Jump to content

Tolkien 2.0


The Marquis de Leech

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I would also argue that the reader is supposed to see Ned as the good guy (specifically, a good guy who makes mistakes).

This seems very hard to deny. And while Ned's loyalty to Robert (and Joffrey, before he realized the illegitimacy) might be seen as one of his mistakes, neither Ned nor the reader are invited to doubt the general legitimacy of dynastic succession. (As the wise rule of the Starks and the supposedly fairly stable situations in most of the 7 kingdoms before the war shows this seems to work usually quite well, over-the-top comic villains like Bolton and Gregor excluded.)

Because of the background of Westeros I find this rather puzzling. As I argued above, in the ME setting we really have dynasties of thousands of years going literally back to "demi-gods" with special elven blood and divine rewards for bravery in the First Age wars. In Westeros we have a tradition of separate, sovereign kingdoms that have only been united for 300 years (because magic dragontaming blood) and now a new ruler since 15 years, so we can hardly speak of a dynasty. And the narrative does make obvious both how uncapable Robert is and how thin his claim because de facto it rests mostly on Lannister power and wealth. Or more precisely on the uneasy balance among the kingdoms that breaks down almost immediately.

So it would have been an almost ideal setting to "deconstruct" ideas of "special blood" and the like. But this has not happened so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 11:03 AM, C.T. Phipps said:

Mind you, Tolkien had Mordor destroyed by a volcano so that the heroes don't have to learn peace with it since they were exterminated as a species.

We also have Martin's DOTD novella to show how he treats such a Queen.

Barad-Dur and its environs were destroyed, but I think the rest of Mordor's inhabitants survived.  Even, the majority of Sauron's army at the Black Gate just fled, other than some men who preferred to fight to the death.

Going back to ASOIAF, I'm looking forward to seeing how the various dynasts deal with the fact in order to fulfill their ambitions, innocent people must die.  It's something that both Daenerys and Arianne have tried to avoid facing up to.  I think Tolkien would have taken the view that it's certainly better to renounce power than to make innocents suffer in order to attain it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Except that the reader is supposed to identify with the hobbits - they're audience surrogates, being ordinary people in a world full of epic figures. Yes, hobbits are different from Rohirrim, Eldar, or Gondorians, but only because hobbits are supposed to be mundane and average. That is their purpose (otherwise why have them?).

Well, Tolkien wrote that story from the POV of the Hobbits because he actually wanted (or was supposed) to write a sequel to the Hobbit. You can't do that by writing some sort of fantasy epic, or can you?

It is not that Tolkien deliberately chose to write a huge fantasy epic from the point of view of 'the common people' it is that he was writing from their POV before he even knew he would write a huge fantasy epic. That wasn't a conscious decision on his part. The Silmarillion stories prove that he has no tendency to tell grand stories from the POV of irrelevant people. Lúthien's handmaiden is not the narrator and main protagonist of the Lay of Leithian.

But within Hobbit culture people like the Bagginses, Tooks, and Brandybucks are mostly decadent slackers. They don't work as far as we can see (I mean actual manual labor), nor do they face any problems in life connected to money. If the Stark children are born with a silver spoon so are Frodo, Merry, and Pippin.

In fact, they are even better off than the ancient noble lines - after all, the last Dúnedain of the North, including the rightful king himself, have nothing better to do than to protect their Shire from outside enemies. The Hobbit gentry live much more pleasant lives than Aragorn and his cousins.

By comparison, Ned and his children also fulfill similar roles as the Hobbits, considering that they come into the main story from the vicinity of the Realm, and are not part of the establishment in the South. Daenerys may have an impeccable royal bloodline but that's all she has. Tyrion has a rich daddy but he is an ugly dwarf, set apart from his family and peers by this fact, just as Jon Snow is by his bastard heritage.

It isn't exactly the same scenario but there certainly are similarities.

3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

This is one of Tolkien's more unique influences on the genre - the idea of Epic Fantasy centred around Joe Bloggs. A more traditional fantasy author would certainly have Aragorn as the protagonist, since that is what an Epic is supposed to be all about.

