]

My oh my, someone has their panties, boxer or briefs in a twist.

The politics surrounding Hernys claim was shaky yes, but not the actual tie or bloodlink that doesn't change the fact he was still the last male Lancaster.

You may hate Phillipa but some of the things she wrote aren't that far off base. Henry Tudor had the most to gain with the Princes in the Tower, not Richard. Having already removed a king from the threat Hus nephews weren't that big of a deal. However,Beaufort had been scheming and plotting for Tudors ascension since before Henry VI lost his throne the first time. Oh no I got that you don't like her but...well, yeah whatever.

I'm done, this is only a great passion of mine, thinking of teaching this, have only been studying Tudor England for bout ten yrs now but what do I know right. Only several other ppl have agreed with me or pointed out that Henry Tudor had royal blood coming out of the ass, we all must be wrong dumb and crazy,

@Apple and James Arryn we need a ruling bout Henry Tudor and his claim to the English throne.

Short answer: I agree with Henry VII. He always stated he won the throne at Bosworth. He put a lot of time into polishing the links he had because that's politic, but he was always careful about over egging the pudding.

In reality, if you dismiss the Yorkist claimants still alive after Bosworth (who had better claims than the Tudor) and are concerned with strict adherence, you probably have to go to the Continent to find the next in line. All through female lines at some point, like Henry, but all through legitimate female lines.

He had a very very thin and tenuous claim that would not even be considered in normal circumstances, but he was the last standing male identified with the Lancastrian line in any way, and more importantly he held that role for so long that he acquired a kind of legitimacy and credibility that a clinical assessment would not favour. His children's claims all superseded his by a fairly large margin assuming archers aren't in it.

[Bluebeard]

Daemon Targaryen reminds me a lot of Cesare Borgia.

[Keyser94]

And if someone ever bother to pay atention what I was writing, I say that Henry VII had won the throne by the right of conquest, never the less, his claim is very, very, very questionable.

I wouldnt put by "panties" in a twist, if wasnt for the ideocy of The Conquering Bastard 25 and troubles of reading.

[the conquering bastard 25]

Short answer: I agree with Henry VII. He always stated he won the throne at Bosworth. He put a lot of time into polishing the links he had because that's politic, but he was always careful about over egging the pudding.

In reality, if you dismiss the Yorkist claimants still alive after Bosworth (who had better claims than the Tudor) and are concerned with strict adherence, you probably have to go to the Continent to find the next in line. All through female lines at some point, like Henry, but all through legitimate female lines.

He had a very very thin and tenuous claim that would not even be considered in normal circumstances, but he was the last standing male identified with the Lancastrian line in any way, and more importantly he held that role for so long that he acquired a kind of legitimacy and credibility that a clinical assessment would not favour. His children's claims all superseded his by a fairly large margin assuming archers aren't in it.

You agree with Henry Tudor, LOL.

I'm arguing its because of politics that weakened his claim.

His father being a possible bastard as Katherine and Owen wed in a secret wedding which was later over turned under Henry VI and he was formally recognized as legitimate didn't he also go to parliment and have them state as such.

Yet its partly politics that Katherine's marriage was called into question as many didn't want her on the council. Also can't remember if this was Katherine Valois or Margaret Tudor but the kings will granted her the power to rule with the council so long as she was single. Hence the secret wedding.

Henrys Lancaster relative and relation to the king John Gaunt as the third son. The Beaufort's claim was barred through paten letters and pope, remove the paten letters but Henry and Richard both still backing them with the pope informal recognition. Thus there would no long have been barred on the grounds of being a bastard branch. Againn John and Catherine Syft did marry, the problem the children were born before they were married.

So a case could be made if these two different very important marriage in his family tree hadn't been called into questioned would have bolstered his claim as now he's not politically back peddling and such that was my whole point, its the legality and who was in power that deemed this claim or branch inherits or disinherit....also a matter of perspective because be casting doubt or supporting this one or that one lends credence or takes away.

