Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MisbornHeir

  1. 1 hour ago, Adaneth said:

    I just don't like that prophecy to be brought into this story. Especially, after what happened with it in GOT. Basically it was garbage. Every time I hear it now gives me a physical reaction. Pure cringe. I guess it's just "too soon" for me? lol  Doesn't happen with the books. I love those things in the books. I think Got suffered greatly because D&D kept away from all those fantasy elements, but I digress.

    That's valid. I can't comment on lingering Trauma left from the fanfic ending of GOT. I had the benefit/loss of watching it well after it was released on my own time. That doesn't mean I have no negative feelings but its not as severe as those who witnessed it in realtime. I personally put it out of my headcanon and making my own internal compendium as the show progresses of what is and what isn't helps a lot.

  2. 7 minutes ago, teej6 said:

    But that’s not the Alicent projected until Ep 8. She was part of the small council in the Ep and it seemed to me the rest of the council was taking her direction, at least in the council chamber. She definitely had a voice. And in the last episode, had she not gone along, the coup would not have happened. You said it yourself, there would have been no coup if Alicent didn’t go along with the conspiracy. so what was Otto’s plan B?

    Likely to use Alicent's wishes to negotiate and treat with Rhaenyra's faction to manuever Aegon the Elder as de-facto King and if needed instigate violence from the Blacks/their supporters to force a succession war. He does subscribe to warfare with quills and ravens after all.

  3. Just now, C.T. Phipps said:

    Any of that logic would apply to Rhaenyra as well.

    Which means that she just believed Rhaenyra was THAT terrible of a person compared to her side.

    Which apparently the show wants her to believe.

    Rhaenyra believes that methods brought on with blood will justify the eventual bloodless end (led by her as queen).

    Alicent has always performed her duty first and foremost. The one time she didn't (or believed it aligned with her personal interests) was when she took Rhaenyra at her word and it cost her father's position. To put her duty prescribed by station first and in turn to her family (as laid out by the seven) is paramount and that includes employing the morality demanded by those allegiances. Namely the morality of the mother, whose mercy she desires to give to Rhaenyra and her family. Political ambitions and Machiavellianism do NOT trump her commitment to her faith/duty.

  4. Just now, Lord Varys said:

    Up until episode 8 Otto would have been very sure Alicent would go along with their plans. Keeping her out of it also makes sense, though, since she is a woman, the wife of the king, and Rhaenyra's old friend. Otto only tells his daughter what she needs to know, anyway, so it isn't surprising that he would keep this from her, too.

    He is the Hand, after all, the guy who actually rules. The queen just stands there and nods gravely.

    To add on, the only actions she has taken 'on a whim" have been for the sake of her children/family and overall protecting her family. Otto's earlier commendation for the spirit Alicent has to 'win the ugly game' only bolsters his confidence in the future enactment of his machinations to seat Aegon the Elder as king. He doesn't have reason to believe she would take any action that would interfere with Otto, "Mine own father does not know the language of girls either" (episode 2). 

    As nearsighted Otto's understanding of women (Alicent in particular) in relation to their station and its expected duties, he's neither fool or zealous enough to adapt his plans accordingly instead of reinforcing his own hierarchical values. The Westerosi patriarchy serves Otto well without a doubt, but he is a realist at heart. So pragmatic that he was willing to be devoured by Caraxes to begin a war between Daemon and the crown. And that raw pragmatism is which his ambition is driven upon.

  5. 14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

    Although I still think Rhaenyra and Syrax will be at Rook's Rest, and Rhaenys will remain behind and sacrifice herself to cover her escape ... and possibly that of Jace and Baela as well.

    Rhaenyra's presence at Rook's Rest and return to Dragonstone without Rhaenys will inflame tensions between her and Corlys even more than it did in Fire and Blood.

  6. 34 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    Allow the women to be full-fledged human beings. That’s part of what fans love about ASOIAF.

    No disagreement on the premise and the lack of consistency between fully fledged male and female characters overall.


    But iirc, Rhaenyra (at least Milly's version) and Alicent have been pretty human to me. A lot more than people like Daemon and Aemond who are creations to their universe. 

