Jump to content
AlaerysTargaryen

If Dany becomes mad, it will cement the idea that all westerosi queens in their own right are unworthy.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Wildling Queen said:

I don't understand how this discussion turned into one about patriarchy in medieval Europe. I'm also pretty stunned to see all the arguments that women weren't allowed to rule in medieval Europe. Queen Elizabeth I was considered one of the most successful monarchs in British history, not to mention Mary Queen of Scots, Queen Victoria, and many other women who have ruled. It would be far more realistic if Westeros had had several women who ascended to the throne at this point in its history.

William the Conqueror took the crown of England around 1066.  It would be roughly about 500 years before Mary (or Jane) sat the throne. By my count there were roughly 20 monarchs that sat the English throne before Mary (or Jane).

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

William the Conqueror took the crown of England around 1066.  It would be roughly about 500 years before Mary (or Jane) sat the throne. By my count there were roughly 20 monarchs that sat the English throne before Mary (or Jane).

Matilda nearly did it.  I think that GRRM used her as the inspiration for Rhaenyra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Maybe a resident Westerosi historian can correct me, but, it seems to me, of all the monarchs that have ruled Westeros, relatively few make into the "Good" or "Excellent" categories. Most are in the Mediocre, Bad, or Crazy categories.

I would say that Aegon I, Jaeherys I, Viserys I, Daeron II, Aegon V were the good kings

Maegor, Aegon IV, Aegon II, and Aerys II were terrible kings

Aenys I, Daeron I, Baelor, Aenys II were bad kings (in the sense of not being up to the job, rather than being awful people).

Aegon III, Maekar, were mediocre.

Viserys II, Rhaenyra, and Jaeherys II never got the chance to prove themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I would say that Aegon I, Jaeherys I, Viserys I, Daeron II, Aegon V were the good kings

Maegor, Aegon IV, Aegon II, and Aerys II were terrible kings

Aenys I, Daeron I, Baelor, Aenys II were bad kings (in the sense of not being up to the job, rather than being awful people).

Aegon III, Maekar, were mediocre.

Viserys II, Rhaenyra, and Jaeherys II never got the chance to prove themselves.

Using this, something like slightly over 50% of the monarchs end up in the Bad or Terrible categories?

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Using this, something like slightly over 50% of the monarchs end up in the Bad or Terrible categories?

Yes, although they only reigned for about 25% of the time that the Dynasty was in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SeanF said:

Yes, although they only reigned for about 25% of the time that the Dynasty was in power.

I guess, but it seems in Westeros at least, the probability that any given individual will be a failure as a monarch seems quite high.

If you throw in Robert and Joffrey, then it would seem the probability would even be higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I guess, but it seems in Westeros at least, the probability that any given individual will be a failure as a monarch seems quite high.

If you throw in Robert and Joffrey, then it would seem the probability would even be higher.

Looking at English history (up to the point where kings ceased to rule) I'd say the terrible were John, Richard II, Richard III, Mary, and Henry VIII.

The bad were Stephen, Edward II, Henry VI,  Charles I, and James II.

The mediocre were William Rufus, Henry III, Henry IV, Edward VI, Charles II, Anne.

The good were William I, Henry I, Henry II, Richard I, Edward I, Edward III, Henry V, Henry VII, Elizabeth, William III. 

So, 50/50 good/bad, but six too who were mediocre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AlaerysTargaryen said:

Thank you for getting the point of what I was trying to say. I still stand by what I said.

You're welcome. You're analyzing the text of the show using feminist theory (a specialty of mine) and there's nothing wrong with that. Don't let anyone convince you that there is. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that GRRM is a sexist writer. In fact, he's done an excellent job in the books and in the histories of proving that notion wrong. He's had several female characters who would have made better rulers than the men who ruled and even started the story of Aegon I with two women who ruled alongside him with equal force and power. We don't get all that history in the show, so the takeaway is that two women (Cersei and Daenerys) have tried to rule and neither was capable of doing it well. It's problematic as a theme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LadyBlackwater said:

And the women of the north and the Wildlings. All there women fight. Little Leanna Mormont was an amazing figure. I feel like this is one character they stayed pretty true too.

Exception that proves the rule. And, thank God, the women of the North did not fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gendelsdottir said:

The queens regnant that you mention are all post-medieval, but your point is valid nevertheless - and it's backed up to the hilt by the historical record.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant

Not the first time a popular media product has appeared to support that view, and it won't be the last. I'm not inclined to hold GRRM's feet to the fire for this. The aSoIaF novels' universe has a much more subtle and nuanced view of monarchy - and fitness to rule in general - than what is depicted in the TV show.

 

 

True. And in the books, it’s more situational to the region. In Dorne for example, Adrianne will rule when her father dies. Succession falls to whomever is first born regardless of gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Matilda nearly did it.  I think that GRRM used her as the inspiration for Rhaenyra.

She ‘nearly’ did it because she was the obvious claimant and her father’s designated heir to which the barons twice swore allegiance. She did not actually do it because pretty much everyone agreed a woman could not rule, and so chose a man with a lesser claim. This is the opposite of an argument to disprove the medieval patriarchy. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As to the question of GRRM being a sexist writer, he’s not. He’s a writer depicting a sexist society reflecting sexist European history and more to the point he is often explicitly depicting it AS sexist. He repeatedly shows women who are clearly qualified to do more than the role society allows for them, and he shows a few extraordinary examples where (almost always Stark, pretty much always noble) some women overcome these limitations in extraordinary circumstances.

