Jump to content
Westeros

Matt Smith, Olivia Cooke, Emma D’Arcy Cast in House of the Dragon

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, the idea is just that Corlys Velaryon had decades to come to terms with the fact that his heir was a homosexual. And he did do that in a proper manner, not by forcing his son to behave like he wasn't. In fact, if we look at Laenor's marriage, then this wasn't even the idea of the Velaryons. Viserys I's council came up with that after the king had rejected the proposal to make Laena Velaryon his second wife - something the Velaryons apparently did want

Laenor was 18 when the betrothal happened, I think, and by that time Laenor being gay was a widely known thing. Corlys might have seen his son as a dead end, that's why he wanted Laena for Viserys, because he saw Laena will be the one who might have children at some point, not Laenor. Also remember how he pushed his children's claim on the Great Council of 101. Are you sure he gave a damn about his legitimacy trough blood? The assumption that Corlys never expected Laenor to father any children the moment he realised his son is gay is nonsense and absurd.

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But there is no indication that Corlys and Rhaenys spearheaded this idea that Rhaenyra should marry Laenor.

Agreed. Yet, they accepted it. They might believed that Laenor at least will fsther some children on her, at least. 

The problem is that we don't know what these people's intentions were and how their goals changed as time passed.

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

So one can view this guy as more enlightened and less entangled in feudal and dynastic concepts. After all, he was also a very far-travelled guy, somebody who had seen half the world with his own eyes, who interacted with many different peoples and cultures firsthand.

Also agreed. But take into consideration that once he decided to accept the Strong bastards inheriting at some point without any Velaryon blood but Alyssa's, I believe he was satisfied with the betrothals of Baela and Rhaena, which, again happened when the twins were 4 years old, or even before, and Jake and Luke 6 and 5. At that stage, people don't usually arrange marriages or betrothals, so Corlys didn't have to get into such things at that point.

It was his duty, either way, as the Lord of Driftmark to not let the Velaryon blood die out in the main line, no matter how open-minded he was. 

Also remember how he delayed Laena's wedding with the late Sealord's son up until the point Daemon killed him. It might be a sing that he wanted Laena to get into the lines of the Targaryens that way, because he after all did not shit on his descendants and where they'll end up an what places they'll take.

Quote

The idea to legitimize the Hull boys only comes after Addam claims Seasmoke. It is both a gift to the Sea Snake (who had issues with Rhaenyra at that point because Rhaenys had died) as well as the recognition of Addam's prowess and an attempt bind those two bastards to Rhaenyra's cause. And with them it actually works pretty well, unlike with Hugh and Ulf and Nettles who aren't legitimized or properly ennobled.

 

But I guess we can assume that Addam and Alyn would have never been legitimized if neither had claimed a dragon.

 

That Corlys had the best interested of the Hull boys in mind after he bonded with them - and that he did - shouldn't be viewed through a dynastic or bloodline lense but rather by the fact that he was either their grandfather or father. He came to like them, just as he had started to loathe most of nephews over the Vaemond incident which caused them actually fight on the Green side during the Dance.

Before you said that Corlys accepted the Strongs because blood didn't matter to him after all those years. Now you're telling me that it was their blood that made him accept Addam and Alyn so easily? The two contradicts each other. Instead, I could imagine him accepting Jake inheriting along with Baela, but when only Joffrey remained, he found others who could inherit instead of women and distant relatives. His sons, with whom he barely had any connection with, if had any. He accepted them so easily because they were his sons. If they weren't he would've let relatives inherit instead of bastards with whom he has no connection with.

Other people too claimed dragons and weren't legitimized, but Addam and Alyn were. Simply because they were his sons. 

Wanting your descendants to inherit is almost like it's in your blood in this period of history, and you can find it in everyone, even in Corlys.

48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In general, Corlys becoming a father this late in life may have set up his brothers and their sons to expect that the really, really great lordship of Driftmark might one day pass to them. When Rhaenys gave Corlys Laena and Laenor such dreams would have died ... but then Laenor turned out as he did, and Laena only gave birth to girls. One can easily view Vaemond Velaryon as another Borys Baratheon, basically.

