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

6 hours ago, AlaerysTargaryen said:

Nah. Everyone , men and women wanted Jon to end the NK, the plot was headed there for 7 seasons. Arya killing the Nk, was the "subverted expectations"D&D gave to their favorite character and thought everyone will lose their shit, favorably. Well everyone hated it, even Maisie says so, that people will be mad. And yes, the 90% of fans still can accept what happened.

If they really want to subvert expectations only, have Cersie keep the throne and show an Epilogue where she becomes a just ruler :)

And the 7 Kingdoms prospered under good Queen Cersie, for once she had cut of the Imps head and pulled out Sansa's intestines, she had no-one left to hate and learned to love the land. The End.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cersie is playing dirty do dany needs theres no way around it . the leaks are likely not true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 3:08 AM, Ilissa said:

Oh really? Maybe the monarchy is also "unjust"? This is the Middle Ages! If you do not want patriarchy, then do not read realistic fantasy. There are many stupid books with "strong women" who even fight on a par with men, haha.

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.

Share this post


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

If they really want to subvert expectations only, have Cersie keep the throne and show an Epilogue where she becomes a just ruler :)

And the 7 Kingdoms prospered under good Queen Cersie, for once she had cut of the Imps head and pulled out Sansa's intestines, she had no-one left to hate and learned to love the land. The End.

Does she become a cat lady? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Nami said:

I don't expect and never expected AT ALL for Dany and Jon to end up together. Actually, it's one thing I'm sure it won't happen in GRRM ending. I even expected Dany to die too (Nissa Nissa and Azor Ahai prophecy). I just don't buy her going insane in two episodes. 

I’ve been wondering if jon would be the one to plunge longclaw through danys heart and forge lightbringer out of longclaw but...the whole point was to plunge to the one you love most in this world. Is that Dany?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 4:53 AM, Targaryen Peas said:

I do no agree, for me, GoT doesn't depicts female characters more than what they are in real life. 

They are good at playing the "game of thrones", plotting, manipulating. But that's all. There's no real "strength" there.

It's a bit like Marie Stuart and Elizabeth, both played the game of thrones...

Maybe one queen will capture the other and lock HER away for 20 years!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 7:38 AM, Kajjo said:

They would have to join forces and fight a war against the Lannister army which at that point is quite strong and without difficulty defeats Highgarden.

No one dares to oppose Cersei and her army at that point. Simply as that. Many people just live with her and mind their own business. Not a bad strategy in a time of much to many wars anyway. Many of them returned from the "war of the five kings" and are glad to be home.

Hm, they simply focus on the main threat from the North. That makes sense. They cannot and don't have to show every single house and its fate.

I really think you moan to much about the show. Yes, not everything is entirely consistent and GRRM should have written more for the show. But the show is entertaining nonetheless.

Plus she has the Iron Fleet. That counts for a lot when they can keep almost anything away. And apparently have cloaks of invisibility even from aerial points of dragon view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LadyBlackwater said:

Maybe one queen will capture the other and lock HER away for 20 years!

 

Well, I guess it's a more horrible fate.
 

Share this post


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

Well, I guess it's a more horrible fate.
 

Maybe it’s where Elizabeth got the idea to do it to Mary lol:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 1:04 PM, Targaryen Peas said:

What I mean is that they don't hold any actual power. We can see it pretty clearly, they need way more effort to achieve half the results. 

As much as I agree for Olenna. Daenerys will crumble next episode, and so will Cersei. 

Sansa ? Right when Jon came back, the north forgot her. Even though he "is" a bastard. 

Forgot about the Greyjoy, but they said it quite clearly "We will never accept a woman ruling us"

They just don't hold the same value. 

Women in GoT are far too "powerful" for a medival setting, From 50 pounds teenage girl pretty much owning hordes of undead / men to Queen that can bomb her city without any real consequences whatsoever. And that's just a beginning, I mean sides Jon, any other male leaders on the spotlight? And I would argue they way they wrote him - completely incompetent, he shouldn't be one?

And to be honest, I don't care about genders and what they do, but importance must come organically, through the storytelling. It needs to have some logic behing, etc... And here my problem lies, at least in the show - I don't see this at all, it's nonsensical. This is what should be addressed and not what gender will win the throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 3:52 AM, AlaerysTargaryen said:

 Isn't that incedibly sexist, that there always is a better job. Westeros will never accept a Queen after such a record. The only revered queen is Alyssane, a good consort queen and wife capable of producing children. Will this  be the note that asoaif ends? Jon is a better ruler cause he has a dick?

4

THANK YOU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by Wildling Queen

Share this post


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

Does she become a cat lady? 

For sure. Except the cats she keeps will be big ones, you know lions, just in case she decides that benevolence is getting boring :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wildling Queen said:

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think GRRM is a sexist writer at all - he is respectful of the female characters in his prose. But he is also a realist and biology plays a part in realistic characterization. As a member of a sexually reproductive species, I think its easier to empathize with a female character calling dragons their children than a male character. Therefore, as Dany goes all fire and blood, which I am sure will be done far better in the books, we can still understand because she has sacrificed not only her armies but also her children to save a continent that doesn't seem to like her. I see it more as using biology to generate audience/reader sympathy/empathy than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

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

1 hour ago, Wildling Queen said:

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.

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 3:52 AM, AlaerysTargaryen said:

Rhaenyra Targaryen, stupid and mad for wanting to inherit her birthright and her father legacy. 

 

Rhaenys, the queen that never was. Well there wer better "men".  

Cersei , she deserves everything that's coming for her. And how come Dany will be the Mad quenn if Cersei already is. 