It’s also a feudal society where birth largely determines your life, and a violent society where rape, murder, slavery, torture, and all kinds of other evils are true and his depiction of those elements is not advocating for those elements. 

Edited by James Arryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 4:13 AM, Mikkel said:

If he sits the Throne in the end (which I wouldn't count on) it's not really because he has a dick though, it's because he isn't one. And crucially, he's not going (or have gone) insane. Yet, anyway. Is being a woman enough of an excuse for being insane that you "deserve to rule" anyway? Should it really be an excuse for anything? IMO no.

The fact is this show has shown a cavalcade of terrible rulers, some men, currently most of the surviving ones are women, consequently they're going to have to show some of the women failing.

He is half Targ though He is at risk for going insane too... right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Wildling Queen said:

I don't understand how this discussion turned into one about patriarchy in medieval Europe. I'm also pretty stunned to see all the arguments that women weren't allowed to rule in medieval Europe. Queen Elizabeth I was considered one of the most successful monarchs in British history, not to mention Mary Queen of Scots, Queen Victoria, and many other women who have ruled. It would be far more realistic if Westeros had had several women who ascended to the throne at this point in its history.

But the original posting wasn't arguing about women being allowed to rule. The argument was that with this new turn in Daenerys's story, the show's arc seems to be justifying all those old patriarchal notions about WHY women shouldn't be allowed to rule: they're just too darned emotionally unstable to hold real positions of power.

1) the Tudors explicitly are defined as post-medieval in part because of the onset of female rulers, BUT...

2) to actually cite the Tudors of all people to refute the existence of patriarchy is a staggering misunderstanding of how very much the patriarchy defined their dynasty. Mary, whom you cite, was the product of Henry’s first marriage. All the other wives happened because of her gender in a patriarchal society. So, too, in part for why Elizabeth herself did not want another Mary as her heir. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

To actually cite the Tudors of all people to refute the existence of patriarchy is a staggering misunderstanding of how very much the patriarchy defined their dynasty. Mary, whom you cite, was the product of Henry’s first marriage. All the other wives happened because of her gender in a patriarchal society. So, too, in part for why Elizabeth herself did not want another Mary as her heir. 

 

I'm aware, thanks. I would never, ever "refute the existence of patriarchy" in European history. I was making a point that women DID rule in Europe and that they did a good job of it, not that patriarchy didn't exist. The point was that there were very capable female monarchs and that having at least one capable female monarch on the throne in this show wouldn't have been unrealistic, nor does that point relate to the original post.

Edited by Wildling Queen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

He is half Targ though He is at risk for going insane too... right?

targ's go insane because of inbreeding Jon has side stepped that problem by having a stark mother. the chances he'd go insane are far smaller then Dany who is the product direct inbreeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dex drako said:

targ's go insane because of inbreeding Jon has side stepped that problem by having a stark mother. the chances he'd go insane are far smaller then Dany who is the product direct inbreeding.

Targ's go insane because the writer wrote them that way. It has nothing to do with real life genetics.

After 300 years of massive inbreeding, imagine how Daenerys would look in the real world.
(Assuming that Rhaella would've been able to give birth to any children at all.)

And clearly whatever it is that causes the Targ-madness can skip a generation or two on occasion, since Rhaegar seemed to turn out alright, if a bit broody. (At least we know who Jon got that trait from.)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

Targ's go insane because the writer wrote them that way. It has nothing to do with real life genetics.

After 300 years of massive inbreeding, imagine how Daenerys would look in the real world.
(Assuming that Rhaella would've been able to give birth to any children at all.)

And clearly whatever it is that causes the Targ-madness can skip a generation or two on occasion, since Rhaegar seemed to turn out alright, if a bit broody. (At least we know who Jon got that trait from.)
 

i don't know how much clearer GRRM would have to be on the whole inbreeding thing being behind the "crazy" in the targ line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Wildling Queen said:

I'm aware, thanks. I would never, ever "refute the existence of patriarchy" in European history. I was making a point that women DID rule in Europe and that they did a good job of it, not that patriarchy didn't exist. The point was that there were very capable female monarchs and that having at least one capable female monarch on the throne in this show wouldn't have been unrealistic, nor does that point relate to the original post.

It seems to me the crux of the argument here is:
1. Many people, whether they live in Westeros or in the real world, are very bad at inductive reasoning. These types of people would actually be willing to make a strong statement about the state of things based on exactly three data points.
2. Accordingly, because many people are bad at inductive reasoning either Cersei or Dany should have been made to look like a good ruler, regardless of the fact that people who are not bad at inductive reasoning wouldn't find three data points very convincing as evidence of anything.
Reasonable people would not be willing to bet the farm on about three data points. In particular, reasonable people wouldn't make statements about the capabilities of female rulers being worse, on average, than male rulers, knowing the high failure rate of male rulers, with just three examples. Those who would do so are basically engaging in confirmation bias.
Sure it might have been realistic to have had Queen in Westeros who ruled well. But, the fact that did not happen, doesn't really move the ball in the direction that there is some insidious bias in the story because neither Cersei, nor Dany turn out to be very effective rulers. Particularly when you consider that the three men that preceded them were all failures as rulers. The fact is that good rulers seem to be the exception in Westeros and not the rule. The fact there have been more good male monarchs in Westeros than female ones is the result of the law of large numbers.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×