You forgot that Corlys supported a women's claim to the IT. I imagine he would've let women inheriting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Laenor was 18 when the betrothal happened, I think, and by that time Laenor being gay was a widely known thing. Corlys might have seen his son as a dead end, that's why he wanted Laena for Viserys, because he saw Laena will be the one who might have children at some point, not Laenor. Also remember how he pushed his children's claim on the Great Council of 101. Are you sure he gave a damn about his legitimacy trough blood? The assumption that Corlys never expected Laenor to father any children the moment he realised his son is gay is nonsense and absurd.

This is a spectrum. Of course, Corlys Velaryon didn't exist in a vacuum. He was a child of the world he lived in, but if we assume Laenor's sons were Harwin's and Corlys knew about that - and there is no way that he didn't considering how close he was to his son (Laenor lived with Corlys and Rhaenys at High Tide until he was murdered).

But the guy is incredibly close to Rhaenyra, championing the cause of her son even after her death - a son he isn't even related to. And it is not just that Rhaenyra would have cuckolded Laenor if the Strong story is accurate - there are also rumors that Daemon was the man behind Laenor's murder, and there is the fact that Laena died in childbirth (something you can also blame Daemon for, if you are mean).

In light of all that I don't buy for a second that two betrothals are what turned Corlys and Rhaenys into the Blacks they are during the Dance.

They had a lot of reasons to actually side with the Greens ... or at least stay out of the entire succession war.

That they didn't indicates to me that for them family was larger than just blood ... and you can say the same for Rhaenyra who included her late husband's arms in her own personal sigil - something she didn't have to do.

45 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Agreed. Yet, they accepted it. They might believed that Laenor at least will fsther some children on her, at least.

If they had thought that, then they would have thrown Laenor out of Driftmark, forcing him to live with his wife. Instead, they indulged him in continuing his life as he lived it before the wedding.

45 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

The problem is that we don't know what these people's intentions were and how their goals changed as time passed.

Well, my take on that would be that there was a clear and very deep rift between KL and Driftmark from 92-113 AC. It started with Aemon's death, continued after the Great Council, and got worse when Laena was rejected as the king's bride in 106 AC. What healed that rift was indeed the marriage between Laenor and Rhaenyra - if that hadn't happened then the later marriage of Laena and Daemon would have been viewed as the vilest of treasons.

45 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Also agreed. But take into consideration that once he decided to accept the Strong bastards inheriting at some point without any Velaryon blood but Alyssa's, I believe he was satisfied with the betrothals of Baela and Rhaena, which, again happened when the twins were 4 years old, or even before, and Jake and Luke 6 and 5. At that stage, people don't usually arrange marriages or betrothals, so Corlys didn't have to get into such things at that point.

Of course, that would have been viewed as a good thing. But it wasn't what made Rhaenyra's sons Corlys' beloved grandsons. That were the boys themselves.

45 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

It was his duty, either way, as the Lord of Driftmark to not let the Velaryon blood die out in the main line, no matter how open-minded he was.

Well, just look at all the noblemen who do not marry or don't bother producing children. These people do not all view them as executors of a dynastic breeding program. And even if they know that they should have children or continue the bloodline they cannot bring themselves to do it.

45 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Also remember how he delayed Laena's wedding with the late Sealord's son up until the point Daemon killed him. It might be a sing that he wanted Laena to get into the lines of the Targaryens that way, because he after all did not shit on his descendants and where they'll end up an what places they'll take.

Laena wouldn't get any younger nor would her fertility increase as she aged. And everything we know is that the Laena-Daemon match was something completely out of the left field, dependent on Daemon losing Rhea when he did ... and him failing to claim Runestone as his lady wife's widower. If Jeyne Arryn had confirmed him as Lord of Runestone he may have taken another Vale bride to solidify his rule there rather than looking for a bride on Driftmark.

45 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Before you said that Corlys accepted the Strongs because blood didn't matter to him after all those years. Now you're telling me that it was their blood that made him accept Addam and Alyn so easily? The two contradicts each other. Instead, I could imagine him accepting Jake inheriting along with Baela, but when only Joffrey remained, he found others who could inherit instead of women and distant relatives. His sons, with whom he barely had any connection with, if had any. He accepted them so easily because they were his sons. If they weren't he would've let relatives inherit instead of bastards with whom he has no connection with.