There were no traditional fantasy authors prior to Tolkien, or were there? Not in our modern understanding. And Tolkien would have written Aragorn's story from Aragorn's POV had he ever intended to write a story about the Fall of the Lord of the Rings and the End of the Third Age - which he didn't until his publisher wanted him to write some Hobbit sequel.

Aragorn isn't at the heart of this story. He is a secondary character. He helps the hero to destroy the Ring but he isn't all that crucial. Tolkien could have cut all that and the story would still work. It would have been a shorter story, to be sure, but it would have worked.

3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Martin has no such Joe Bloggs figures as his protagonists - by contrast, his three major protagonists consist of a Targaryen chick with special blood, a secret heir with special blood, and the son of the wealthiest lord on the continent.

Tyrion might also have Targaryen blood.

But then, George's story is different. His central characters - Dany, Jon, and Tyrion - are the three heads of the dragon from that mysterious savior prophecy about a promised prince whose song is supposed to be the Song of Ice and Fire. We have no idea yet what this means so it is pretty difficult to speculate how their stories are going to end and whether their special royal bloodline is going to turn out to be a blessing or a curse.

Unlike in Tolkien's world having the blood of the dragon doesn't mean you are of the divine line of Melian and Thingol (and the very noble line of Finwe and Indis), and thus essentially the royal line god himself has chosen to rule over mankind (that is what Eru did by introducing the whole Peredhil story into the world and by ensuring that Lúthien, Tuor, and Eärendil and Elwing and their children could choose their fate). We actually don't know what this means. The Targaryen line is fundamentally tainted. Not just by the continuing incest (which only preserves and perpetuates the problem) but by the fact that the Targaryens seem to be part-dragon (and thus inhuman) in a very real sense. That is what allows them to be both great and very, very bad. This kind of dichotomy is completely absent in Tolkien's royal line.

But especially in Jon's case his true parentage is not likely to play a prominent role in the political sphere. It is very unlikely that many people even believe that story (whereas everybody believes Aragorn's claim that he is Isildur's heir just because he says so), not to mention that we are now getting a variation of 'the return of the king' theme in ASoIaF with Prince Aegon.

3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I would also argue that the reader is supposed to see Ned as the good guy (specifically, a good guy who makes mistakes).

He is a good guy in comparison to the bad guys that surround him, but he is not the hero of the story if the story is about the fight against the Others. Which the Song of Ice and Fire seems to be. Ned is as much a hero of ASoIaF as Arathorn, Gilraen, or Arador are heroes of LotR. He is only the father of the real heroes. We could perhaps also compare him to Théoden before Gandalf awakens him or to the many stupid kings and stewards of Gondor who sat on their asses doing nothing or were warring with peoples in the east and south instead of paying a visit to the Necromancer in Dol Guldur. Sauron was only sitting there for nearly two millennia, after all. Just as the Others are preparing for their final move right now during the reign of King Robert. Ned and his old buddy could have done something about them, too.

And George also plays with the question what kingship means. Even with Ned. Doesn't Littlefnger - quite correctly - point out that crowning Stannis will mean war? And isn't he correct in that assessment and thus even correct, in a sense, to betray Ned? It might not have been his only motivation to do so, of course, but it is still an interesting fact to consider. Ned is a decent human being in his decision to try to save the lives of Cersei and the children but nobody ever said he was correct in insisting that Stannis becomes king. We learn that quickly enough in ACoK when we realize what kind of a man Stannis is, and what kind of people surround him.

But we later also have Stannis adopting the view that a king has to put the defense of his people before his ambition to sit a throne. He has to earn his kingship, etc. Similarly, Daenerys' decision to end slavery in Slaver's Bay has nothing to do with the her 'blood of the dragon' but just with her character and compassion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Barad-Dur and its environs were destroyed, but I think the rest of Mordor's inhabitants survived.  Even, the majority of Sauron's army at the Black Gate just fled, other than some men who preferred to fight to the death.

Going back to ASOIAF, I'm looking forward to seeing how the various dynasts deal with the fact in order to fulfill their ambitions, innocent people must die.  It's something that both Daenerys and Arianne have tried to avoid facing up to.  I think Tolkien would have taken the view that it's certainly better to renounce power than to make innocents suffer in order to attain it.

