butterweedstrover

Ehh, they cut some heart warming scenes but not all. When he chooses Laena over the baby that was a sign of his love. When he helped Viserys onto the throne, that was a sign of his love. His evil scenes are all written off as badass or “lol toxic” because that is how they are framed. And he is (minus the choking scene) dedicated to harming the bad guys in the narrative (Cole, Otto, Vaemond) and protect the good (Rhaenyra, Laenor, and Viserys). If this wasn’t intended by the showrunners, okay. But that would be a sign of major incompetence.

No offense, but this topic is outside your field of comprehension. You see progressive politics as anything in opposition to authoritarian rule when many so called ‘democratic’ movements are more socially conservative. Like Savonarola, John Knox, Morsi (the president of Egypt after the revolution). Compare Morsi who had support with the Muslim brotherhood to Mubarak. Secular dictators are different from royalty due to how they claim authority, but Royalty like the Saudis literally arrested many of the Imams who preached against MBS. Kashogi (the man who died) was a supporter of the MB and against the social reforms. The problem is when social reforms lead to political ones, but that is a different discussion. As for the Shah (from my country) , I don’t think that story needs telling due to current events. Suffice to say the Shah isolated the religious majority. He tried to counter that with agrarian reform among peasants to appeal to their economic interests, but that didn’t work. Either way assuming you don’t know about the Middle East I suggest you refrain from such commentary. Edit: Also, about Westeros: trying reading about the reign of Maegor the Cruel.

It is when they have power because their authority is derived from religious iconography and they are the one’s with the power to ignore it. The reason you don’t see liberal countries with an absolute monarchy is because liberals rely less on divine right and more on constitutional authority. Where monarchies exist(ed) with power they had internally more progressive politics. The Tsars (Russia), the Shah (Iran), the Saudis, the Hapsburgs (during their reign), despite relying on on religion for authority. That was for the people to accept their rule why they didn’t have to follow as closely.

But I’m already accounting for any of Cole’s exaggerations by assuming her rule won’t constitute KL being turned into a brothel. But even sexual relationships outside of marriage would constitute as bad. Because the double standard exists doesn’t mean you get to ignore it. I judge her for knowing how her decisions have consequences and making those decisions anyways (assuming of course that she would).

What country is that? Modern day constitutional monarchies exist to uphold traditions. Monarchies with real power like the shah of Iran, the house of Saud (Saudi Arabia) or the Tsars were (are) all more progressive than the population because they were (are) unaffected by traditional customs the rest had to uphold.

Lol, no. That is what Cole is arguing. And if true, I agree, it would make her bad queen. We don’t know the full reasons behind her sexual relationships so how it would’ve turned out is up for debate. It wouldn’t affect it her decision making, it would be her decision making.

I’ve responded to you directly and I’ll do it again: “I, the reader, think it would make her a bad queen.” Not because I think women shouldn’t be allowed to have sexual relations outside of their marriage. I think so because the character in question (Rhaenyra) would be doing it willfully in defiance of the realm and would knowingly provide ammo to her detractors and exponentially increase the chances of a war. Life is unfair, but if you know how your behavior will affect others, have no need to act this way outside recreational purposes, and engage in this recreations anyways, you as a human being aren’t considering the consequences of your actions and should not be given the responsibility (burden) of leadership. Fairness does not factor into this occasion. It’s unfair that a bear is stronger than me, I’d still be stupid to provoke it.

I don’t buy this whole: the showrunners are shocked by the reaction to Daemon. Maybe Sarah as an individual, but the show deliberately treats Daemon with kid gloves. While people like Otto are made to bully, manipulate, and undermine characters we love Daemon only assaults none-characters and faces zero repercussions. It allows people to laugh at his villainy while cheering his heroics when he aids the people we love (Rhaenyra, Laenor, Viserys) and smacking down those we don’t (Otto, Cole, Vaemond). He killed his wife and no one cared. The show could have given her family’s grief a spotlight to put shame upon the murder, but instead they bring out a fat guy who is full of bluster and then push him away, never to be recalled again. His choking of Rhaenyra is the first exception (since Rhaenyra is the hero) but really, the affect is undermined by having her spew a bunch of out-of-character nonsense in the middle of a critical moment. Stand down to Alicent and get ourselves killed because the song of ice and fire?? The fuck is she talking about.