Laenor's sons grew up in the family, and Corlys chose they names and watched them grow up. He was as close to them as any grandfather would be. With Addam and Alyn the crucial thing for their legitimization was Addam's success in the dragonrider department. And if Corlys was their father then of course he would also feel close to them because of that - as he would if he realized he had two more grandsons.

But you cannot play that against Corlys' grandfatherly feelings for Rhaenyra's sons. They were his family, too, never mind whether they were truly fathered by Laenor or not.

How the succession order was after the legitimization is unclear. Jace was still around for some time and he was the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. But Joff was younger than both Hull boys, so after they had been legitimized as sons of Laenor Velaryon their claim to Driftmark may have been stronger than that of their younger half-brother. Vice versa, if Robb truly did legitimized Jon Snow as Jon Stark, son of Lord Eddard, then his claim might actually be stronger now than Bran's and Rickon's because he is the eldest Stark son around.

But in any case, after Jace's death and with Joff being the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne, Addam and Alyn became the new heirs of Driftmark.

45 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Other people too claimed dragons and weren't legitimized, but Addam and Alyn were. Simply because they were his sons. 

Because they had a sponsor in Jacaerys Velaryon. He convinced his royal mother to legitimize the boys. Nobody did something along those lines for the other dragonseeds ... which eventually came back to haunt them.

45 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

You forgot that Corlys supported a women's claim to the IT. I imagine he would've let women inheriting...

Baela and Rhaena never come up as potential heirs to Driftmark. If you recall, Vaemond Velaryon and his gang completely overlook them. If Laenor's sons weren't his then technically Laena's daughters would be next in line, not Corlys' nephews. Unless, of course, you were of the view that women shouldn't rule at all which may have been the pretext of Vaemond and his supporters.

And in general - that succession stuff isn't all that clear. Just think how Jeyne Arryn basically handed the Vale to a very distant cousin she liked, passing over her first cousin and his descendants (and one assumes a number of other Arryns as well). Corlys wasn't in the same position exactly, since he had had children. But they were both dead, so he had to pick new heirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is a spectrum. Of course, Corlys Velaryon didn't exist in a vacuum. He was a child of the world he lived in, but if we assume Laenor's sons were Harwin's and Corlys knew about that - and there is no way that he didn't considering how close he was to his son (Laenor lived with Corlys and Rhaenys at High Tide until he was murdered).

But the guy is incredibly close to Rhaenyra, championing the cause of her son even after her death - a son he isn't even related to. And it is not just that Rhaenyra would have cuckolded Laenor if the Strong story is accurate - there are also rumors that Daemon was the man behind Laenor's murder, and there is the fact that Laena died in childbirth (something you can also blame Daemon for, if you are mean).

In light of all that I don't buy for a second that two betrothals are what turned Corlys and Rhaenys into the Blacks they are during the Dance.

They had a lot of reasons to actually side with the Greens ... or at least stay out of the entire succession war.

That they didn't indicates to me that for them family was larger than just blood ... and you can say the same for Rhaenyra who included her late husband's arms in her own personal sigil - something she didn't have to do.

If they had thought that, then they would have thrown Laenor out of Driftmark, forcing him to live with his wife. Instead, they indulged him in continuing his life as he lived it before the wedding.

Well, my take on that would be that there was a clear and very deep rift between KL and Driftmark from 92-113 AC. It started with Aemon's death, continued after the Great Council, and got worse when Laena was rejected as the king's bride in 106 AC. What healed that rift was indeed the marriage between Laenor and Rhaenyra - if that hadn't happened then the later marriage of Laena and Daemon would have been viewed as the vilest of treasons.

Of course, that would have been viewed as a good thing. But it wasn't what made Rhaenyra's sons Corlys' beloved grandsons. That were the boys themselves.

Well, just look at all the noblemen who do not marry or don't bother producing children. These people do not all view them as executors of a dynastic breeding program. And even if they know that they should have children or continue the bloodline they cannot bring themselves to do it.

Laena wouldn't get any younger nor would her fertility increase as she aged. And everything we know is that the Laena-Daemon match was something completely out of the left field, dependent on Daemon losing Rhea when he did ... and him failing to claim Runestone as his lady wife's widower. If Jeyne Arryn had confirmed him as Lord of Runestone he may have taken another Vale bride to solidify his rule there rather than looking for a bride on Driftmark.

