Jump to content

Bernie Mac

Members
  • Content count

    1,797
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Bernie Mac

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,192 profile views
  1. Can you not see the obvious difference between the castles you mentioned and the ruins of Moat Cailin? Lord Stark has a 100 extra soldiers should he station them in a ruin that has not been attacked in many, many centuries station them on lands on the Western coast to help stop his people moving inland due to Ironborn ravaging station them on lands near the new gift to help combat wildling raiding There are better uses for such a surplus than a vanity garrison at Moat Cailin.
  2. Is the Bloody gate not on fertile lands? Is the garrison being subsidized by other Lords? And the Bloody Gate helps protect the Vale from the Mountain Clans. Close borders and frequent attacks. If Moat Cailin was not 300 miles from the border and the North had a less cordial relationship with the Riverlands I'd see your point The Shield Islands supports four lords, their garrison is not being subsidized by the Tyrells. Westeros is 1 kingdom. The North is not policing who they let in. Bandits from the Riverlands are not making 600 mile journeys to raid the Northern lands around Moat Cailin. Its easily explained.
  3. You don't see a difference between a castle with fertile lands, a rich lord and likely mines having a garrison and a ruin located on unlivable land . The Leffords are a rich house, they have reason to invest and defend their castle.
  4. Because ravens and their messages can sometimes be intercepted. He does not want the Queen and her family to suspect he's onto them the fewer outside his inner circle who know the better. Ned's already stripped his capital of men, he probably did not want to remove any more so his direct Masterly vassals would be trusted. Not really. The North is part of Westeros, its not a separate kingdom It's 300 miles away from the Riverland border If Ned has an extra 100 soldiers lying spare then there are better uses for them than defending an unpopulated ruin.
  5. I've always assumed Masterly are the Northern equivalent of landed knights and these two Houses are directly under Stark. Ned is trying to keep a possible war under wraps so is using his own personal men to man Moat Cailin rather than trust in other Lords who may well share their information.
  6. Given we have no idea how much it has grown in the last thousand years or how much the area had grown in the previous 1,000 years in comparison to the rest of the North this point is rather moot. "When the Manderlys arrived, there was just a crumbling fortress at the Wolfsden." This is a clear exaggeration, making such observations weakens your point. You brought it up, not me. I'm just pointing out that if your going to rule out Lords sworn to Highgarden then you should do the same to Hightower (Beesbury, Costanye etc,) The author introduced the argument in his books in Fire & Blood but its long been a staple on this forum, especially in regards to Manderly. A popular theory on this forum has always been that the Manderly's are more powerful than the Starks, or more accurately have many thousands of yet not seen soldiers waiting in the wings to deliver victory/independence to House Stark. Now GRRM's quote does not necessarily discredit this theory, but its a valid reference to use in the topic even if it the quote itself is open to interpretation. ??? I think you want me to say yes, so yes. Sure, true. But I don't think OP is asking that, he's making the distinction of them being top dogs in the North in terms of military strength, which would have been before and after House Karstark were created and their current situation now where he, rightly or wrongly, believes they are no longer the strongest in the North. Nope, the quote is not about the Tully's pre Targs, it is about them in the Targ area. Then as now, the riverlords were a fractious, quarrelsome lot.... House Tully was unique amongst the great houses of Westeros. Aegon the Conqueror had made them the Lords Paramount of the Trident, yet in many ways they continued to be overshadowed by many of their own bannermen. The Brackens, the Blackwoods, and the Vances all ruled wider domains and could field much larger armies, as could the upstart Freys of the Twins. The Mallisters of Seagard had a prouder lineage, the Mootons of Maidenpool were far wealthier, and Harrenhal, even cursed and blasted and in ruins, remained a more formidable castle than Riverrun, and ten times the size besides. The Tullys were Lords of the Riverlands but overshadowed by others. Vassals have more autonomy than we've given them credit for. Manderly agreed to join the Blacks before Stark did, similarly Jace still went to House Sunderland after Arryn had agreed to join them. The Lords Paramount, in my opinion, are more akin to political Chief whips/rent collectors than actual 'rulers'. There job is to keep their vassals in check, but given the amount of times during civil wars we've seen regions split it is clear these lords have a certain amount of freedom to choose for themselves.