Mind you that's the complexity of the story that if you renounce power to avoid suffering for innocents, there's no guarantee that will not cause even more suffering for the innocent. While I really didn't like the series, the Kingpriest Trilogy by Dragonlance did have one really good moment when the hero refuses the Crown of Istar and denounces the spirit which offered him to it--leading to his humble priest companion to take it.

Only later in life did he realize the spirit was a HOLY one and that it had offered him it because he was the man best equipped for it.

In the case of Daenerys and Arianne, is there anyone better to rule than them? Even if blood must come of it?

Edit:

And when I said DOTD I was actually referring to Martin's handling of Rhaenyra Targaryen who is the example of George R.R. Martin showing a "power hungry" queen with all of her flaws. There's no existential threat to justify Rhaenyra's takeover (unlike Danny) so her actions are viewed much more critically. Yes, she had a "right" to the Iron Throne but she was a pretty awful person at times just like her husband. The war for her ascension also ended up causing untold suffering for small gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

That's true, yes, but I think CT's main point was that the parts of Mordor where the "evil" citizens dwelt were destroyed, and their inhabitants with them. That spared Aragorn the onerous task of having to decide what to do with the orcs and trolls who'd served Sauron. That is the point I think he was making, and an interesting one to discuss, in my view.

(I don't want to speak for you, CT, and if I have gotten you wrong I'll remove this comment.)

No you're pretty accurate that Deus Ex Machina cleaned up things for our heroes very well. A more complicated story is the occupation of Mordor, making peace with its peoples, dealing with the fact they worship Satan, and maybe even overcoming Gondorian racism. In a more modern story, you have the potential for orcs integrating into society and becoming ancestors of humans.

Which I DOUBT Tolkien was going for.

Albeit, that would fit with my theory humans of today aren't the humans of yesteryear and we all have elements of his races in us. Humans do love war, machines, and industry like orcs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, Tolkien wrote that story from the POV of the Hobbits because he actually wanted (or was supposed) to write a sequel to the Hobbit. You can't do that by writing some sort of fantasy epic, or can you?

It is not that Tolkien deliberately chose to write a huge fantasy epic from the point of view of 'the common people' it is that he was writing from their POV before he even knew he would write a huge fantasy epic. That wasn't a conscious decision on his part. The Silmarillion stories prove that he has no tendency to tell grand stories from the POV of irrelevant people. Lúthien's handmaiden is not the narrator and main protagonist of the Lay of Leithian.

But within Hobbit culture people like the Bagginses, Tooks, and Brandybucks are mostly decadent slackers. They don't work as far as we can see (I mean actual manual labor), nor do they face any problems in life connected to money. If the Stark children are born with a silver spoon so are Frodo, Merry, and Pippin.

In fact, they are even better off than the ancient noble lines - after all, the last Dúnedain of the North, including the rightful king himself, have nothing better to do than to protect their Shire from outside enemies. The Hobbit gentry live much more pleasant lives than Aragorn and his cousins.

By comparison, Ned and his children also fulfill similar roles as the Hobbits, considering that they come into the main story from the vicinity of the Realm, and are not part of the establishment in the South. Daenerys may have an impeccable royal bloodline but that's all she has. Tyrion has a rich daddy but he is an ugly dwarf, set apart from his family and peers by this fact, just as Jon Snow is by his bastard heritage.

It isn't exactly the same scenario but there certainly are similarities.

There were no traditional fantasy authors prior to Tolkien, or were there? Not in our modern understanding. And Tolkien would have written Aragorn's story from Aragorn's POV had he ever intended to write a story about the Fall of the Lord of the Rings and the End of the Third Age - which he didn't until his publisher wanted him to write some Hobbit sequel.

Aragorn isn't at the heart of this story. He is a secondary character. He helps the hero to destroy the Ring but he isn't all that crucial. Tolkien could have cut all that and the story would still work. It would have been a shorter story, to be sure, but it would have worked.

Tyrion might also have Targaryen blood.