  7. 8 hours ago, DMC said:

    The other side of the coin on the terrible stupidity of nobility - it wouldn't have been honorable.

    Rationalizing your actions regardless of the inherent sensibility present in order to have allevement of one's conscious.

    It's something I witness often and especially as of late. Those in positions of power often must employ it to keep their sanity.

  8. 9 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    It's only about politics if you believe politics and culture are interchangeable, which I do not. As I said above, I have defended women and the way they're written on this site enough times that I don't think I need to prove myself. There's no denying the volume of accusations of sexism that were lobbed at GOT, D&D, and GRRM--much of it deserved--to the point where the showrunners for this show discussed it quite extensively in interviews leading up to HOTD's release. They're clearly very wary of having the same thing happen to them, and I think we're starting to see signs of that in the writing.


    Considering all of those factors in any further creation of ASOIAF adopted media, what would the ideal showrunner do in you mind that would balance all those elements in the best way possible?

  9. 9 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

    “She and Otto”.  Please recall that Fire and Blood is written as a faux history.  Therefore depending upon it as though it is holy writ is clearly misguided.  It is written after the Dance and after Aegon III (and the Blacks) have won the Dance.  Wouldn’t it paint the Greens in a worse light?  And paint Alicent as scheming with Otto?

    This has been my immediate thoughts as of late. Munken had the extremely difficult task of recounting the Dance for historical chonricles but had to appease Aegon's conflicting interests: he was a child of the leaders of the Blacks (Rhaenyra & Daemon) but also saw firsthand what the Dance resulted in for his loved ones 


    (namely Sunfyre and Rhaenyra's baking session).

    The remaining Hightowers have interests through their patronage of the citadel and being one remaining Great non-paramount houses. And then there's the general issue of not reigniting tensions aflame between any Green or Black sympathizers that were left over from Cregan's purge. 

    Yes Condal's version of the Dance ultimately stands as its own canonical retelling of the second Dragon war of succession, looking at it through a lense of historical analysis of biases sources used in a modern dramatization helps for both immersion and believability ( as well as accuracy to real life instances of this). It's just a shame that given this comes from a (as far as we know) fictional universe, the few but noteworthy plot contrivances and resulting conundrums we've had could have been avoided. Or at the very least improve on what George orignally did so that it still made enough sense plot progression wise. 


    I'm now of the belief that two seasons for the prologue of the Dance would have done better to pace this out correctly. Understandable that this season had a lot to accomplish if it was to be renewed (considering the end reception of GOT) and for the large part it has done remarkably well considering staggered/isolated plot points and large time skips from the book.


    And hey, you can always turn the tv off after Aegon gets his hurrah's from the smallfolk and proceed to the next episode upon rewatch.

  10. 5 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

    That's actually something that bugs me. They're not bastards.

    The king has said so.

    It's over.

    Anyone who claims otherwise needs to have their head on a pike, queen or no queen.

    The idea they're bastards is also ridiculous. Where are they getting the idea other than vile rumor?

    Again, the traitor queen.

    To add to this, recall how devastating the accusation was in A game of thrones. Ned knew how dangerous it would be.

  11. 40 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

    I agree.

    The Velaryons' bastardy is way too obvious. Not only does literally every single character talk about it at length, every single character talks about how obvious it is. Which is crazy because if it was really this obvious, it would be a massive problem. Not necessarily to the point of Rhaenyra being disinherited (although that should've been put on the table, however briefly) but there should've been major social consequences for both Rhaenyra and Laenor. Rhaenyra would've been handicapped yes.

    As long as the king is alive and refuses to entertain such rumours, what could realistically happen? Rhaenyra has enough backers and players who need her name to flip over bastardy. 

    To be fair she already has faced backlash. Albeit not outright due to her status and position but major houses are/have aligned against or and/or with the hightowers. House Strong has been reduced to a scheming clubfooted lickspittle for Queen Alicent and Rhaenyra has shown how adept she is at shortsighted politics (her quips to Lady Redwyne in the Kingswood and various Westerosi lords in Storm's End on her tour, etc). Despite her near intouchable status as the handpicked heir and favourite of the King, she has dug herself in quite a hole and will continue to do so. 

