"F*** Tradition" - Breaking Patriarchy

[SeanF]

21 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

No, not an "excellent" claim. There are systems in which she would have some claim, but they were not the dominant forms seen in Western Europe.  Even discounting the gender, “siblings before children” is agnatic seniority, and we don't see that much in Western Europe.

The idea that Jon wouldn't count because Rhaegar was never king is even rarer; that's called porphyrogeniture meaning “born to the purple”. As far as I know, it was never followed in Westeros, so there is no precedent there for it. That would be like saying that if Charles, the Prince of Wales and thus the heir apparent to Elizabeth II, were to die before his mother the Queen, that one of his siblings rather than one of his children should become the heir apparent. That’s not an excellent claim; it's a weak one, at least in Westeros and Europe.

Wherever the concept of birthright inheritance exists, some ostensibly formal legal framework determines the order of succession. Westeros mostly follows male-preference primogeniture, meaning that the eldest trueborn male child inherits the title and lands of the father.  Dorne follows absolute primogeniture in which there is no sex bias whatsoever.

Some historical variants, such as Salic Law seen in Continental Europe but not England, completely forbade consideration of the female line such that not only could there never be a queen regnant, no king could come to power whose claim was through the female line alone. England did not follow this.

 

 

She's not arguing her claim before Parliament, but putting forward sufficient justification to seek the IT.  I'd add that she's also pure Targaryen going back three generations, whereas Jon is half a Stark, and she has the biggest army.  She can also point to Rhaenyra, as a precedent.  Overall, I'd say it adds up to a very strong claim, although there are counter-arguments.

[RhaenysBee]

4 minutes ago, tallTale said:

How much "patriarchy breaking" do we still need in the show? 90% of the leaders are women.

Mostly the scene of Brienne being knighted was the culmination of what it means to be a knight: the psychical, moral, and spiritual aspects of it.

 

It was about a whole lot of things, an appreciation of what it means to be a knight and who Brienne is, a character arc running its full circle, a tribute to standing together and above rules as the end nears, a moment of gratitude from Jaime for Brienne’s standing by him all those times. 

The scene was rich enough in its own right we don’t need to make everything about feminism. 

[Kajjo]

5 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

who Brienne is, a character arc running its full circle, a tribute to standing together and above rules as the end nears, a moment of gratitude from Jaime for Brienne’s standing by him all those times. 

Top!

6 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

The scene was rich enough in its own right we don’t need to make everything about feminism. 

Exactly.

[L’Age d’or]

Patriarchy in Westeros? Don't make me laugh.

[Corvinus85]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

She's not arguing her claim before Parliament, but putting forward sufficient justification to seek the IT.  I'd add that she's also pure Targaryen going back three generations, whereas Jon is half a Stark, and she has the biggest army.  She can also point to Rhaenyra, as a precedent.  Overall, I'd say it adds up to a very strong claim, although there are counter-arguments.

That is her strongest argument, ultimately, especially in a Westeros where Cersei sits the Iron Throne because she blew up her competition, and her son died.

But I would say she can't really point to Rhaenyra, since half the lords of Westeros disagreed with that. Also Rhaenyra's strongest claim came from her dad saying he wanted her as successor. The Mad King never said that, Rhaegar was the heir apparent.

[CrypticWeirwood]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

She's not arguing her claim before Parliament, but putting forward sufficient justification to seek the IT.  I'd add that she's also pure Targaryen going back three generations, whereas Jon is half a Stark, and she has the biggest army.  She can also point to Rhaenyra, as a precedent.  Overall, I'd say it adds up to a very strong claim, although there are counter-arguments.

She isn't "pure Targaryen going back three generations". That's not how it works. She has 50% the blood of the First Men running through her veins, just like Bloodraven does.

That's because Aegon V married Betha Blackwood, a First Men house, making his kids all 50% Targ and 50% First Men. His son Jaehaerys married his own sister, so their kids were still 50/50.  Then Jaehaerys's son Aerys once again married his own sister, and so all three of his kids are just as 50/50 as Aegon V's were.