But then, George's story is different. His central characters - Dany, Jon, and Tyrion - are the three heads of the dragon from that mysterious savior prophecy about a promised prince whose song is supposed to be the Song of Ice and Fire. We have no idea yet what this means so it is pretty difficult to speculate how their stories are going to end and whether their special royal bloodline is going to turn out to be a blessing or a curse.

Unlike in Tolkien's world having the blood of the dragon doesn't mean you are of the divine line of Melian and Thingol (and the very noble line of Finwe and Indis), and thus essentially the royal line god himself has chosen to rule over mankind (that is what Eru did by introducing the whole Peredhil story into the world and by ensuring that Lúthien, Tuor, and Eärendil and Elwing and their children could choose their fate). We actually don't know what this means. The Targaryen line is fundamentally tainted. Not just by the continuing incest (which only preserves and perpetuates the problem) but by the fact that the Targaryens seem to be part-dragon (and thus inhuman) in a very real sense. That is what allows them to be both great and very, very bad. This kind of dichotomy is completely absent in Tolkien's royal line.

But especially in Jon's case his true parentage is not likely to play a prominent role in the political sphere. It is very unlikely that many people even believe that story (whereas everybody believes Aragorn's claim that he is Isildur's heir just because he says so), not to mention that we are now getting a variation of 'the return of the king' theme in ASoIaF with Prince Aegon.

He is a good guy in comparison to the bad guys that surround him, but he is not the hero of the story if the story is about the fight against the Others. Which the Song of Ice and Fire seems to be. Ned is as much a hero of ASoIaF as Arathorn, Gilraen, or Arador are heroes of LotR. He is only the father of the real heroes. We could perhaps also compare him to Théoden before Gandalf awakens him or to the many stupid kings and stewards of Gondor who sat on their asses doing nothing or were warring with peoples in the east and south instead of paying a visit to the Necromancer in Dol Guldur. Sauron was only sitting there for nearly two millennia, after all. Just as the Others are preparing for their final move right now during the reign of King Robert. Ned and his old buddy could have done something about them, too.

And George also plays with the question what kingship means. Even with Ned. Doesn't Littlefnger - quite correctly - point out that crowning Stannis will mean war? And isn't he correct in that assessment and thus even correct, in a sense, to betray Ned? It might not have been his only motivation to do so, of course, but it is still an interesting fact to consider. Ned is a decent human being in his decision to try to save the lives of Cersei and the children but nobody ever said he was correct in insisting that Stannis becomes king. We learn that quickly enough in ACoK when we realize what kind of a man Stannis is, and what kind of people surround him.

But we later also have Stannis adopting the view that a king has to put the defense of his people before his ambition to sit a throne. He has to earn his kingship, etc. Similarly, Daenerys' decision to end slavery in Slaver's Bay has nothing to do with the her 'blood of the dragon' but just with her character and compassion.

You seem to be arguing authorial intent and "death of the author" at the same time as it behooves your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Mind you that's the complexity of the story that if you renounce power to avoid suffering for innocents, there's no guarantee that will not cause even more suffering for the innocent. While I really didn't like the series, the Kingpriest Trilogy by Dragonlance did have one really good moment when the hero refuses the Crown of Istar and denounces the spirit which offered him to it--leading to his humble priest companion to take it.

Only later in life did he realize the spirit was a HOLY one and that it had offered him it because he was the man best equipped for it.

In the case of Daenerys and Arianne, is there anyone better to rule than them? Even if blood must come of it?

Edit:

And when I said DOTD I was actually referring to Martin's handling of Rhaenyra Targaryen who is the example of George R.R. Martin showing a "power hungry" queen with all of her flaws. There's no existential threat to justify Rhaenyra's takeover (unlike Danny) so her actions are viewed much more critically. Yes, she had a "right" to the Iron Throne but she was a pretty awful person at times just like her husband. The war for her ascension also ended up causing untold suffering for small gain.

I've always been rather sympathetic to Rhaenyra, who fell victim to a treacherous coup, and had her son murdered for good measure.

I think that in the kind of society that Martin describes, being removed from the succession is no light matter.  Not only are you denied the Iron Throne, your life, and the lives of your children are in danger.  No King likes to keep people around who have a better claim to the Throne than he does.  I doubt if Rhaenyra or her children would have lived for much longer, or at any rate, kept their liberty, had they just acquiesced in Aegon's usurpation.