There is a lot of goal post moving going on here: 1. Rhaenyra’s sexual relationships before ascending the throne and after are two different things. If we were under the impression, like Cole, that she would be engaged in an open marriage, then that would be more than just the five men you brought up. As is we cannot be sure how she would behave on the throne. 2. The examples provided are not only minimal and monogamist (or at the very least secretive) but also not involving the high seat of power. If as Queen Rhaenyra would have sexual relationships with multiple men without any concealment she would make a bad queen because: a) She is unwilling or unable to contain or curb her desires to fit the stature her position demands b) She either has no conception of the risks involved or doesn’t care, which bodes poorly for her in any other decisions she might make. You posted earlier about modern readers, but the thing is modern readers will judge her based on not just our moral standards, but the moral standards of the time in which she existed. My (or anyones) assessment of her capacity to rule must be measured by her actions in regard to her society. If her behavior garners a negative reaction and she knows this but does it anyways, I am not judging her for being sexually promiscuous, I am judging her for unnecessarily aggravating tensions and distracting from the duties of the realm.

The Daemon stuff would be the same as my reply to the gladiator. As for Aemond, in the show he absolutely wants to usurp his brother.

The lesbian angle falls apart once Alicent’s jealousy is framed as a meaningless substitute for more practical motivations (like fear for her children) and then undone after one toast in which Rhaenyra praises her for being a good wife (lol). As for Rhaenyra, she shows zero attachment to Alicent. Her best friend has spent 20 years trying to destroy her and she cannot even muster the energy to be upset or distraught. She literally holds out an olive branch, passively ignoring each insult as if they were coming from a total stranger.

It’s not about me, it’s about Cole, and if he would have reason to believe Rhaenyra would make a bad queen. But yeah, a female leader with an open relationship who does not have either a stable romantic partner or any claim to chastity would be a distraction at best, and a tyrant at worst. And I question the judgment of a female leader who would do this. Either she doesn’t understand her own society, in which case she is unfit to rule, or she does and she thinks she can burn people into silence/acceptance in which case she is a tyrant. I don’t know how accepting they are based on any of those quotes, or even how much it would be tolerated in the open… but the nobility have always been more progressive than the unwashed masses. In secret they accepted a lot more behaviors than would everyone else (in moderation). Cole is no peasant, but he is much lower down the ladder both in terms of blood and education. His holding of the views of the majority isn’t unexpected or worth that much note.

Nothing happens in that scene because nothing was ever going to happen. Leaving her in the brothel was about his own problems, not hers. Elsewise he showers her with trinkets, endlessly indulges her, and puts her claim above his own. The sex scene on the beach wasn't just about carnality. As for the choking scene. Listen to what she was saying, I mean really listen to the BS she was spewing. The Greens had just stolen her throne and demanded she give up without a fight. Her father just died, Daemon is preparing a war. And she is about to throw everything away (including their lives as Daemon well knows) over a prophecy that is totally irrelevant to everything and anything (besides actually giving her reason to want the throne). The birth scene is meant to juxtapose Viserys and Aemma. Whereas Viserys chose the child over his wife, Daemon chose his wife over the child. A symbol of his love for her. His war buddy on the stepstones. They were of a single mind (versus Vaemond) and helped each other win the battle. The time skips give little room to develop relationships, but him coming up with a contrived way to make sure Laenor lives shows he does not want to get him killed (and for Daemon 'killing' is the moral standard). He obviously has some feelings for the guy that he goes out of his way like this. Not when I watched it. I absolutely saw scenes of them together. Either way, having a selfish or violent nature that is aloof doesn't mean he doesn't love others, he just has a hard time expressing himself. When push comes to shove however he puts their interests above his own. That tension was between Rhaenya's authority and his. Jace was just a proxy for Rhaenyra. A lot of that love is pure conjecture. There is more to Daemon and Laena (like how he would rather give up all claims to power so he can live happily with her in domesticity). The exchange as a child was about his dedication to her cause (war). But really, what do we know about his love for her when he is the one wishing his own brother dead so that he might sit on the iron throne. Daemon puts the needs of his allies ahead of himself, Aemond just wants power for himself. The fact that Alicent would be horrified by such a thing doesn't bother him, or that her wishes are counter to that. In reference to people who believe Rhaenyra isn't completely white-washed, and yeah I think those people have their heads stuck in the sand. As well as people who insist Alicent is a nuanced character, those people too have their heads stuck in the sand. The only defense people can muster is to say "that is how they were in the book" which despite not really being much of a defense, ignores how little of these characters we had to go off of due to not understanding their motivations or culpabilities for a number of crimes. Or like some who say Rhaenyra and Alicent didn't have a rivalry in the book, which is just... I don't even know what to say to that. CHARACTER, not characters. And I made a lengthy post explaining how pointless Alicent's motivations are, if you want you can read it. Though I think you have elsewise you wouldn't mention it.