Laenor's sons grew up in the family, and Corlys chose they names and watched them grow up. He was as close to them as any grandfather would be. With Addam and Alyn the crucial thing for their legitimization was Addam's success in the dragonrider department. And if Corlys was their father then of course he would also feel close to them because of that - as he would if he realized he had two more grandsons.

But you cannot play that against Corlys' grandfatherly feelings for Rhaenyra's sons. They were his family, too, never mind whether they were truly fathered by Laenor or not.

How the succession order was after the legitimization is unclear. Jace was still around for some time and he was the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. But Joff was younger than both Hull boys, so after they had been legitimized as sons of Laenor Velaryon their claim to Driftmark may have been stronger than that of their younger half-brother. Vice versa, if Robb truly did legitimized Jon Snow as Jon Stark, son of Lord Eddard, then his claim might actually be stronger now than Bran's and Rickon's because he is the eldest Stark son around.

But in any case, after Jace's death and with Joff being the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne, Addam and Alyn became the new heirs of Driftmark.

Because they had a sponsor in Jacaerys Velaryon. He convinced his royal mother to legitimize the boys. Nobody did something along those lines for the other dragonseeds ... which eventually came back to haunt them.

Baela and Rhaena never come up as potential heirs to Driftmark. If you recall, Vaemond Velaryon and his gang completely overlook them. If Laenor's sons weren't his then technically Laena's daughters would be next in line, not Corlys' nephews. Unless, of course, you were of the view that women shouldn't rule at all which may have been the pretext of Vaemond and his supporters.

And in general - that succession stuff isn't all that clear. Just think how Jeyne Arryn basically handed the Vale to a very distant cousin she liked, passing over her first cousin and his descendants (and one assumes a number of other Arryns as well). Corlys wasn't in the same position exactly, since he had had children. But they were both dead, so he had to pick new heirs.

I just simplz can't tell you anything else but what I've told you before: Even tho not the Velaryons suggested the Rhaenyra-Laenor marriage, Corlys accepted it. If Corlys at that point knew that his son wouldn't even touch a woman, then he wouldn't have agreed on the thing, simply because it can end the way it did, or even worse. He would've known that even if Laenor marries her, he accomplishes nothing with it. That means that he expected his son to make heirs. It's simple. It's also not stated that Rhaenyra and Laenor never met during their marriage. They mostly lived apart, but not always. One can imagine they slept sometimes in the same bad so they would end the rumours. Nor it is stated that the two never had sex with each other (tho I don't think they ever had). And at some stage Laenor might have felt guilty in the whole adultery of Rhaenyra, and he played the role of the father for that.

Anyway, I really see no point of further talking here. I think I wrote down what I think might have happened and presented it in a logical and a likely way. I can also agree with you on several points, but then I just can't imagine some things happenig the way you presented because they are illogical and absurd to me (such as Corlys giving a damn about the Strongs inheriting the entire Velaryon property and having no maintenance connected to all this).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another audition tape

some extra thought that I that I posted on reddit

I am curious about he dialogue though, I know everyone said from the Criston Cole audtion that these aren't used in the shows but in F&B Mushroom told that story of Aegon being "serviced" by an orphan 12 year old. In the clip the guy on the right seems to be showing disgust for Aegon for having mistresses but that seems unlikely since kings and princes were expected to sleep around before marriage (and after that) I just cant imagine a Kingsguard disavowing the king's son because he went to a brothel unless the girl was terribly young

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2020 at 4:15 PM, The Dragon Demands said:

....Deadline is bizarrely claiming that a black actor is being eyed to play Corlys Velaryon:

 

But Lord Corlys has Valyrian features how is this possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 3:08 AM, Lord Varys said:

Baela and Rhaena never come up as potential heirs to Driftmark. If you recall, Vaemond Velaryon and his gang completely overlook them. If Laenor's sons weren't his then technically Laena's daughters would be next in line, not Corlys' nephews.

I forgot about that......thank you for knocking that into my head.