That was my point the Tudor claim if taken in front of a court and with the right lawyer and such could be spun any way it need be, which is were public perception and the Tudor family being rather great PR. Henry VIII at the height of his worst still garner and support of the ppl, same with Elizabeth, Mary not so much but in part because Elizabeth came after. The history is written by the victor then when looking at what's happened in history having and understanding of motivation and who's perspective is being told.

I have read and seen evidence that part of the reason Henry was so keen on a Spanish match was because the royal house has Lancaster blood from Johns first two wives, Isabella's Vatican connection via Borgia. Served two purposes he's getting in good with a new superpower, connections in the Vatican can help clean up any predating bulls past, while also consolidating his power against France because Salic law didn't apply in England and the English share several common ancestors the most common is Philip the fair and Charles VI the mad.

[Jankmaster]

For a possible Japanese parallel, is Doran Martell Tokugawa Ieasyu? Both have reputations as patient strategists, some have said they are just sitting on their hands, but really they are waiting for things to fall into place?

[Ocelot]

Tywin reminds me a lot of Edward I of England (Longshanks); intelligent but utterly ruthless leader; loved his wife; fought w/ Northern neighbors; disappointed in kids; daughter-in-law Isabella of France kind of like Cersei.

[Ocelot]

Oh, and Edward I succeeded a weak father (Henry III).

[Keyser94]

Ocelot - Bravo, you posted the same thing that I did two thread ago, you really a good reader.

[Seaworth'sShipmate]

Ned Stark strongly reminds me of Thomas More.

Tywin sort of is like King Edward "Long Shanks" both in appearance and personality.

Khal Drogo= Genghis Khan.

Lollys Stokeworth= Cleopatra

[Keyser94]

Tywin is much more than only appareance and personality, you dont remember that Edward I was title THE HAMMER OF THE SCOTS? And nice to join Ocelot in something that I posted two threads ago.

[Ocelot]

ASOIAF character parallels, in chronological order:

Maegor I: Henry VIII if he hadn't gotten fat--when he was young, Henry was very handsome & athletic. Need for an heir led to multiple marriages (6 in both cases) which led to conflict w/ the Church/Faith. Also an utterly ruthless sonofabitch.

Jaehaerys I & Alysanne: Victoria & Albert w/ the genders flipped: Jaehaerys the beloved sovereign w/ longest reign who brought peace & prosperity after tumultuous times; Alysanne the reformer, esp. regarding sexual morals, although unlike Albert she didn't die young; loving marriage w/ 9 kids.

Daeron I: Henry V; for additional kingdom (Henry wanted to be king of France as well as England) led to brilliant conquests that cost many lives & didn't last

Baelor I: Henry VI, Henry V's son & successor, gentle, pious, prudish & insane

Selyse: "Bloody" Mary I; tries to impose different religion by burning ppl; loveless marriage; great difficulty producing an heir

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The Conquering Bastard 25 - Let me guess, you have selective reading and dont notice the part were I HATE PHILLIPA GREGORY.

Now if you would continue with your bullshit and continue to denied that Henry VII claim is very shaky, his bloodline is questionable, and continue be a Tudor loverboy, you would realize that MOST OF THE SCIENTIST AGREE THAT HENRY VII CLAIM IS PURE BULLSHIT, HELL, EVEN ELIZABETH OF YORK HAVE MUCH BETTER CLAIM THAN HIM.

Henry VII was king of England because he defeated Richard III at Bosworth and claimed the throne by conquest. That is all there is to it. He married Elizabeth to bring peace and to help validate his claim, but very much ruled in his own right and even received the church's validation saying as such (i.e. if Elizabeth died before he did, he would remain the monarch and any children he had with another wife would be claimants through him).

@Apple and James Arryn we need a ruling bout Henry Tudor and his claim to the English throne.

See above.

[Keyser94]

Tell me something that I already dont known.