Why are you making me do this? Sigh. "Her Grace and her stepdaughter had proved shortlived, for both Rhaenyra and Alicent aspired to be the first lady of the realm…and though the queen had given the king not one but two male heirs, Viserys had done nothing to change the order of succession" "Still, questions persisted, not the least from Queen Alicent herself" (about Rhaenyra being heir vs. her own children (hint: Alicent not wanting Rhaenyra on the throne = rivalry) "a group of powerful lords friendly to Queen Alicent and supportive of the rights of her sons. Against them was pitted the “party of the princess.”" (ahh, so even without 'titles' the factions existed). "In 111 AC, a great tourney was held at King’s Landing on the fifth anniversary of the king’s marriage to Queen Alicent. At the opening feast, the queen wore a green gown, whilst the princess dressed dramatically in Targaryen red and black. Note was taken, and thereafter it became the custom to refer to “greens” and “blacks” when talking of the queen’s party and the party of the princess, respectively." (I don't know what thereafter means but it doesn't seem like it took that long for the names to take hold) Here, in case you still don't believe me, her is an illustration from the book: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/de/e8/3d/dee83d8a891de312dc28e4de48009b36.png Doesn't look like they are getting along, almost as if they are enemies. "“My half-brothers would be more to his taste,” she told the king. (The princess always took care to refer to Queen Alicent’s sons as halfbrothers, never as brothers.)" "It was said that Queen Alicent did not share his displeasure, however; soon after, she asked that Ser Criston Cole be made her personal protector. The coolness between the king’s wife and the king’s daughter was plain for all to see; even envoys from the Free Cities made note of it in letters sent back to Pentos, Braavos, and Old Volantis." (oh wow, news of their rivalry made it all the way over to Essos, but not to you apparently). "And the rivalry between the greens and blacks grew deeper, finally reaching the point where the queen and the princess could scarce suffer each other’s presence." "Childbirth exacted a toll on the princess; the weight that Rhaenyra gained during her pregnancies never entirely left her, and by the time her youngest boy was born, she had grown stout and thick of waist, the beauty of her girlhood a fading memory" (ah, so she wasn't beautiful anymore. If you think that is sexist take it up with Martin (it isn't BTW). "According to Mushroom, this only served to deepen her resentment of her stepmother, Queen Alicent, who remained slender and graceful at half again her age" (I mean since you believe what mushroom said about Aegon, you have to believe what he says about his own queen. Also, despite people taking issue with this, it is one of the least controversial statements Mushroom has throughout the entire book, especially since we know there is already animosity between them). "The enmity between Queen Alicent and Princess Rhaenyra was passed on to their sons" I could go on but you've already wasted enough of my time. Which is why Laenor's failure isn't on him being gay, its on him not trying hard enough and going out to drink because he was depressed his boyfriend was killed (which incidentally didn't involve any fighting between him and Cole for some reason). If everyone is homophobic, it doesn't say much about your character if you too are homophobic. It says stuff about your society, but not your personal psychology.