As far as she is aware, that's Arianne's predicament, too.  She has good reason to believe that that she's been disinherited, and her father won't even let her make a good marriage.  She's not close to her brother, so what does she have to look forward to when he takes power in Dorne?  Exile, imprisonment, or meeting an "accident?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

No you're pretty accurate that Deus Ex Machina cleaned up things for our heroes very well. A more complicated story is the occupation of Mordor, making peace with its peoples, dealing with the fact they worship Satan, and maybe even overcoming Gondorian racism. In a more modern story, you have the potential for orcs integrating into society and becoming ancestors of humans.

Which I DOUBT Tolkien was going for.

Albeit, that would fit with my theory humans of today aren't the humans of yesteryear and we all have elements of his races in us. Humans do love war, machines, and industry like orcs.

I'm sure there's an Orcish strain in modern humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I've always been rather sympathetic to Rhaenyra, who fell victim to a treacherous coup, and had her son murdered for good measure.

I think that in the kind of society that Martin describes, being removed from the succession is no light matter.  Not only are you denied the Iron Throne, your life, and the lives of your children are in danger.  No King likes to keep people around who have a better claim to the Throne than he does.  I doubt if Rhaenyra or her children would have lived for much longer, or at any rate, kept their liberty, had they just acquiesced in Aegon's usurpation.

As far as she is aware, that's Arianne's predicament, too.  She has good reason to believe that that she's been disinherited, and her father won't even let her make a good marriage.  She's not close to her brother, so what does she have to look forward to when he takes power in Dorne?  Exile, imprisonment, or meeting an "accident?"

Indeed,

There's also practical reasons which get ignored as well that Rhaenyra has a claim which is legitimate from the perspective of having been her father's wish and the only reason against it is sexism. However, the fact remains very few people in the kingdom really WANTED Rhaenyra on the throne not just because it weakened their own claims to their houses but because of questions of parental inheritance, the fact her husband was a psychopathic pirate, and primogeniture was decided by the consent of the governed (sort of) very recently.

They could have possibly avoided this with another council. Westeros has it's own version of the kingsmoot really even if they're considerably rarer.

But Rhaenyra was wise to avoid that (sort of) since there's no way in hell she would have won.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You seem to be arguing authorial intent and "death of the author" at the same time as it behooves your argument.

Also, the idea Tolkien didn't intend to use Hobbits as modern reader surrogates on the world in both the Hobbit and LOTR is preposterous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Indeed,

There's also practical reasons which get ignored as well that Rhaenyra has a claim which is legitimate from the perspective of having been her father's wish and the only reason against it is sexism. However, the fact remains very few people in the kingdom really WANTED Rhaenyra on the throne not just because it weakened their own claims to their houses but because of questions of parental inheritance, the fact her husband was a psychopathic pirate, and primogeniture was decided by the consent of the governed (sort of) very recently.

They could have possibly avoided this with another council. Westeros has it's own version of the kingsmoot really even if they're considerably rarer.

But Rhaenyra was wise to avoid that (sort of) since there's no way in hell she would have won.

 

Actually, Rhaenyra had quite a lot of support among the major nobility of Westeros (the Starks, Greyjoys, Arryns and Tullys backed her).  The fact that the Greens immediately launched a coup on Viserys' death would suggest that they weren't at all confident that a Council would endorse Aegon's claim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

And when I said DOTD I was actually referring to Martin's handling of Rhaenyra Targaryen who is the example of George R.R. Martin showing a "power hungry" queen with all of her flaws. There's no existential threat to justify Rhaenyra's takeover (unlike Danny) so her actions are viewed much more critically. Yes, she had a "right" to the Iron Throne but she was a pretty awful person at times just like her husband. The war for her ascension also ended up causing untold suffering for small gain.

Rhaenyra was the chosen heir of her royal father, not her younger brother. She was groomed to rule, not he. And while she made some questionable decisions it is quite clear that she was the better person. She did not feed her own brother to her dragon (as Aegon did with her), nor did she kill her stepmother Alicent or her half-sister Helaena when they were in her power. She was also not directly involved in the murders of Prince Jaehaerys or Prince Maelor.