  7. Ned will not have marched the Van immediately after battle, they will have been afforded rest. Ned would also be cautious, the Crownlands is big Targ territory and thousands survived and fled the Trident, he's going to be wary of attack. His Van may also not have all been horsed. slowing his movement. Tywin on the other hand was desperate to get their first, his army were fresh. 12k horse is feasible for the Westerlands and he did not have to worry about ambush.
  8. I agree, possibly more in the 4-5k range but that's a fair estimate. Bolton's may be around that. There is little evidence to suggest the Dustins are or Manderly's are likely over 5k. Three Houses being more or as powerful as the Starks just does not seem likely, especially as two of them are rival royal Houses in the North and the other got kicked out of their previous realm for overreaching themselves. Dude... Right. Isn't that how most people have used it. The Tully's are unique in this position. There is no reason to suspect other regions have multiple Houses more powerful than them. The relative stability (in regards to ruling House) of these regions for centuries pre Targ is just not feasible with rulers being overshadowed by multiple Houses. I agree with this, but I dispute their holdings are now smaller than pre conquest. The Glovers, formerly kings now masterly House, suggests their demesne may actually have increased. Plus the Starks may have other holdings outside of what is considered their property. Pockets of lands all around the North. Come on that is an exaggeration. Even before the coming of the Andals, the Wolf's Den had been raised by King Jon Stark, built to defend the mouth of the White Knife against raiders and slavers from across the narrow sea (some scholars suggest these were early Andal incursions, whilst others argue they were the forebears of the men of Ib, or even slavers out of Valyria and Volantis). Held for centuries by a succession of houses (including the Greystarks, an offshoot of House Stark itself, as well as Flints, Slates, Longs, Holts, Lockes, and Ashwoods), the ancient fortress would be the focus of a succession of conflicts. During the wars between Winterfell and the Andal Kings of Mountain and Vale, the Old Falcon, Osgood Arryn, laid siege to the Wolf's Den. His son, King Oswin the Talon, captured it and put it to the torch. Later, it fell under attack from the pirate lords of the Three Sisters and slavers out of the Stepstones. It was always important and prosperous, it is why it was targeted by outside forces and used to make other Northern houses capable of rivalling the Starks. It was a significant seat before the Manderlys. The idea that the Starks and their advisers did not know the value of that land borders on the preposterous. True, but how many cities were there in Westeros pre White Harbour? Two, possibly three if Gulltown reached city status more than a thousand years ago. None a thousand years ago? How do you argue in some posts that the Manderly lands are the most fertile in the North and then claim there was no villages there a thousand years ago? Alternatively you may be arguing that there were villages there a thousand years ago but there are more now, which is absolutely true BUT its true across the board, not just the Manderly lands. Sure, but there is no reason they would cut themselves off from it. The Graftons rule Gulltown, but there is Royce presence via the Shetts there as well. Its not a huge leap to imagine the Starks have fiefs akin to Pennytree scattered all around the North, ruled by Masterly Houses. The Tallharts are a masterly House, which appears to be the northern equivalent to a knightly house. Their strength should be counted along with the Starks. Why do you not include the Lords sworn to Highgarden but include the ones sworn to Hightower? We see in the Dance that they too can go against their lord. If you are only going to count petty lords and landed knights for the Gardeners then you should do likewise for the Hightowers and with that provisio I see no real reason to assume the Hightowers were/are more powerful than the Gardeners/Tyrells Do you really have to end your post with such condescension?