  12. 1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    For someone who is explicitly pro-green, I always found Eustace surprisingly sympathetic to Rhaenyra. He consistently portrays her as someone who is manipulated by predatory men (Cole, Daemon) and doesn’t even believe that her sons were Harwin Strong’s bastards.

    As someone recently said, he had the near impossible job of writing history as part of a rather pro-green institution (although informally) and doing so during the reign of Aegon III (being Rhaenyra's son). The fact that Aegon is styled as the third also shows the consensus that Aegon the elder did legitimately rule for a time.

  13. Just now, BlackLightning said:

    The letter of the law states that the children of the first wife cannot be disinherited in favor of the children of the second wife barring the case where the children of the first wife are guilty of unspeakable crimes.

    It's called the Widow's Law and it had been on the books for at least half a century at this point.

    The law wouldn't remove the cultural taboo, however. 

  14. 1 minute ago, Colonel Green said:

    Feudalism was inherently an intrinsic series of power relations and contracts between lords and vassals.

    Westeros has already seen lords proclaim kings — and in the case of the Great Council, they weren’t even asked to do that, they were invited by the king to vote on a question that he put to them.

    Plenty of smart medieval monarches understood that mobilizing a consensus among nobles was a good political strategy. Especially so when the certain outcome of the Council will be to endorse the position that the king wants anyway and help settle the matter within his own family.

    He did not want Rhaenys as heir, he wanted Baelon/Viserys.

    Points taken. I suppose my reasoning came from an ideals perspective of the discussion (without acknowledging sufficient realities).

  15. 13 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

    It's not an inherently bad decision to ask your consent to the people that you rule to make big decisions. It's essentially the basis of any functioning society. Jaehaerys was called wise, among other things, exactly because he knew that, and was not a tyrant.  Your position of "if I don't like the decision the voters brought on, I won't let them vote anymore" is despotic.

    It's inherently bad in regard to the power structure put in place by Aegon. How can a Targaryen be a conqueror if they can't control their own succession/vassals? The social contract you refer to is an invention of our 18th century, not something that existed in medieval times and certainly not Westeros.

    He shouldn't of let them vote to begin with. He should of made Rhaenys his heir. And 'despotic' is a pretty typical trait for absolute monarchies. Weak kings led to the realm destabilizing and presuming far too much (e.g. Aerys)

  16. 21 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

    It's a better choice to just impose your female heir in a society that has disdain for women and hope for the best, which is what Viserys did. His method avoided a war of succession, Viserys' willful blindness didn't.

    The patriarchal culture that has existed thanks to andal culture isn't enough on its own to make war inevitable.


    The targaryens under Aegon were established as absolute monarchs over the continent. Any involvement from vassals in the affairs of the crown was a granted privilege, not a formalized/owed position. Besides Valyrian culture was much more egalitarian which showed itself with the roles Visenya and Rhaenys played during and after the conquest. The Targaryens faced uprisings over their marriage customs yet the dragon won and the realm submitted. That didn't mean it applied to the rest of the kingdom, rather just the Iron Throne. It could easily be repeated with implementing an absolute-cognatic succession.


    Jahaery's attempt at conciliating the realm was inherently faulty for this reason. It set a dangerous precedent for the Targaryen's position in the realm and would come to cripple them not just during the dance but especially when the dragons died out. Jahaerys should of conciliated with Alysanne in the beginning over Rhaenys as heir.

    Viserys had the misfortune of inheriting the fruits his grandsire's errors bore. His own scruples didn't bring upon the Dance alone.



  17. 1 hour ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

     When Jahaerys did that, there was a peaceful transition of power. When Viserys didn't, a civil war broke out and the Targaryens lost the dragons. Not too hard to see who was the smart guy.

    Jahaerys sowed the seeds for the westerosi nobles to have a say in the succession matter. Before the first great council it was only ever between the targaryens themselves (and the faith until maegor smothered their concerns). 


    If it wasn't for the council, the nobles under viserys wouldn't feel so emboldened to act and voice opinion on the matter of succession. A formal council legitimizes those opinions into institutionalized precedents.

  • Create New...