The entire point of that historical event is to get rid of the dragons (an important plot point in the setting of the story) as well as illustrate the general tendency of infighting among royal dynasties. We have this with Daemon Blackfyre later on, too. Tolkien makes use of similar tropes with the three kin-slayings as well as the Gondorian kin-strife.

44 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

There's also practical reasons which get ignored as well that Rhaenyra has a claim which is legitimate from the perspective of having been her father's wish and the only reason against it is sexism. However, the fact remains very few people in the kingdom really WANTED Rhaenyra on the throne not just because it weakened their own claims to their houses but because of questions of parental inheritance, the fact her husband was a psychopathic pirate, and primogeniture was decided by the consent of the governed (sort of) very recently.

As @SeanF has pointed out that was not really true. Rhaenyra grew up as the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne and Princess of Dragonstone, and the Realm at large expected her to become Queen Regnant.

Aegon II was only crowned because Otto and Alicent staged their coup immediately after the death of King Viserys, imprisoned (and killed) all of Rhaenyra's friends at court, kept the news about the king's death a secret, and used the time they got this way to buy the loyalty of a lot of people.

Once Aegon II was crowned things got a lot more complicated. Now the people who always sort of thought that a son must come before a daughter dared to come out and speak their minds. Now only war could decide the matter. But still, half the Realm or more stood with Rhaenyra - the Velaryons and other lords of the Narrow Sea and the Crownlands, the North, the Vale, the majority of the Riverlords, half the Reach.

That doesn't make it likely that the Realm actually resented the idea of a Queen Regnant all that much.

44 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

They could have possibly avoided this with another council. Westeros has it's own version of the kingsmoot really even if they're considerably rarer.

But Rhaenyra was wise to avoid that (sort of) since there's no way in hell she would have won.

We don't know that. It would have been difficult to for her after Aegon's coronation (which is why she decided to reject Alicent's suggestion to call a council) but if there had been a Great Council immediately after Viserys' death the chances would have been pretty high that Rhaenyra would have won. She was the chosen heir of her father, and many of the lords participating at such a council would have remembered their vows. And people would have seen all the dragons the Blacks controlled, compared to the few the Greens had.

One has to keep in mind that this was not just Black vs. Green but also Aemon vs. Baelon (or Viserys vs. Rhaenys). Rhaenyra's marriage to Laenor Velaryon was supposed to heal the rift between the two branches of the royal line, and not only Rhaenyra but also the Velaryons and their allies would not suffer it if they were tricked out of their inheritance another time by Alicent's sons. Rhaenyra's sons may not have been Laenor's seed but Jace and Luke were both betrothed to Laena's daughters, meaning the Velaryon line would eventually sit the Iron Throne.

Too many people had to lose to much in this whole game. It was a huge (and very happy) historical accidents for the Greens that Aemond could secure Baratheon support for Aegon II (although that only became really relevant after Rhaenyra's own death and the death of most of the dragons). If Rhaenys had gone to Storm's End or if any messenger of Rhaenyra's had arrived there before Aemond Lord Borros most certainly would have stood with his close Targaryen-Velaryon kin. In fact, it is very likely that his maester (possibly a Hightower crony) deliberately twisted the tone or content of Rhaenyra's letter when he whispered in the ear of his illiterate lord. What we know of the man's behavior prior to that whispering indicates that Borros was not yet decided at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was a Lord of Westeros, call me House Phipps with a Bull Terrier at a Computer, I would side with Rhaenyra. However, for all the calls that the Hightower-Aegon II coup would fail at a council, I should point out the Councils of Westeros have ALWAYS ended up backing primogeniture lines. This despite there being numerous women who would have done a better job than their male relatives.

I may well be wrong but it seems like much of her position would be undermined at that sort of arena.

After all, the Kinslaying Aegon II is remembered as a King of Westeros while Rhaenyra is not remembered as a Queen, just mother of the next King.

Much like Empress Maud.