 

Daenerys Targaryen. Well thanks to the gods that there was a last minute secret Targ baby that doesnt want the throne, cause she is mad, for accepting that there will be inoccents dying in common warfare.   

 

Isn't that incedibly sexist, that there always is a better job. Westeros will never accept a Queen after such a record. The only revered queen is Alyssane, a good consort queen and wife capable of producing children. Will this  be the note that asoaif ends? Jon is a better ruler cause he has a dick?

Medieval monarchs were expected to lead their men in battle and share their dangers. Men who were physically unable to do so regularly faced the same sexism. Men who were able but proved unwilling were very often overthrown for that reason. This is why rulers of some medieval cultures would blind or maim potential claimants instead of killing them, because it achieved the same obstacle to their ambitions. And finally: royal women spend a significant part of their reign pregnant, which often means their ability to lead at all is much more limited than the man. Boy kings were considered tenuous until they reached an age where they could lead their men in battle. The medieval symbol of kingship was the ruler holding the orb of office in one hand and the sword of office in the other. 

Dany does lead her men in certain circumstances because of dragons, but does/can not share their dangers. Jon has, does/can and now also rides dragons. 

Sexism is evident in the male dominion continuing past the period where monarchs were expected to lead in battle, but on the other hand that’s also when women reigning seriously jumped up in frequency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wildling Queen said:

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.

Absolutely. Between Cersei and Dany both becoming madwomen all the bigots who consistently excluded women from succession and any say in public affairs are being proven right! That's what I find so stunning, given that GRRM is supposed to have had input in the main characters' ultimate fates. Dany is now going to become _the_ cautionary example for what happens when some fools allow a woman to lead them.

 From the beginning a lot of readers felt that since Dany was from the family of the past antagonists of the Starks and harbored hostile feelings towards Ned because of her upbringing, she should herself become a villain and preferrably as mad as her father. And lo and behold, that's where the things seem to ultimately be going! Oh, and of course we have the hoary trope that when a male and a female are rivals for a position of power, then the female is the evil/mad one.   I guess the only subversion there is that for a long time it seemed that Martin would not go for the low-hanging fruit, but in the end he did? It is straight up Arthuriana now.

And honestly, this outcome should severely undermine both Sansa's and Yara's chances of holding their lordships in the show. People would argue that they might snap anytime too. So better to have them married ASAP and let their husbands rule.

Now that I think about it, I am unpleasantly surprised to recognize a troubling pattern in the books. First, there are very few women featured in the narrative who are able to wield high-level political and military power independantly (if only temporarily) - which makes sense for this society. However,  these women are Cersei, Lysa and Dany. Who all turn mad?! And Cat, who had been raised as her father's heir for a time and wasn't willing to cede all politicking to her 15(!)-year-old son and his men and go tend to her home also became mad shortly before her death. In very trying circumstances, but still. Theon's mother also lost her marbles after the loss of her older sons and Theon becoming a hostage, but IIRC she didn't attempt to buckle society's limitations on her gender. Etc.

Now, the show tried to obfuscate this by inflating Olenna's role and introducing the abominable Dornishwomen, but Martin's ending was supposed to develop from the book situation. But what about Asha and Arianne, you say? Well, they are not in power _yet_. Plenty of time to go bonkers once and if they are... :frown5:

Seriously, - it has been centuries since there had been a Queen Regent or a Queen Regnant and then there were 2 and both mad?!! WTH?!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/7/2019 at 10:52 AM, AlaerysTargaryen said:

Rhaenyra Targaryen, stupid and mad for wanting to inherit her birthright and her father legacy. 

 

Rhaenys, the queen that never was. Well there wer better "men".  

Cersei , she deserves everything that's coming for her. And how come Dany will be the Mad quenn if Cersei already is. 

 

Daenerys Targaryen. Well thanks to the gods that there was a last minute secret Targ baby that doesnt want the throne, cause she is mad, for accepting that there will be inoccents dying in common warfare.   

 

Isn't that incedibly sexist, that there always is a better job. Westeros will never accept a Queen after such a record. The only revered queen is Alyssane, a good consort queen and wife capable of producing children. Will this  be the note that asoaif ends? Jon is a better ruler cause he has a dick?

 

I don’t think that the show want to depicts this in purpose. But with Dany going down as mad and John being supported because he has a dick, it does allows such conclusions to be drawn. 

Look at how Sansa talks of her rape and abuse. She almost thanks them for what she became. Shame. Shame. Shame. They really don’t think what they are writing. 

Edited by Nightwish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I actually think it’s going the other way. If you had to reduce GRRM’s thesis to one thing, it’s that the qualities that make for a good person do not necessarily make for a good ruler, and the qualities that make for a good ruler don’t necessarily make for a good conqueror. 

Edit: think on it...from Rhaegar v Robert to Renly v Stannis to Ned v Cersei to Robb v Tywin/Walker to Stannis v Ramsay, the better person/potential ruler lost to the more ruthless and less virtuous adversary. Jon vs Ramsay is one of the very few exceptions.

Hence why everyone and their brother is suddenly seeing Jon as a much better leader/ruler than Dany when, imo, that’s not nearly as clear on merit. There IS something to the idea of the best rulers being those who don’t want to lead, but aside from that both Dany and Jon have shown a lot to suggest they’d make good rulers. That Jon does it for others and Dany does it for her ‘birthright’ + others doesn’t really make Jon a much better ruler and probably makes for a lesser conqueror. But most of my suspicion about this is because of how suddenly even Dany’s advisors are seeing Jon as clearly better...that feels a bit forced and I think it’s to set us up for GRRM’s thesis. 

Edited by James Arryn

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

×