  9. It' a generalization. Robert, in their misogynistic society, is popular and pleasant company. Viserys I Targaryen had a generous, amiable nature and was well loved by his lords and smallfolk alike. It's a description that could well be said about Robert, he too was generous, amiable and due to his tourneys popular. Robert wanted smiles and cheers, always, so he went where he found them, to his friends and his whores. Robert wanted to be loved. They are mirror images of each other, when Robert hears of Starks and Lannisters fighting in kings landing and the Riverlands he does nothing, goes hunting and allows the issue to escalate. Both are partially to blame for civil war that erupts after them. All Kings have an heir apparent regardless if they are married. As a human being in a society were sons are favored she'd undeniably feel her son should be the heir. It's a view shared by half the realm. This is the point, both sides felt they were in the right, civil wars of this magnitude come off as corny if one side is right and the other wrong. The Princess of Dragonstone remained his acknowledged heir, with half the lords of Westeros sworn to defend her rights. Those who asked, “What of the ruling of the Great Council of 101?” found their words falling on deaf ears. The matter had been decided, so far as King Viserys was concerned; it was not an issue His Grace cared to revisit. The kingdom was split and Viserys simply ignored the issue. And rather than install his daughter as Hand and/or other pro Rhaenyra candidates onto the council he avoided it due to the bickering between the two branches. I'd say both Queen and Princess were victims of a complacent king too lazy to work on an obvious problem. That's not true. Aerea also had that status. Otto worked hard to prevent Daemon gaining power. “On no account can Prince Daemon be allowed to ascend to the Iron Throne,” the Hand wrote his brother, Lord of Oldtown. “He would be a second Maegor the Cruel, or worse.” It was Ser Otto’s wish (then) that Princess Rhaenyra succeed her father. “Better the Realm’s Delight than Lord Flea Bottom,” he wrote. Nor was he alone in his opinion. Yet his party faced a formidable hurdle. If the precedent set by the Great Council of 101 was followed, a male claimant must prevail over a female. In the absence of a trueborn son, the king’s brother would come before the king’s daughter, as Baelon had come before Rhaenys in 92 AC. It had nothing to do with her coming before any sons the not yet remarried Viserys may have, it was down to Daemon. Him marrying Rhaenyra becomes another stumbling block. His own court still wanted him to produce male heirs Though Princess Rhaenyra had been proclaimed her father’s successor, there were many in the realm, at court and beyond it, who still hoped that Viserys might father a male heir, for the Young King was not yet thirty. Grand Maester Runciter was the first to urge His Grace to remarry, even suggesting a suitable choice: the Lady Laena Velaryon Yes, half the realm 20 years ago, what about the other half? Ser Tyland pointed out that many of the lords who had sworn to defend the succession of Princess Rhaenyra were long dead. “It has been twenty-four years,” he said. “I myself swore no such oath. I was a child at the time.” Ironrod, the master of laws, cited the Great Council of 101 and the Old King’s choice of Baelon rather than Rhaenys in 92, then discoursed at length about Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters, and the hallowed Andal tradition wherein the rights of a trueborn son always came before the rights of a mere daughter. 