 

On 2/18/2021 at 1:41 AM, Daeron the Daring said:

Laenor was 18 when the betrothal happened, I think, and by that time Laenor being gay was a widely known thing. Corlys might have seen his son as a dead end, that's why he wanted Laena for Viserys, because he saw Laena will be the one who might have children at some point, not Laenor. Also remember how he pushed his children's claim on the Great Council of 101. Are you sure he gave a damn about his legitimacy trough blood? The assumption that Corlys never expected Laenor to father any children the moment he realised his son is gay is nonsense and absurd.

 

 He was known to be gay by the king, so it's logical the court would know too, because that's probably where Rhaenyra and Viserys got their info. And yes, I agree just because Laenor is gay, doesn't mean he can't father kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jaenara Belarys said:
He was known to be gay by the king, so it's logical the court would know too, because that's probably where Rhaenyra and Viserys got their info. And yes, I agree just because Laenor is gay, doesn't mean he can't father kids.

The impression we get of Laenor is that he made it pretty clear he would never have children. He agreed to the legal marriage and the perks that came with being Rhaenyra's consort, but he may have never consummated it. And considering the way his parents allowed him to indulge himself at Driftmark - entertaining favorites and throwing money and gifts at them - is a very telltale sign that they knew his views in this matter.

Share this post


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

The impression we get of Laenor is that he made it pretty clear he would never have children. He agreed to the legal marriage and the perks that came with being Rhaenyra's consort, but he may have never consummated it. And considering the way his parents allowed him to indulge himself at Driftmark - entertaining favorites and throwing money and gifts at them - is a very telltale sign that they knew his views in this matter.

The show is going to answer it. I wonder if Rhaenyra, her lover and Laenor have big o'l threesome LMAO. 

Do you think Laenor and Laena will be in the 1st season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sotan said:

The show is going to answer it. I wonder if Rhaenyra, her lover and Laenor have big o'l threesome LMAO. 

Do you think Laenor and Laena will be in the 1st season?

Of course the show is going to answer them. If it didn't, it would be like GoT not answering whether Jaime and Cersei are the parents of the children or not ;-).

I'd expect them to be in the first season if they are not cut from the show. But so far we have no information about them being cast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LadyTargaryen1 said:

another audition tape

some extra thought that I that I posted on reddit

I am curious about he dialogue though, I know everyone said from the Criston Cole audtion that these aren't used in the shows but in F&B Mushroom told that story of Aegon being "serviced" by an orphan 12 year old. In the clip the guy on the right seems to be showing disgust for Aegon for having mistresses but that seems unlikely since kings and princes were expected to sleep around before marriage (and after that) I just cant imagine a Kingsguard disavowing the king's son because he went to a brothel unless the girl was terribly young

 

Doubt it is about Aegon, more like Daemon or Laenor, as story should start rather early. Aegon's debauchery never was considered as a reason against his rule unlike for Rhaenyra-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Doubt it is about Aegon, more like Daemon or Laenor, as story should start rather early. Aegon's debauchery never was considered as a reason against his rule unlike for Rhaenyra-

copy and pasting from my reddit post

The refer to the prince as "Adrian" and the website says they used similar initials for their codename as the real characters. So I think they mean Aegon, also I think the guy on the right is Erryk, not Arryk since Erryk fought for the blacks and the guy doesn't like Aegon

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LadyTargaryen1 said:

copy and pasting from my reddit post

The refer to the prince as "Adrian" and the website says they used similar initials for their codename as the real characters. So I think they mean Aegon, also I think the guy on the right is Erryk, not Arryk since Erryk fought for the blacks and the guy doesn't like Aegon

If there is any substance to this dialogue then the context implies Arryk and Erryk are talking about whether they should get involved with the royal court or rather go back him - implying we might not only see how Criston Cole takes the white, but also the Cargyll twins.

In light of that, we would expect this scene to reflect the status quo early during the reign of Viserys I when Prince Daemon was the presumptive heir to the Iron Throne, before Viserys I changed the succession in favor of Rhaenyra.

At the time of the Green coup Arryk and Erryk Cargyll wouldn't have the time or opportunity to discuss Aegon II's character with each other, since they were separated.

Another possibility is that they are actually talking about King Viserys I there, who definitely could, in the show, also have slept around as a prince. The show would start shortly after Viserys I became king, after all.