I also think Baratheon support like the fact the Tyrells stayed out of the conflict is based on the fact he got a better deal-nothing more, nothing less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

However, for all the calls that the Hightower-Aegon II coup would fail at a council, I should point out the Councils of Westeros have ALWAYS ended up backing primogeniture lines. This despite there being numerous women who would have done a better job than their male relatives.

I don't want to derail this threat (we can discuss this also in relation to the Gondorian kin-strife) but this is wrong. The two Great Councils discussing the succession both favored proximity over primogeniture. The right of primogeniture favored Laenor Velaryon over Prince Viserys in 101 AC. Laenor was the eldest male descendant of King Jaehaerys I through his eldest surviving son, Prince Aemon while Prince Viserys was merely a son of the king's second surviving son.

The same thing happened again in 233 AC when Aegon V became king. Primogeniture would have favored either Princess Vaella (the lackwit) or Prince Maegor (the son of Aerion Brightflame) but a majority of the lords spoke for Prince Aegon, King Maekar's youngest surviving son.

We can say that the there is a strong tendency of the lords of Westeros to dismiss the claims of women and the claims of men who are descended through the female line but there is also a strong tendency to consider the claim of a son being much stronger than the claim of a grandchild or great-grandchild. Not to mention that people usually care more about the age of a claimant than his legal claim. Laenor and Maegor most likely had had much better chances had they been men grown when they presented their claims. But they weren't.

King Aerys II also thought along the same lines when he named his own son Viserys his new heir after the death of Rhaegar, instead of his infant grandson Aegon.

3 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I may well be wrong but it seems like much of her position would be undermined at that sort of arena.

To be sure, if there was an open discussion about the succession very few people would have supported the claim of an elder daughter over a younger son. But Rhaenyra was the Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne for 24 years upon her father's death. The entire Realm knew that she was his chosen heir. And pretty much anyone recognized this. It would have been a tough call, especially if Rhaenyra, Daemon, and the Velaryons had made it clear that they would accept only one choice, referring any dissenters to their dragons.

It would have come to war in any case, most likely, regardless whether Rhaenyra or Aegon and won with only a small majority. Back in 101 AC Viserys' gained such a strong support from the lords that Corlys and the Baratheons had no choice but to accept the outcome, but Rhaenyra and Daemon were in a much more comfortable position in 129 AC.

3 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

After all, the Kinslaying Aegon II is remembered as a King of Westeros while Rhaenyra is not remembered as a Queen, just mother of the next King.

Much like Empress Maud.

Yeah, there are strong parallels. But Rhaenyra was a queen, unlike Matilda. She had a coronation and she sat the Iron Throne. She is not counted as a proper queen but she was still a queen in a much more real sense than Stannis, Renly, or any Blackfyre was a king because she actually sat the Iron Throne and ruled the city and large portions of the Realm.

3 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I also think Baratheon support like the fact the Tyrells stayed out of the conflict is based on the fact he got a better deal-nothing more, nothing less.

But Borros doesn't give the impression that he got anything out of the deal (and neither did Aegon II, until the very end). Aemond didn't marry any of his daughters, and he didn't actually involve himself in the war until it was basically nearly over. It rather seems as if Borros realized that he had made a huge mistake when he allowed Aemond to kill Lucerys, and then did his best to stay out of the entire affair as well as he could until Rhaenyra and Daemon were both gone. Only then did he bestir himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although Tolkien never wrote a novel set in Gondor under the Kings, there's no doubt from the history that it was at times very much a Game of Thrones-type world, with murderous succession struggles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Although Tolkien never wrote a novel set in Gondor under the Kings, there's no doubt from the history that it was at times very much a Game of Thrones-type world, with murderous succession struggles.

Aside from the Kin-strife in Gondor and its long aftermath (Castamir's descendants in Umbar) I'm not sure it was all that murderous. There are at least no hints in that direction. The only other larger conflict I can thing was the fragmentation of Arnor, but we don't know whether this was triggered by a conflict within the royal family or rather by the fact that the Dúnedain weren't all that populous up in the North, possibly leading to a lot of discontent in the regions of the kingdom where the Dúnedain culture wasn't all that strong. 

We know that the Dúnedain continued to play a major role in Cardolan until the destruction of Amon Sûl, but how long the line of Isildur continued to rule in Rhudaur after the split is completely unclear if I remember correctly.