24 years of inactivity, just hoping it will work out after him. My point is not that naming Rhaenyra was bad, equality is always the best outcome, but that it was a huge social change with obvious road blocks ahead of it and Viserys did nothing to help her succeed the throne. In the 24 years he could have Organized a Great Council, spent years making sure through all the powers of the Throne (titles, wealth, marriages, royal favor etc.) that a decision would be made in her favor Groomed her as an accepted ruler, Jaehaery's heirs were both on the Small Council. Set the Small Council up in her favor, it was overwhelmingly in favor of Aegon Married Aegon to Rhaenyra, problem solved If not Aegon and Rhaenyra, there was many children from the Greens and Blacks to be betrothed and help bridge the divide. There are probably other methods I can't think of right now, my point is he did nothing. Made a decision 24 years ago and moved on. Of course there was, he had yet to have a son. I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. To rectify these ills, King Jaehaerys in 52 AC promulgated the Widow’s Law, reaffirming the right of the eldest son (or eldest daughter, where there was no son) to inherit The oldest son comes first, thats just an accepted fact in Westeros. Ironrod followed him to the block, still insisting that by law a king’s son must come before his daughter. The words of the man Viserys appointed his Master of Law back this up. If Viserys was serios on the matter, appointing a Master of Law who was in favor of it would be a start. I'm not sure your point? If Rhaenyra was male the realm would not be divided, certainly not to the extreme it was. This is why people are allowing their emotions to dictate their response to the question. Alicent could be the worst human being to have ever lived, it does not change the fact that half the kingdom thought her son was the rightful heir. For the record I greatly prefer the Blacks, the Velaryons are my favourite House, Baela is easily the best character from Fire & Blood and Jace seemingly would have made an excellent king. But there is no one side in the right on this matter, trying to paint it so is just wrong for the world they live in. No one forced Viserys to rehire Aegon's grandfather to co-rule the realm. The governance of the realm was a daunting task; the king needed a strong, capable Hand to shoulder some of his burdens. Briefly he considered sending for Princess Rhaenyra. Who better to rule with him than the daughter he meant to succeed him on the Iron Throne? But that would have meant bringing the princess and her sons back to King’s Landing, where more conflict with the queen and her own brood would have been inevitable. He considered his brother as well, until he recalled Prince Daemon’s previous stints on the small council. Grand Maester Mellos suggested bringing in some younger man, and put forward several names, but His Grace chose familiarity, and recalled to court Ser Otto Hightower, the queen’s father, who had filled the office before for both Viserys and the Old King. Your echoing a point I've repeatedly made in this discussion, that a blind man could see that Otto was always going to favor his Grandson. Otto being Hand for the last years of Viserys life was an obvious mistake. And it led to a civil war in the Vale, it was not just accepted. That's my whole point. You don't think he had an issue with what happened to his nephew? He can't exactly go on record and complain about it, he's likely fond of his tongue and head. Corly's granddaughter would be Queen, he got on well with the Blacks in general but that is not to say he approved/was ok with how his own kin were dealt with by King and Daughter. Yes really. Joffrey Velaryon was as big and red-faced and healthy as his brothers, but like them he had brown hair, brown eyes, and features that some at court called common Are you really arguing that they were Laenor's? Cersei and Robert's children look like their mother, Laenor and Rhaenyra's children look nothing like either. Vaemond's case is stronger. Do you think that's the only reason she was unpopular? Are you really arguing that the text is wrong, that he was not popular? Its the exact same thing. You are quibbling. He never had a subordinate choose gifts for him to give to his wife and children? Thats a bold claim! It was an overreaction. Exactly what I've been saying these past few pages. We are in agreement. Why? There are some questions and topics that are entirely suitable for an emotional response, but judging one side as completely wrong and the other right in a civil war that divided the realm is taking an emotional viewpoint on the subject.