That means Dany is 50% Targaryen and 50% First Men.

[SeanF]

29 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

That is her strongest argument, ultimately, especially in a Westeros where Cersei sits the Iron Throne because she blew up her competition, and her son died.

But I would say she can't really point to Rhaenyra, since half the lords of Westeros disagreed with that. Also Rhaenyra's strongest claim came from her dad saying he wanted her as successor. The Mad King never said that, Rhaegar was the heir apparent.

The Show canon is probably different, but in TWOIAF, Aerys II made Prince Viserys his successor, as Rhaegar's children were so young.  And, Viserys made Dany his successor.  One could of course, argue that Viserys never made good his claim to the IT.

[House Cambodia]

It was a beautiful and touching scene indeed, but to suggest it was a moment of 'breaking patriarchy' in Westeros kind of forgets that all the strong leaders on the continent currently are women. Cercei, Dany and Sansa - might even throw in the ballsy Lady Mormont! Even before the knighting, Jamie was asking to serve under Brianne's military leadership. Let's not even think about Arya jumping poor Gendry.

[Orphalesion]

I agree that it was a very beautiful scene and one time the show really managed to create a satisfying payoff.

And it also hints at the great opportunity the War for the Dawn creates. In a situation like this, when everything is in a state of dissolution and chaos, that's when the old can be replaced by something newer and better.

Of course now they'll just have to survive in order to consolidate the whole thing...

[Ferrum Aeternum]

This was my favorite scene in the episode. I did pick up on the symbolism, but I agree with others that it was more a matter of breaking with bullshit protocol that doesn't make good sense, rather than specifying the patriarchy. Brienne had earned her knighthood many times over and thanks to two characters who have no problem breaking with protocol (Tormund and Jaime) she got it. 

[Zorral]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

In reality, Dany still has an excellent claim.  She's the daughter, and sole surviving child, of Aerys II, and sister and heir to Viserys III (as Targaryen loyalists would see him.). Jon's father was never the King

In 1328, after the death of Charles IV, the final son of Philip the Fair, a/k/a "the Iron King", the regency and succession were disputed between France and England. In between all this, for political reasons, it was declared that the French crown's succession couldn't got through the female line -- preventing the daughter of the Iron King's first son being declared for the crown (which had happened to females in France previously).  Charles IV married three times, and at the time of death had no heirs, though is wife was pregnant.  Would she have a son, a daughter or even a living child, and if so, living for how long?

In the meantime Isabella, Queen of England,  Charles's IV's sister, and the Iron King's daughter, declares herself candidate for the regency due to closer relationship to the Iron King than Charlie's child, whatever that child would be, as the last living child of the Iron King.  Moreover, then, her son, Edward III, King of England (and Duke of Aquitaine), should inherit the French throne.

The argument came down to the declaration of whether or not the crown could descend through the female line and to a female.  On Isabella's side was 1) that everybody is born of a woman so how can that be the case 2) Charles' child would be born of a woman, contradicting those who want the crown for that child instead of her child; 3) Edward III is the direct grandSON of the Iron King.

Much conflict ensues, including the dissolution of the Capetian dynasty and the imposition of the Valois, and the 100 Years War.  (And somewhere in between we have the Black Death, but nevermind.)

[C.T. Phipps]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

As a sign to patriarchy it would have had actually much more meaning if Dany as a woman herself would have done that - as a queen regnant she could have done that, too, or simply taken the power to do it. It could also have been done by the instigation of Sansa or in a more public venue - doing it along with drinking men makes it more than a travesty than a great event - sort of like a Las Vegas wedding you try to forget the next day.

Still, on a personal level it is a nice scene, although all the nice buildup and bonding between Brienne and Jaime is long since gone.

I disagree because if Danny did it, it's women knighting women while this is a joining of men and women in mutual respect.