What we know about the succession struggles among the Númenóreans indicates that they seldom got really violent, not even in the final days.

And the general view also is that treason is treason and rebellion rebellion. You don't do that. The Faithful had no choice but to accept the kings. Tolkien doesn't like his heroes to be rebels and traitors. Even when Sauron effectively takes the reins of the government the king remains the king. All the Faithful can do is try to save their own asses, but the idea that they could actually topple or depose the king is unthinkable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Borros got a PROMISE to marry one of his daughters. Which is as good as gold until Robb Stark becomes an oathbreaker on the deal.

Well, but Aemond quickly takes a mistress in Alys Rivers at Harrenhal, and never goes through with this marriage deal. He dies before that can happen. We don't know Borros' reaction to the murder of Lucerys, nor whether he and Aemond parted as friends. Considering that the Stormlords stayed out of the war until the very end one wonders whether this is the case.

One also wonders whether Lord Borros bestirred himself all by himself only with the original pact in mind or only after he learned that Aegon II was still alive and Rhaenyra dead. He may even have demanded that the widowed Aegon II now marry one of his daughters before he assembled his army to restore order in KL. We don't know the time line there yet.

But the whole thing smells as if Borros was sitting out the war after he risked the wrath of the dragon so early in the conflict, only committing himself after he had a feeling that he could play an important role when there was no longer a risk to face a large dragon in battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aside from the Kin-strife in Gondor and its long aftermath (Castamir's descendants in Umbar) I'm not sure it was all that murderous. There are at least no hints in that direction. The only other larger conflict I can thing was the fragmentation of Arnor, but we don't know whether this was triggered by a conflict within the royal family or rather by the fact that the Dúnedain weren't all that populous up in the North, possibly leading to a lot of discontent in the regions of the kingdom where the Dúnedain culture wasn't all that strong. 

We know that the Dúnedain continued to play a major role in Cardolan until the destruction of Amon Sûl, but how long the line of Isildur continued to rule in Rhudaur after the split is completely unclear if I remember correctly.

What we know about the succession struggles among the Númenóreans indicates that they seldom got really violent, not even in the final days.

And the general view also is that treason is treason and rebellion rebellion. You don't do that. The Faithful had no choice but to accept the kings. Tolkien doesn't like his heroes to be rebels and traitors. Even when Sauron effectively takes the reins of the government the king remains the king. All the Faithful can do is try to save their own asses, but the idea that they could actually topple or depose the king is unthinkable.

I agree. Tolkien's monarchies were fairly stable affairs, to the point that Ar-Pharazon taking his cousin's place via marriage was considered to be extraordinarily noteworthy. The Stewards ruled Gondor with seemingly little challenge until Aragorn made his claim toward their position and that was helpfully resolved by Faramir bowing out from challenging him. That's another area where things end surprisingly cleanly.

I'd argue your point, however, with rebels, though given the nature of conflicting loyalty is the reason for Gondor and Arnor's existence as they were nations in rebellion due to their refusal to follow Ar-Pharazon into Satanism as well as war on Heaven. They don't attempt to topple Ar-Pharazon. yes, but the simple fact is that's a bit like stating Australia and The United States didn't attempt to invade London. They were far off colonies and Ar-Pharazon is the most powerful human monarch in all of history.

Bard, notably, also seizes power from the Master but once we get to the point of arguing, "But he's not REALLY Bard's liege" we've reached the point of how various rebellions justify themselves in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And the general view also is that treason is treason and rebellion rebellion. You don't do that. The Faithful had no choice but to accept the kings. Tolkien doesn't like his heroes to be rebels and traitors. Even when Sauron effectively takes the reins of the government the king remains the king. All the Faithful can do is try to save their own asses, but the idea that they could actually topple or depose the king is unthinkable.

Small problem: Ar-Pharazon was both incredibly popular and incredibly powerful, meaning the Faithful were in no position to overthrow him. The most they could do is flee to Middle-earth (which the regime doesn't mind), or basically do their thing under cover. Rather like the Catholic Church in England up until the early nineteenth century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...