  10. Bernie Mac

    Worst Targaryen King

    It's the only thing relevant. The people of Westeros don't regard her as a true monarch, they are the ones who decide what she was. Not in the eyes of the Westerosi. It's a fictional past of a fictional universe, it's already been decided in their world; she was a traitor. I could understand if you were arguing it was unfair, I'm in full agreement, but you are arguing their entire world is wrong and you are right. You don't get a say in it. Yup, it goes Viserys to Aegon. Rhaenyra was never Queen. Dude, please! even Rhaenyra Targaryen. She was daughter to one king and mother to two more, yet she died a traitor's death for trying to usurp her brother's crown. He's more than clear why she was a traitor. You are going to great lengths to ignore what is being written. Come on, another emotional response. "See how he likes it when it happens to him!" He's a fictional character and he'll be a dead fictional character. He obviously won't think anything about it. No they don't. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/KingsQueensofBritain/ It's a little more contested now than in the last five centuries, but still the main train of thought that she was not a Queen, she was a rival claimant. Holy Roman Empress; German Queen; Queen of Italy These are her official titles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda, Queen of England has never been one of them. I'm not. I'm talking about the history of the realm. Aegon inherited the realm, Rhaenyra did not. You didn't. I brought it up because it's pertinent to the argument and I knew you'd try to discredit Stannis' quote. This argument we are having is immaterial, it does not matter how much you waffle, how many straw arguments you make. how many quotes you try to misinterpret, nothing will change the fact that Westeros views Aegon II as the rightful heir to his father. They don't have to, a rebellion against the official monarch is the act of a traitor. Again, you are getting emotional and lashing out. By very definition it is a legal right. I don't really care about an argument based on morals concerning the Dance, both sides were immoral with trashcans for hearts. You made a point I disagreed with, that Rhaenyra's action were justice (or words to that effect, I'm not going through the thousand paragraphs you've written on the matter. Neither claimant's actions were justice, but the irony here is from your perspective, a rightful monarch can commit atrocities and pass them of as justice is fairly ironic given Aegon is the legal ruler. eh? Usually I understand your strawman arguments, this one is just odd. You don't get to dictate what this discussion is about what constitutes right and wrong Given you have no problem with how the Velaryons were treated its a bit late to present yourself as a moral authority in this discussion The Maesters written account, that the year 120, 9 years before Viserys death, Though Viserys I would reign for nine more years, the bloody seeds of the Dance of the Dragons had already been planted, and 120 AC was the year when they began to sprout The very people relaying to us what happened pinpoint just how clear conflict was coming. Rhaenyra a female, her partner a disliked Prince and three oldest heirs bastards. They were going to be challenged and Alicent's brood, with superior claims to the throne, were always going to be the tools used to challenge them. Dude, I've repeatedly given suggestions of actions he could have attempted. Both sides can argue they were in the right, that is what makes it a compelling civil war. It is not right vs wrong. Quibbling for the sake of quibbling. lol. Don't be ridiculous, it irrefutably weakened the crown, it was a disaster. No war had been as bad.
  11. I'm not bending anything, I'm pointing out a fact, we have zero idea how happy their marriage was, whether he was good, bad or an average husband. Him being a pleasant man means little, Robert's an incredibly pleasant man to be around yet a horrendous husband and father, Walder's an odious man yet seems to be a decent father. Quote the passage you think I've bent the truth and I will gladly explain my thought process. He still married her, she and her children do not deserve to be treated as inferiors to his first marriage and child. Its basic human nature, the majority of us get upset in similar circumstances. To put up with that for 20 years is going to lead to a lot of resentment. To what? She had bigger fish to fry. She wanted to secure the throne for her children, we have seen far greater crimes committed for lesser reasons. Viserys is a corpse, what does it matter if he's cremated a little later? We've yet to see a king successfully name an heir who actually succeeded them. Robert hates the idea of Joffrey being king, yet doesn't think he can name someone else. While kings are alive they can do what they want (within reason), once they are dead its another matter. Law's can be pretty elastic, a king has to go to great lengths to have the realm accept them, if they don't the law just snaps back to the status quo. With good cause. But yeah, a mother is obviously going to be pissed if that happened. I'm not sure your point, GRRM is not writing about robots who unquestionably accept the decisions of others. Yeah, I've pretty much said the same in 10 posts these last few days. Everyone, barring one poster, accepts that both sides felt they were in the right, both sides can justify their actions. Except not technically true given Aemon's daughter and grandchildren were displaced in favor of Viserys. We know they didn't inherit, we know they both married and Sansa had two marriages and at least four children. They were overlooked. I didn't claim there was, did I? I pointed out that she was not even