As for Daeny's claim, Jon's claim depends strongly on the recognition of polygamy in Westeros.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I disagree because if Danny did it, it's women knighting women while this is a joining of men and women in mutual respect.

I saw it as a thing done among drinking buddies fearing battle and death who basically acted on a whim. You would have a point, I think, if Jaime had suggesting doing that in front of the people assembled at Winterfell, but a couple of guys in a back room. And how many women were there? Only Brienne, if I recall correctly, right?

But the overall point in overcoming of patriarchy would, in my opinion, be about man-only stuff being forcefully and decisively taken by women, not granted to them as a boon. And that doesn't really work if Brienne has somehow 'earned the right to be a knight' 

3 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

As for Daeny's claim, Jon's claim depends strongly on the recognition of polygamy in Westeros.

That's just the books. And there, with it actually be a more realistic setting with the author trying to write characters as if they were real people, Jon would basically lack a solid/convinced Targaryen loyalist power base supporting his claim and bid for the throne. All the people following Daenerys essentially follow her, personally, due to the things they lived and did together. Hers is a very personal rule, based on affection, mutual respect and trust. Her people are not loyal to an abstract 'House Targaryen' or hereditary laws and customs or legal precedents of a land they don't live in.

In that sense, Jon's chances to make Dany's people his own people - which he basically would need to do to win the throne - are close to zero. Even more since most of the Targaryen loyalists who don't join team Dany are going to support team Aegon, making it very unlikely they are going to switch to a second son of Rhaegar's after they, perhaps, had to learn the hard way that their son of Rhaegar's had been a fake.

There certainly are strange scenarios imaginable how Jon somehow could win the support of half the Realm as a Targaryen pretender but it is very obvious that such scenario have a very low probability at this point.

I certainly can see Jon being recognized as a royal prince - but only if he were to first formally acknowledged as such by a Targaryen (either Aegon or Dany) effectively becoming adopted into the family. But I think especially the scenario of Aegon and Jon ever hooking up are very low - although if that happened then Jon could really become a rival to Dany (but this would likely bury any romance plot for them, too, so it is very unlikely). If Dany were to do that then he would be part of the team, so to speak, not a rival, because, as you pointed out, chances are also very low that even the people buying the Rhaegar-Lyanna story are going to interpret such a polygamous union as completely legitimate.

Jon Snow was not born at court, he did not grow up a royal prince, and does not really count as a royal child in this regard. The children of Daemon and Laena only became members of the royal family after King Viserys I accepted them. And they were just children born abroad, fruits of a union the king hadn't blessed. If Rhaegar and Lyanna did marry in secret not telling anyone about either the marriage, the pregnancy, or the child it is essentially as if it never happened. Saying such a child must be a prince/king is about in the same category as insisting that a royal child being swapped at birth and being raised a beggar *must* get his rank and titles and station back when he publicly reveals *the truth*...

[Zorral]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If Rhaegar and Lyanna did marry in secret not telling anyone about either the marriage, the pregnancy, or the child it is essentially as if it never happened

But it was recorded by the one who conducted the rites and the record was found and read.

A marriage performed according to rules and ritual is a marriage, not a fake one.  It can be set aside, annulled, of course by the proper form by a proper person with the vested authority to do so -- which is exactly what happened with Rhaegar's first marriage.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, Zorral said:

But it was recorded by the one who conducted the rites and the record was found and read.

A marriage performed according to rules and ritual is a marriage, not a fake one.  It can be set aside, annulled, of course by the proper form by a proper person with the vested authority to do so -- which is exactly what happened with Rhaegar's first marriage.

I was talking about the books above. There is not going to be a stupid annulment in the books.

But, honestly, who in either show or books cares about 'documents'? Didn't Cersei rip apart Robert's will in season 1? Can't people forge documents or lie in diaries? Sure, Bran had a vision, but all Jon and Dany have is Sam's word (he never presented his documents to Jon or Dany), and he certainly could be mistaken.