But overall, I just think that dialogue just represents the general type of scenes the Cargyll twins will have - Arryk seems to end up in the Green camp, because he doesn't approve of Daemon deflowering Rhaenyra.

Share this post


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

If there is any substance to this dialogue then the context implies Arryk and Erryk are talking about whether they should get involved with the royal court or rather go back him - implying we might not only see how Criston Cole takes the white, but also the Cargyll twins.

In light of that, we would expect this scene to reflect the status quo early during the reign of Viserys I when Prince Daemon was the presumptive heir to the Iron Throne, before Viserys I changed the succession in favor of Rhaenyra.

At the time of the Green coup Arryk and Erryk Cargyll wouldn't have the time or opportunity to discuss Aegon II's character with each other, since they were separated.

Another possibility is that they are actually talking about King Viserys I there, who definitely could, in the show, also have slept around as a prince. The show would start shortly after Viserys I became king, after all.

But overall, I just think that dialogue just represents the general type of scenes the Cargyll twins will have - Arryk seems to end up in the Green camp, because he doesn't approve of Daemon deflowering Rhaenyra.

I think this scene is supposed to be before the war but after Rhaenyra and Laenor got married. On the wiki it says Aegon yada. bastard son by some girl on the street of silk, which adds up with the"his graces child?" we hear in the clip. And if they were talking about Daemon I doubt they'd refer to as "woman" but the Princess Rhaenyra, seems to me their talking about the maid servant of Alicent's who he got pregnant, also mentioned in the wiki. But this is all speculation so we'll find out next year but I think the prince is Aegon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it because of how young Cooke and D'arcy are/look that we assume that S1 will be set further in the past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sotan said:

Is it because of how young Cooke and D'arcy are/look that we assume that S1 will be set further in the past?

According to the casting information we have, Criston Cole is not in the Kingsguard yet and they are casting for Ser Harrold Westerling (the Kingsguard who died in 112 AC and was replaced by Criston). So at the very least the series will start in 112 AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, LadyTargaryen1 said:

I think this scene is supposed to be before the war but after Rhaenyra and Laenor got married. On the wiki it says Aegon yada. bastard son by some girl on the street of silk, which adds up with the"his graces child?" we hear in the clip. And if they were talking about Daemon I doubt they'd refer to as "woman" but the Princess Rhaenyra, seems to me their talking about the maid servant of Alicent's who he got pregnant, also mentioned in the wiki. But this is all speculation so we'll find out next year but I think the prince is Aegon.

But again, the context implies that the prince they are talking about will be the king (eventually), and it is a context where the Realm is at peace. Aegon II became king rather suddenly and as part of a coup that caused a devastating civil war everybody knew was coming if said coup were made. More importantly, it was at a time when the Cargyll twins were long members of the KG, meaning they no longer had the option to leave court and return home.

Thus if this dialogue is based on a scene/exchange that's going to be used in the show, the prince in question is more likely to be either Viserys I (who recently became king) or Daemon Targaryen - who was viewed as the future king before Viserys I installed Rhaenyra as Heir Apparent.

But as a I said - it could also be just a setting that sort of reflects the general conflict between and moral views of the Cargyll twins.

5 hours ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

According to the casting information we have, Criston Cole is not in the Kingsguard yet and they are casting for Ser Harrold Westerling (the Kingsguard who died in 112 AC and was replaced by Criston). So at the very least the series will start in 112 AC.

We also have casting information indication that Rhaenyra is not yet Heir Apparent and Alicent Hightower not yet queen at the beginning of the show. This implies the show is, most likely, going to start at a point in time which would reflect the status quo of 103 or 104 AC as per FaB.

The Harrold Westerling issue further implies that we are going to focus mainly on events prior to 112 AC, or else it would make little sense to make this guy a main character ... assuming they are not changing things so he lives longer. But we can assume, I think, that they will properly reflect the changes in the power dynamics of the court that come with Criston Cole being promoted from being a mere Kingsguard to Lord Commander of the Kingsguards - which means that he will have a seat on the Small Council and a voice in the government of the Realm. That is something he won't have while Westerling is still around.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We also have casting information indication that Rhaenyra is not yet Heir Apparent and Alicent Hightower not yet queen at the beginning of the show. This implies the show is, most likely, going to start at a point in time which would reflect the status quo of 103 or 104 AC as per FaB.