considered as an option, it's pretty telling. No they don't, they show its a complicated matter with far more nuance than you are giving credit. GRRM's more than clear on it intentionally being vague. Well, the short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpertations, and often contradictory. A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age. After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim." What if there are no childen, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle? Do bastards have any rights? What about bastards who have been legitimized, do they go in at the end after the trueborn kids, or according to birth order? What about widows? And what about the will of the deceased? Can a lord disinherit one son, and name a younger son as heir? Or even a bastard? There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims. We actually have no idea Corly's thoughts on the matter. Making them public could see a repeat of the punishment given to his Velaryon relatives. Regardless, it was fucked up and not at all something that can be referred to as justice. Well he did, it was not conclusive, but their physical appearance, little like either of their parents, grandparents or two younger brothers does suggest they were bastards. Vaemond actually has a stronger case than Stannis. She was not popular after her death. Kings Landing and Dragonstone turned on her, Driftmark likely hated her as well. Yeah, possibly parts of the Riverlands not decimated by the war remember her fondly. Addam was honourable and was worried about his father, he had reason to fight irrespective of what he thought of her. They were not? I understand they were likely less popular than the Queen's delight, but that does not equal unpopularity, And 'ilk', can you calm your emotions? You are far too invested in the side you like being 'right'. You are going to have to provide more evidence than that. It should be noted that the word popular comes up once in the Rogue Prince and the Princess and the Queen; its about Daeron, Alicent's youngest. His little brother Prince Daeron was the most popular of the queen’s sons, as clever as he was courteous, and most comely as well. When he turned twelve in 126 AC, Daeron was sent to Oldtown to serve as cupbearer and squire to Lord Hightower. Of all the dead Princes in the Dance he is likely the best remembered. Odd that you would ignore this. https://asearchoficeandfire.com/?q=happy&scope[]=trp&scope[]=tpatq There is zero evidence that it was a happy marriage or he was a good husband. Robert showers Edric with presents, it does not make him a good father. Viserys loving his wife and children is not what is being debated, I assume he did, what is being questioned is if it was a happy marriage and if he was a good husband. Both of those are unanswered. He married her because she was hot. He married for lust, at least thats how I took it. She probably didn't at the end. Twenty years of being treated like an inferior version of marriage no1 will leave a feeling of resentment. Viserys, from what we know, did not want to confront problems, hoped they would go away and on at least one occasion violently overreacted towards Velaryon cousins. Problems fester. A partner choosing to ignore issues that concern the other is not a good partner. What on earth is your point? Alicent should just get over it and accept she's a woman, therefore inferior? But they are not robots, they still react emotionally. Aegon and Jaehaerys worked hard to get that accepted, Viserys did not. He was lazy and complacent, the realm suffered as a result. You rightly pointed out that his reign was great, yet his legacy is clearly not as well thought of as Daeron I& II, Jaehaerys, Aegon the Conqueror, even Baelor. His failings are seen as fueling the Dance of the Dragons. He had ruled for six-and-twenty years, reigning over the most prosperous era in the history of the Seven Kingdoms but seeding within it the disastrous decline of his house and the death of the last dragons.[7] —writings of Yandel The Maesters, who all our information on the matter derives from, are convinced he was at fault. I'm not sure, given our lack of any other sources, how you can continually challenge it.
  12. Bernie Mac

    Worst Targaryen King

    Its not just Stannis. She's not listed as a monarch in the Appendix of AGOT, or Fire & Blood succession timeline or gets her own chapter in AWOIAF. She is regarded as the traitor, Aegon is regarded as the true monarch. That is just a fact of the series. Exactly. She is the equivalent of Matilda, another who was not recognized as a true monarch. Let me stop you right there, he wasn't. Yeah, no one disputes Westeros is sexist. That does not change the fact that Rhaenyra is not regarded as an official monarch. No amount of twisting from you is going to change that history views her as a traitor. You assume wrong. They actually do, or let me put it another way, their opinion on the matter carries far more weight on the matter than you do. Not according to the current day people of Westeros, not according to the Master of Law at the time of Visery's death. This is not an argument about right or wrong, it's about who is seen as the official ruler and who is seen as a traitor. Again, you are far too emotional on the matter. You are not being objective. Conflict was inevitable. Except Rhaenyra, right? lol calm down, you are really channeling Rhaenyra right now. I mostly agree. I said as much on the first page on this thread. But him not being the worst does not stop his complacency causing the most damaging civil war the continent had ever seen. Apart from another chance to waffle, what was the point of these two paragraphs? Genuine question, do you have a word quota to fulfill? Why the constant need to pad?