And since we are talking parentage with political implications here it is obvious that anybody putting forth the 'Lyanna/Rhaegar/Jon story' should actually realize that he or she is entering the political arena with that, meaning that said person would make herself a target. If all people have - and that's basically all they have - is personal testimony and beliefs - then, depending on the situation, such talk should be as convincing as the letters Stannis wrote. Did they convince anyone that Robert's children weren't his - to the degree that their beliefs caused them to influence their political decisions?

If Jon were to try to usurp Dany's place as 'Aegon Targaryen' in the show chances are astronomically high that he would be laughed out of the hall. Because none of Dany's people are under any obligation to believe whatever he says. And they are the only Targaryen loyalists around. The Northmen - who don't want to be ruled by the Iron Throne - shouldn't have either right no interest to interfere with Targaryen issues. But then, this presupposes that the characters are written consistently. Which they aren't.

Which gets us back to fake tension. There are only four episodes left, so we'll likely get some dangerous situations in the next episodes where Jon and Dany realize how much they are in love and how they can't live without each other, etc. and then they will decide to marry and rule together. Case closed.

Just like Sansa and Arya didn't kill each other last season.

[Pecan]

What!!!??? Girls can't be Kannigats!!!! I'm done. The show is completely ruined now.

[SansaJonRule]

13 hours ago, A Dance with Davos said:

With the episode starting with Brienned defending Jaime. I feel like it ending with Jaime telling Brienne she is the the true embodiment of a knight would've been far more emotional and fulfilling.

That's why he broke tradition and knighted her.  It's an instance of actions speak louder than words.

[Howland Reed]

I never post much, but just needed some form of release.  This scene was so awesome in my opinion, easily one of the best in the show period.  It could be that I always really loved knighthood, kings guard all that jazz etc...  The only problem I guess I have is that I bet a lot of people (casual fans) don't get the true implications of being knighted, especially by non other than one of the most famous knights alive, the Kingslayer.  Not sure how people will think of that, but the idea of this crazy controversial knight, knighting this woman is just epic.  That scene god damn, it was a thing of beauty.

[Haus Berlin]

On 23. April 2019 at 12:38 AM, Lord Varys said:

I saw it as a thing done among drinking buddies fearing battle and death who basically acted on a whim. You would have a point, I think, if Jaime had suggesting doing that in front of the people assembled at Winterfell, but a couple of guys in a back room. And how many women were there? Only Brienne, if I recall correctly, right?

But the overall point in overcoming of patriarchy would, in my opinion, be about man-only stuff being forcefully and decisively taken by women, not granted to them as a boon. And that doesn't really work if Brienne has somehow 'earned the right to be a knight'

Its no back room but the Great Hall of Winterfell, which still is a seat of power. But, as the song at the end of the episode reminds us, the kings are gone. It just needs a knight to make another knight, though. The proto version of a civil contract, if you like.

By right Bran would be Lord of Winterfell and Daenerys would be only a guest there. But things have changed. Sansa is head of the house instead of Bran. Daenerys found another woman on her throne and has to share her court with Jon, who has more titles than he could embody.

So no, Daenerys did not bring feminism to Westeros, as she did not bring freedom to Essos. You can't force people to become themselves or to become more than themselves even. Empowerment is such a tricky thing.

When Bran accepted Sansa as Lady of Winterfell, since she could pass on the family's name, this was sensible. When Jon was in awe and maybe a bit in love with Daenery's records, it seemed like the responsible thing to do - to take a step behind. All those women then had to do was to embrace a task for which they are not considered fit by gender.

I feel that Brienne stands for another approach, though. Without a sword hand, by murderous attempts against much younger boys, by breaking an oath against a king - all known to the public - Brienne basically knightened Jaime when she kneeled to recieve knighthood from him.
Our modern constitutions make us equals, but it takes our heartfelt respect for the other person to fulfill that person's granted freedom and get it in return.