I remembered there was also something along those lines but I wasn't sure. So yeah the series starting in ...

* 103 AC: Jaehaerys' death/Viserys' coronation.

* 104 AC: "status" quo as you put it.

* or 105 AC: Aemma Arryn's death, Ryam Redwyne's death/Harrold Westerling becomes Lord Commander, the Strongs arrive at court/Lyonel Strong is made Master of laws, 8-year-old Rhaenyra is appointed Princess of Dragonstone and Viserys makes the great lords swear to defend her right of succession.

... is likely in my opinion.

Edited by Thomaerys Velaryon

Share this post


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

I remembered there was also something along those lines but I wasn't sure. So yeah the series starting in ...

* 103 AC: Jaehaerys' death/Viserys' coronation.

* 104 AC: "status" quo as you put it.

* or 105 AC: Aemma Arryn's death, Ryam Redwyne's death/Harrold Westerling becomes Lord Commander, the Strongs arrive at court/Lyonel Strong is made Master of laws, 8-year-old Rhaenyra is appointed Princess of Dragonstone and Viserys makes the great lords swear to defend her right of succession.

... is likely in my opinion.

Unless they go back to Viserys' coronation and/or the death of Jaehaerys I, my guess is that the status quo of the first episode would be:

- Alicent and Rhaenyra being friends at court, possibly competing amicably for Daemon's attention. We could see Alicent 'seducing' Daemon only to be discarded in an ugly manner the very next day.

- Otto Hightower is a competent, somewhat pedantic fellow running the government, and Daemon being Daemon doesn't get along with that.

- A pregnant Aemma Arryn is still alive and king and court look forward to the birth of the male Heir Apparent.

- Criston Cole catches the eye of the court, possibly at the Tourney of Maidenpool which could make up a part of that episode.

Aemma's death would then trigger a lot of events the way it does in the book. They do have to explain how it goes that Alicent marries the king basically shortly after Viserys makes Rhaenyra his heir. If Aemma were absent, then it would be really odd that Alicent wasn't already hitting at the widowed king from the beginning of the show ... and then Rhaenyra becoming Heir Apparent would make little sense.

To me, it makes no sense that Otto wanted Rhaenyra as Heir Apparent if he already planned that Alicent would replace Aemma as queen. He would have to be completely stupid to not expect that Alicent would give the king sons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aemma's death would then trigger a lot of events the way it does in the book. They do have to explain how it goes that Alicent marries the king basically shortly after Viserys makes Rhaenyra his heir. If Aemma were absent, then it would be really odd that Alicent wasn't already hitting at the widowed king from the beginning of the show ... and then Rhaenyra becoming Heir Apparent would make little sense.

To me, it makes no sense that Otto wanted Rhaenyra as Heir Apparent if he already planned that Alicent would replace Aemma as queen. He would have to be completely stupid to not expect that Alicent would give the king sons.

It seems like the events following Aemma's death were rather quick. I think Viserys' decision to name his daughter Rhaenyra as the Princess of Dragonstone and the all swearing oath situation on top of that was made by Viserys on a whim to fuck with Daemon after Viserys heard of Daemon's mocking joke (Baelon "Heir for a Day") while Viserys was morning his wife and child.

Queen Aemma had problem giving Viserys an heir (one healthy daughter, several miscarriages, and Baelon who died quickly) and her own mother (Princess Daella Targaryen) died during childbirth, it would not be difficult for a learned men like Otto to foresee that Aemma would probably die in childbed. So him putting his daughter close to Viserys in advance in order to propose a marriage quickly after the end of the mourning period is not out of the question. When it comes to Rhaenyra, I think Otto probably saw the Great Council of 101 AC as a precedent against a daughter inheriting any way so he wasn't too worried and didn't see Rhaenyra as an big obstacle in his plans. He could use her to make sure his biggest ennemi at court at the time (Daemon Targaryen) would not become king after Viserys' death. Otto's plan worked well until Viserys made his rash decision and the oaths were probably a blindside for Otto, who in turn had to work harder to assure Alicent would be Viserys' next queen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

It seems like the events following Aemma's death were rather quick. I think Viserys' decision to name his daughter Rhaenyra as the Princess of Dragonstone and the all swearing oath situation on top of that was made by Viserys on a whim to fuck with Daemon after Viserys heard of Daemon's mocking joke (Baelon "Heir for a Day") while Viserys was morning his wife and child.