  13. Just like Jaehaerys had nieces who came before him in the succession line, as did Viserys. We can even look at what happened with Cregan's granddaughters or how Berena Hornwood was ignored from the talk of succession in ACOK. They had a right to make their case (and be told no), what happened to them was not justice. She's actually quite popular in her early years, the 'realm's delight' may have prospered being slowly brought into the role. Come the Dance she's an absolute trainwreck, but she is dealing with a stillbirth, a dead family member every other month and a mega civil war. Neither Rhaenyra, Aegon, Daemon or Aemond come across as sympathetic or suitable rulers, but war does bring out the worst. Had Jace lived longer perhaps the war would have brought out his uglier side. He was a husband to her, I don't see evidence of 'good' or 'bad'. What is your basis for 'good'? There is also nothing to suggest he did. An absence of evidence is not evidence. Alicent seems to have more fond memories for Jaehaerys than her husband, this does not suggest a loving relationship. Agreed. He didn't though. he married her. Should she and her children not have the rights of every other noble family in Westeros at the time? Not all the perks. Aegon was his oldest son, never had a daughter came before a son in the Targ dynasty. It's a huge reason why she likely resented her husband. This is a fairly common problem with husbands with second wives. they are often paranoid (sometimes justifiably so) about the children of the first wife getting preferential treatment. In Alicent's case it was not paranoia. Wanting her son to get what was rightfully his is a pretty acceptable thing. Rhaenyra had Daemon murder Vaemond for suggesting her sons were not her own, doesn't take a genius to come up with a scenario she does the same when she's Queen. That is not true. Knowing the situation is complicated and being pragmatic with it is not the same as believing you are right. Both sides believed they were right, it was a complicated matter that split the realm. GRRM has written it perfectly, a civil war should not be about good vs bad but two sides believing they are right.
  14. At that point in time she would have lost. Had Viserys called one he had both the time and power to influence a decision that he wanted. Wealth, titles, marriages and royal favor are tools for him to use to get his way. True, it was a can of worms whatever he did. If he truly wanted her to be Queen then he should not have got married, instead taken a paramour who's sons would not be treated as Targs (no dragon eggs) but lords of their own Houses. If he was determined to remarry then he should have organized a smoother transition of power. Rhaenyra should have been appointed Hand or some other important position reflective of her status, she should have had a say in the Council appointments and a working relationship with the members.
  15. Loving or lustful? Visery's fancied the 18 year old daughter of his Hand and Otto was only too happy to oblige. Love might not have came into it. In her last days the Queen Dowager seemed to become more lucid. “I want to see my sons again,” she told her septa, “and Helaena, my sweet girl, oh…and King Jaehaerys. I will read to him, as I did when I was little. He used to say I had a lovely voice.” (Strangely, in her final hours Queen Alicent spoke often of the Old King, but never of her husband, King Viserys.) I imagine there was a great deal of resentment from Alicent towards Viserys, given (by Westerosi standards) he was treating her son like he was second class. While we rightly value equality between the genders, this was not the perception at the time. From her perception she did everything right, produced four children to the sonless Viserys, her children followed the royal customs marrying each other and producing legitimate grandchildren for the king unlike Rhaenyra. It was her children she was thinking of. From her perception (and the laws of the land) their father was trying to rob them of their rightful inheritance.
×