1. We don't know how her behavior might consist upon the throne as she never got there (or at least never in a time absent of war). 2. Aegon being worse does not make Rhaenyra a better Queen 3. (This one is important): Aegon has influences about him that might control his behavior. He is more of a boy while Rhaenyra is a full grown woman. Daemon meanwhile would promotes Rhaenyra's more deviant activities rather than curb them 4. Cole might be blind to Aegon's faults but much more aware of those in Rhaenyra (someone who he once had relationships with).

And Rhaenyra, and Laena, and Laenor, and his children by Laena, and Rhaenyra's children, and his children by Rhaenyra, and that's a bunch of people right there. Aemond, maybe cares about Helaena (I think he wants her because Aegon has her) but wants the throne for himself whereas Daemon fights to protect the claim of others.

But that is not promiscuous behavior. As the show tells us, she had no choice but to go to Harwin, very different. In the show? Yeah, you’re right? In the book? We have no way of knowing.

Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Yes, just like Aegon IV. Actually worse because the realm wouldn’t accept the crown being led by a woman engaged in open sexual relations around court. I guess she has dragons so she can burn the people who complain, but that wouldn’t be a sign of good leadership.

Well the character has changed so much, but incidentally I find the ‘flaws’ in her character during the first five to be unintentional or framed in a way to garner support. For example, her talking back to Lady Redwyne has no consequences and is sold to us like a boss move. It’s about how the show frames her behaviors and her shortfalls, like her sexual escapade not a sign of self-indulgence but sexual liberation against the patriarchy (as juxtaposed with Alicent/Viserys sex scene). But more to the point, her administrative failings do not take into account intention. Ned also made mistakes but his intentions were always good and he intended to rule well. Similarly, Rhaenyra since the time skip only wants to strengthen her claim and be good, kind, and forgiving even when it’s out right abnormal for a human to not show vice. Not really because the show doesn’t frame it as bad. The scene is framed as her both strengthening her claim by removing Laenor so she can remarry as well as catering to his feelings as a gay man. The nameless guard had no narrative function, he only works as a plot element, and his death is framed as something fundamentally good. Well, in that scene Alicent was on edge and freaking out over any suggestions. For Rhaenyra (the person at the center of her despise) to suggest that and for it to not garner a significant reaction suggests it was not as strong a recommendation as that. Viserys goes on to literally question him sharply without rejecting any notion of torture. If the show wanted to depict Rhaenyra advocating torture, there were many ways to do that. As usual we don’t see any of that. I don’t know what you’re referencing. Edit: oh wait I get you. Well, Alicent set her children against Rhaenyra so this isn’t a problem on her end. Also, you have to consider the age gap and how that deprived them of a serious relationship for years, after which it was too late. Rhaenyra did offer Helaena a match with Jace which Alicent outright rejected.

Feel free to state them again. FYI: I mean moral failings, none of which she has shown. She loves her children, is endlessly forgiving, calm, diplomatic, and incapable of anger. Edit: I don’t know why you think I’d dismiss it. I try to to focus on the arguments while being respectful in any way possible. If I fall short of that or come off as unduly dismissive please let me know and I promise to amend my behavior.

It doesn’t matter why he thinks it, only that it gives us an understanding of why he would not want her to be queen outside of personal animosity (even if he is exaggerating).

I agree with maybe half of these, but the other half I think the show wants us to think was a good decision. However my main issue with her isn’t her flaws as a potential monarch, but her lack of moral failings, even basic ones like anger or envy.

No, but if Cole thought so it would function as adequate criticism of Rhaenyra’s potential as queen worthy of discussion. Meaning, Cole saying that isn’t him taking issue with a non-problem to sound sexist, but identifying a real problem he might think will come true.

I think it did help because in the show that was obviously not her character. But if she was planning to run KL like that, it would be objectively bad. Even if viewers didn’t think so he would still have a point.

Outside of the first five episodes, where has she shown any potential flaws? From what we know the bastards weren’t her fault, and neither was Vaemond’s death. And faking Laenor’s death didn’t carry any lasting consequences so it was the right move.