The Grey Wolf Strikes Back

@C.T. Phipps Aemond isn't an adult in that scene, whether by our standards or even the standards of Westeros. He's less than ten years old. Around Bran's age in AGOT. That's what's supposed to give the scene its punch. A child has just been permanently maimed by OTHER children. If Aemond were truly an adult the scene (whether that be 16 in Westeros or 18 in the US) would be read like some comical revenge movie.

I think that has more to do with the fact that in Westeros security fluctuates based on the needs of the plot. Just look at how Sansa is subjected to hyper-surveillance in KL in an era rife with disappearances, imposters, dramatic escapes, etc. precisely because of things like minimal bureaucracy, a weak centralized government, long travel times and even slower information speed, etc. As for the Kingsguard, I imagine they weren't there because they were sleeping. Didn't Ser Harrold say something about Ser Criston getting the night shift? And as for our favorite Kingmaker, he's only one guy at the end of the day. He can't guard or keep an eye on five kids who ought to each be sleeping in their own apartments. The fact of the matter is no one responded in a timely manner. Not the Kingsguard, not the household guard, not the parents, no one, and Aemond's eye paid the price.

@butterweedstrover Aemond was a child the same as the rest of them. Furthermore, the first blow was struck by Rhaenyra and Daemon's kids. On top of that, they drew a knife and used it AFTER blinding Aemond with sand, at which point he wasn't a threat. Not to mention the fact all Aemond had to hand was a rock and, if I recall the scene correctly, he spends more time holding it up threateningly than actually using it. Hell, at one point, he was flat on his back, surrounded, and getting pummeled! Yes, Aemond said some unwise things but from my perspective the Blacks kids were quite clearly more in the wrong there than him. Especially, when you consider the fact that Rhaena isn't actually automatically entitled to Vhagar just because her mother rode it. Heck, if you look at the actual dialogue, Aemond in the beginning is a bit smug but hardly out-of-line when he says that Vhagar has a new rider and that if Rhaena wanted her that badly she shouldn't have waited. Honestly, the idea that Aemond is in the wrong for hitting a girl AFTER said girl attacks him (along with her sister and two of her cousins!) strikes me as emblematic of everything wrong with the "can't hit a girl" mentality. Now, if you said that, as the eldest, Aemond had a responsibility to de-esscalate the situation, then you might have a point but the fact of the matter is he was still a child regardless and the Blacks kids conducted themselves in a similarly bad, if not worse, manner.

@BlackLightning The High Septon grants annulments and if they're anything like the RL medieval Catholic Church, impotence or sterility would be valid grounds.

Only explanation for changing Laenor's death that I can think of would be to make Addam and Alyn his actual children by an Essosified Marilda seeing as F & B hints pretty strongly that they're actually Corlys' bastards. And I find the idea that Aemond should have asked permission laughable. As is made clear in both the book and the show, his request would have been denied (on top of tipping off the Blacks they need to claim Vhagar asap). And its not like Laena got Viserys' permission when she claimed Vhagar even though he's the king and Vhagar's last two riders were Targaryen. Aemond is a bit more sympathetic in the show version. Not only did the Blacks throw the first punch, they outnumber him four-to-one (on top of baby Joff being replaced by the near-in-age not-twins) and used the knife after blinding him with sand. As for Criston, I got the impression that being a Kingsguard he was on duty outside the royal apartments the way he was in episode 4, not actively walking the walls. And I think people underestimate how easy it would be to sneak around, escape, hide, fake your death, impersonate someone, etc. in those times.

I agree with pretty much all of this.

Pretty much.

@dsjj251 I always got the impression GRRM was aiming for a "pox on both their houses" but bungled that message by making one side more dislikable and incompetent.

@The Bard of Banefort In Aemond's defense Alys does look younger than her years (like his mother incidentally, talk about Freudian subtext) and may be using magic. (While I'm glad GRRM didn't go all the way as happened in RL I have to admit I am surprised the Valyrians actually drew a line at relationships between father-daughter and mother-son.)

@Corvinus85 The line wasn't that there were more sea battles than land battles but that there were both, which is still contradicted by the text since there's only one battle (Gullet) seeing as the Redwynes declare for Aegon but then do nothing. Another line that makes no sense is how the Dance supposedly divided families more than ever before, pitting fathers against sons and brother against brother, which outside a few isolated incidents like the Tullys and Cargylls, is patently untrue.

How about not wanting Daemon as King-Consort?

@Lord Varys I think the reason Alicent pointed out the lactation was 1) To avoid having to give a definitive response to the Jace-Helaena offer and 2) To embarrass Rhaenyra because not only do most noblewomen not breastfeed their children but also in RL a lot of things relating to female health/reproduction were back then referred to as "women's mysteries" precisely because men weren't allowed to know about them, hence the historical conflict between doctors and midwives.

@Frey family reunion Assuming Rhaenys married Corlys in 90 AC like in F & B we're talking at least 192 years ago. (The Doom was in 102 BC.)

Pretty sure Stephen's mother was dead by that point. (Incidentally, it looks like GRRM replaced Stephen having a competent wife with Aegon II having a competent mother because by God is Helaena a massive disappointment in F & B. Thanks Womb Syndrome!) Going back to what @Lord Varys was saying about a trial by combat, does anyone think that would have been a better explanation for the Cargyll affair because I find Cole sending a fellow Kingsguard on an assassination mission really makes it hard to buy his in-universe reputation as recalled generations later by Jaime, Arianne, Arys, etc.?

Ah. That makes sense.

That part I remember reading. Heh.

The fact that according to F & B none of the pre-Conquest kings ever bothered to implement a uniform law, tax, or road system within their domains is especially egregious. Btw, was Geoffrey of Anjou really that hated? Guy was like 10+ years younger than his wife. (If I recall correctly she was 28 to his 15 when they got married. Also, I find it kind of funny that Henry II had two brothers but no one remembers them because they died in their 20s without having sired any children.) And just how many nobles died in the White Ship Accident? I always got the impression it was a rather small, if intimate affair comprised of William Adelin and his closest friends/kin.

I wouldn't say nihilistic so much as depressingly realistic but to each their own.

Exactly. Eh, mistresses were kind of a big deal.

@C.T. Phipps If I remember correctly, Stephen wasn't even the eldest son. He had one older brother who was mentally disabled and another brother who Stephen basically beat to the punch. (Once you're anointed there's no going back.)

I get the feeling we've put more thought into this era than GRRM ever will.

While I disagree on this point I appreciate having an opposing view. :)

Honestly, the lack of royal bastards outside of Aegon II and Aegon IV is implausible as well as disappointing. I could understand Baelon, Viserys II, Maekar, etc. remaining lifelong widowers if they'd taken mistresses but nope.

I fully agree. He should have taken Alicent as a mistress and if she refused to be one some other noblewoman instead. Given the existence of Trystane Truefyre and the rumor that Viserys cheated on Aemma as well as his fun-loving personality its clear the man had no qualms about sleeping around or potentially siring bastards. Nonetheless, the birth of a healthy male heir would be reason enough for Viserys to publicly go back on his decision considering Westeros is a male-dominated military aristocracy.

Why the hell not? To use the example of Henry I, do you genuinely believe that if he had had a son by his second wife, that he would not have named said son heir despite having already made his lords swear fealty to Matilda as a contingency?