Not only because of whim. Because he doted on Rhaenyra as his only child, because he effectively already treated her like an heir while she was not (she was his cupbearer before she was Heir Apparent), and because his Hand pushed him to do this.

In the book, there is a simmering uncertainty about the Young King's succession ever after his ascension because the arguments favoring Viserys I over Laenor would now also favor Daemon over Rhaenyra ... and nobody at court but Daemon really wanted him as Heir Apparent. The entire court and Realm wanted the king to make a final decision on this for some reason that's not really given since the king could always remarry and he was still young.

For the show, they would have to make sense of all that in a way that entertains the audience, meaning the events have to trigger shifts and turns and changes in the characters and their ambitions. It cannot be all that linear, there have to be twists and turns.

Hence the idea that at the start we do have Alicent and Rhaenyra as buddies, before both Rhaenyra becoming the Heir Apparent and Alicent becoming the queen fundamentally changes the nature of their relationship.

19 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

Queen Aemma had problem giving Viserys an heir (one healthy daughter, several miscarriages, and Baelon who died quickly) and her own mother (Princess Daella Targaryen) died during childbirth, it would not be difficult for a learned men like Otto to foresee that Aemma would probably die in childbed. So him putting his daughter close to Viserys in advance in order to propose a marriage quickly after the end of the mourning period is not out of the question. When it comes to Rhaenyra, I think Otto probably saw the Great Council of 101 AC as a precedent against a daughter inheriting any way so he wasn't too worried and didn't see Rhaenyra as an big obstacle in his plans. He could use her to make sure his biggest ennemi at court at the time (Daemon Targaryen) would not become king after Viserys' death. Otto's plan worked well until Viserys made his rash decision and the oaths were probably a blindside for Otto, who in turn had to work harder to assure Alicent would be Viserys' next queen.

In the book, Otto pushes Viserys I to disregard the Great Council and name Rhaenyra his Heir Apparent. We don't know what drove him there, but this must make sense in the show. In the book there is a rumor that Alicent and Viserys were starting it early - but that's just a rumor, and something I'd not go with in the show. Because then they could just ignore the Daemon issue completely, and just push the king to marry Alicent and try having sons with her. And if she died in childbirth, Viserys could marry a third or fourth time. He could even set aside barren wives in favor of fertile ones ... he was the most powerful Targaryen king.

In FaB that entire plot line makes little sense, because it means that Otto pretty much had no plan and/or just was a fool driven by an irrational and completely baseless fear that without Rhaenyra as Heir Apparent Daemon would one day be king. Which was just silly. Even if the king had no sons, Otto could push him to acknowledge Laenor as his Heir Apparent, Rhaenyra could give the king grandsons who he could acknowledge as heirs, they could all outlive a childless Daemon, etc.

In that sense, my take on things would be that, originally, Otto and Alicent target Daemon, and after that fails and Queen Aemma dies, the king falls into their lap, basically. But they only realize this after Otto has already helped Viserys I to install Rhaenyra as Heir Apparent.

There are great ways to depict this - say, Alicent realizes that the king is interested in her during the feast after Rhaenyra's great ceremony in 105 AC.

Otto wouldn't have much say or play in Viserys' decision for Alicent. That was a love match on the king's part, not an arranged marriage. Without Viserys' feelings for Alicent it would have been out of the question that the king marry a woman of Alicent's background.

The issue about Rhaenyra's succession in the wake of Alicent's marriage and Aegon's birth also has to have something that develops naturally ... not something that's necessarily there from the start. If Alicent and Rhaenyra had gotten along after 106 AC, Otto and Alicent may have been fine with Rhaenyra on the Iron Throne if Aegon was the prince consort at her side or they were sort of ruling together and/or with their grandchildren intermarrying.

A good take on those things in the show would be that, for Alicent and Otto, private issues eventually turn into big political issues. Not the idea these are characters with principles and stuff, because that would just be boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...